Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes pedestrian
facilities in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter promotes the use of active
transportation throughout the Plan Area. All future
improvements in the Plan Area would be consistent
with the California Building Code and the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
MT-6-i Path and Trail Design Standards.
Designate and design paths and trails in
accordance with design standards
established by the City that give
consideration to all path and trail users
(consistent with design, terrain and
habitat limitations) and provide for
appropriate widths, surfacing, drainage,
design speed, barriers, fences, signage,
visibility, intersections, bridges, and
street cleaning.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the system
of park and open space facilities, including paths
and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan. This
Specific Plan Chapter includes design standards
(including widths, storm water and drainage
practices, and other standards) and policies to
encourage development of a cohesive trail system
throughout the Plan Area.
MT-6-k Path and Trail Buffers. Use landscaping
with appropriate and adequate physical
and visual barriers (e.g., masonry walls,
wrought iron, or square-tube fencing) to
screen path and trail rights -of ways and
separate paths and trails from mining
operations, drainage facilities, and
similar locations as warranted.
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the
system of park and open space facilities, including
paths and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
This Specific Plan Chapter includes design standards
(including the use of buffers and visual barriers, as
appropriate) and policies to encourage
development of a cohesive trail system throughout
the Plan Area.
MT-6-m Environmentally Sensitive Path and Trail
Design. Develop paths and trails with
minimum environmental impact by
taking the following actions:
• Surface paths and trails with materials
that are conducive to maintenance and
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the
system of park and open space facilities, including
paths and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
This Specific Plan Chapter includes design standards
(including trail materials, buffers and visual barriers, landscaping, and native plant usage) and policies
LAND USE 3.10
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-17
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
safe travel, choosing materials that blend
in with the surrounding area;
• Design paths and trails to follow
contour lines where the least amount of
grading (fewest cuts and fills) and least
disturbance of the surrounding habitat
will occur;
• Beautify path and trail rights -of-way in
a manner consistent with intended use,
safety, and maintenance;
• Use landscaping to stabilize slopes,
create physical or visual barriers, and
provide shaded areas; and
• Preserve and incorporate native plant
species into the landscaping.
aimed at reducing environmental impacts to the
extent feasible.
MT-6-n Emergency Vehicle Access along Paths
and Trails. Provide points of emergency
vehicle access within the path and trail
corridors, via parking areas, service
roads, emergency access gates in
fencing, and firebreaks.
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the
system of park and open space facilities, including
paths and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
Emergency vehicle access would be provided as
individual parks, trails, and open space areas are
developed in the future.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
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.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for the
provision of utilities, including water supplies, in
Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan. Future development
of the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the
proposed land use map would not occur unless
facilities and supplies, including emergency access,
were adequately provided.
PU-4-c System Extension and Cost Recovery.
Pursue enlargement or extension of the
sewage collection system where
necessary to serve planned urban
development, with the capital costs and
benefits allocated equitably and fairly
between the existing users and new
users.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for the
provision of utilities, including wastewater
distribution and treatment, in Chapter 3 of the
Specific Plan. Future development of the Specific
Plan Area in accordance with the proposed land use
map would not occur unless facilities and supplies,
including emergency access, were adequately
provided. Development Impact Fees would be paid
by future project applicants throughout the city,
including the Plan Area.
PU-8-g Review Project Impact on Supply.
Mitigate the effects of development and
capital improvement projects on the
long-range water budget to ensure an
adequate water supply for current and
future uses.
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for
the provision of utilities, including water supplies, in Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan. Future development
of the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the
proposed land use map would not occur unless
water facilities and supplies were adequately
provided.
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE ELEMENT
RC-2-a Link Land Use to Transportation.
Promote mixed-use, higher density infill
development in multi -modal corridors.
Support land use patterns that make
more efficient use of the transportation
system and plan future transportation
investments in areas of higher- intensity
development. Discour age investment in
infrastructure that would not meet these
criteria.
Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan would
encourage infill development in multi -modal
corridors. As outlined in Chapter 2.0, Project
Description, of this EIR, the proposed Specific Plan
includes four objectives pertaining to
transportation. Together, these objectives promote
transit services and other alternative transportation
facilities (bicycle and pedestrian) in the West Area
by locating routes near or adjacent to higher-
intensity development, such as community centers,
schools, parks, and retail centers.
RC-4-c Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue
to require the use of computer models
used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air
quality impacts of plans and projects that
require such environmental review by
the City.
Consistent. Air quality impacts are discussed in
Section 3.3 of this EIR. The California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which is the SJVAPCD-
preferred computer model, was used to estimate
the air quality emissions resulting from future
buildout of the Plan Area.
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.
Consistent. Information regarding the proposed
Specific Plan, including all requested entitlements,
will be forwarded to the SJVAPCD for their review of
potential air quality and health impacts. The
SJVAPCD reviewed the NOP for the Specific Plan and
provided a NOP comment letter on July 15, 2019.
The SJVAPCD also reviewed and commented on the
original Draft EIR (February 2022). Once this
Recirculated EIR is available for public review, the
Recirculated EIR will be provided to the SJVAPCD.
RC-5-d SCS and CAP Conformity Analysis.
Ensure that the City includes analysis of a
project’s conformity to an adopted
regional Sustainable Community Strategy
or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), an
adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), and
any other applicable City and regional
greenhouse gas reduction strategies in
effect at the time of project review.
Consistent. Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate
Change, and Energy, of this EIR discusses conformity
with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the
Fresno Council of Governments Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy, and other applicable City regulations
which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The Specific Plan is
also consistent with the Fresno Council of
Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan.
RC-5-e Ensure Compliance. Ensure ongoing
compliance with GHG emissions
reduction plans and programs by
requiring that air quality measures are
incorporated into projects’ design,
conditions of approval, and mitigation
measures.
Consistent. Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate
Change, and Energy, of this EIR discusses
compliance with GHG emissions reductions plans
and programs which aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. As discussed, the proposed Specific Plan
is consistent with the City’s Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan. Because all impacts were
determined to be less than significant, mitigation
measures are not warranted or required.
RC-5-g Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue
to use computer models such as those
used by SJVAPCD to evaluate greenhouse
Consistent. Greenhouse gas emission impacts are
discussed in Section 3.3 of this EIR. CalEEMod, which
is the SJVAPCD-preferred computer model, was
LAND USE 3.10
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-19
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
gas impacts of plans and projects that
require such review.
used to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from future buildout of the Plan Area.
RC-6-c Land Use and Development Compliance.
Ensure that land use and development
projects adhere to the objective of the
Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources
Management Plan to provide sustainable
and reliable water supplies to meet the
demand of existing and future customers
through 2025.
Consistent. Section 3.15, Utilities, of this EIR,
analyzes potential impacts associated with water
supplies and demands in the near and long term
(until 2040). As discussed, future development of
the Plan Area would not result in insufficient water
supplies. As such, the proposed Specific Plan meets
the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water
Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable
and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of
existing and future customers through 2025.
RC-6-g Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to
protect areas of beneficial natural
groundwater recharge by preventing
uses that can contaminate soil or
groundwater.
Consistent. Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EIR, analyzes potential impacts
associated with groundwater recharge, depletion of
groundwater resources, and conflicts with the
groundwater management plan. As discussed in
Impact 3.9 -3, the required stormwater best
management practices (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 202 5 and 2045, and the Plan would
not conflict with the Fresno Area Regional
Groundwater Management Plan (FARGMP).
Further, the Specific Plan includes two policies that
would encourage nonporous surfaces for
groundwater recharge and other design strategies
to maximize recharge.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
HCR-2-c Project Development. Prior to project
approval, continue to require a project
site and its Area of Potential Effects
(APE), without benefit of a prior historic
survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for
the potential for historic and/or cultural
resources by a professional who meets
the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications.
Survey costs shall be the responsibility of
the project developer. Council may, but
is not required, to adopt an ordinance to
implement this policy.
Consistent. Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal
Resources, of this EIR, analyzes potential impacts
associated with historical resources, archaeological
resources, human remains, and tribal cultural
resources. A Cultural and Paleontological Resource
Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan
Project was conducted (Cogstone, 2019). Due to the
programmatic nature of this EIR, future projects in
the Plan Area would be required to be evaluated for
project-specific impacts under CEQA at the time of
application. CEQA guidelines require tribal
consultation and the protections of any identified
archeological and tribal resources. This is
considered a potentially significant impact, which
would be mitigated to a less than significant level
through the implementation of the mitigation
measures included in Section 3.5. Specifically,
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 requires that all work stop
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
within 50 meters of a cultural resources discovery,
and a qualified archaeologist that meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical
archaeology be retained to determine the
significance of the discovery.
HCR-2-f Archaeological Resources. Consider
State Office of Historic Preservation
guidelines when establishing CEQA
mitigation measures for archaeological
resources.
Consistent. Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal
Resources, of this EIR, analyzes potential impacts
associated with archaeological resources. The
mitigation measures in this section were
established within the Cultural and Paleontological
Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area
Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, 2019). The
measures generally follow the State Office of
Historic Preservation guidelines.
NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
NS-1-i Mitigation by New Development.
Require an acoustical analysis where new
development of industrial, commercial
or other noise generating land uses
(including transportation facilities such
as roadways, railroads, and airports) may
result in noise levels that exceed the
noise level exposure criteria established
by Tables 9 -2 and 9- 3 to determine
impacts, and require developers to
mitigate these impacts in conformance
with Tables 9-2 and 9-3 as a condition of
permit approval through appropriate
means.
Noise mitigation measures may include:
• The screening of noise sources such
as parking and loading facilities,
outdoor activities, and mechanical
equipment;
• Providing increased setbacks for
noise sources from adjacent
dwellings;
• Installation of walls and landscaping
that serve as noise buffers;
• Installation of soundproofing
materials and double-glazed
windows; and
• Regulating operations, such as hours
of operation, including deliveries and
trash pickup.
Alternative acoustical designs that
achieve the prescribed noise level
Consistent. Section 3.11, Noise, of this EIR, analyzes
potential noise and vibration impacts associated
with future development of the Plan Area. This
section is based on the acoustical analysis that was
prepared for the Specific Plan.
The acoustical
analysis includes mitigation measures consistent
with this policy. As discussed in Impact 3.11-1,
buildout of the Plan Area would result in substantial
increases in ambient traffic noise levels resulting in
potentially significant impacts to existing and
proposed receptors. Mitigation Measure 3.11- 1
would require the implementation of performance
standards based on project -specific acoustical
analysis for new residential and noise sensitive uses
exposed to significant exterior community noise
levels from transportation, which may include noise
walls and/or berms. Mitigation Measure 3.1 1-1
would assist in reducing traffic noise level impacts.
Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation,
buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result
in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
As discussed in Impact 3.11-4, due
to the
suburban/rural nature of the Plan Area,
development of the West Area Specific Plan will
result in a substantial increase in existing ambient
noise conditions. Increases in ambient noise levels
associated with existing and future stationary noise
imp
acts may result in potentially significant
impacts. However, enforcement of the Sections 10-
105 through 10- 109 of the City’s Noise Ordinance
and analysis of noise producing projects, along with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11 -5,
would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to
the Plan Area would not be subject to stationary
LAND USE 3.10
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-21
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
reduction may be approved by the City,
provided a qualified Acoustical
Consultant submits information
demonstrating that the alternative
designs will achieve and maintain the
specific targets for outdoor activity areas
and interior spaces. As a last resort,
developers may propose to construct
noise walls along roadways when
compatible with aesthetic concerns and
neighborhood character. This would be a
developer responsibility, with no City
funding.
noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.
Further, Mitigation Measure 3.11 -6 would ensure
that the future land uses within the Specific Plan
would not be subject to interior noise levels in
excess of the City’s standards.
NS-1-j Significance Threshold. Establish, as a
threshold of significance for the City's
environmental review process, that a
significant increase in ambient noise
levels is assumed if the project would
increase noise levels in the immediate
vicinity by 3 dB LDN or CNEL or more
above the ambient noise limits
Consistent. As noted previously, Section 3.11,
Noise, of this EIR, analyzes potential noise and
vibration impacts associated with future
development of the Plan Area. This section is based
on the acoustical analysis that was prepared for the
Specific Plan. The acoustical analysis assumes that
an increase in noise levels by 3 dB LDN or CNEL or
more above the ambient noise limits would be
established in this General Plan Update. considered a significant increase.
NS-1-k Proposal Review. Review all new public
and private development proposals that
may potentially be affected by or cause a
significant increase in noise levels, per
Policy NS-1-i, to determine conformance
with the policies of this Noise Element.
Require developers to reduce the noise
impacts of new development on adjacent
properties through appropriate means.
Consistent. As noted previously, Section 3.11,
Noise, of this EIR, analyzes potential noise and
vibration impacts associated with future
development of the Plan Area. The acoustical
analysis was performed at the program -level.
Future development projects within the Plan Area
would be required to reduce the noise impacts on
adjacent properties, as appropriate and feasible.
NS-1-m Transportation Related Noise Impacts.
For projects subject to City approval,
require that the project sponsor mitigate
noise created by new transportation and
transportation-related stationary noise
sources, including roadway
improvement projects, so that resulting
noise levels do not exceed t
he City’s
adopted standards for noise sensitive
land uses.
Consistent. As noted previously, Section 3.11,
Noise, of this EIR, analyzes potential transportation
and transportation -related noise impacts
associated with future development of the Plan
Area. The acoustical analysis was performed at the
program-level. Future development projects within
the Plan Area would be required to reduce the
transportation noise impacts on adjacent
properties, as appropriate and feasible.
NS-2-b 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.
Consistent. Section 3.6, Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity, of this EIR, analyzes potential geologic
impacts associated with future development of the
Plan Area. This EIR section identifies areas with
potential geologic and soils hazards. Future
development within the Plan Area, as required by
the California Building Code, would be required to
complete a design -level geotechnical analysis
conducted by a registered civil engineer (or
engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) .
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Should wastewater disposal, stormwater facilities,
or swimming pools be included as part of these
future development projects, the design-level
geotechnical analysis would include soil analysis and
mitigation to address any potential soils hazards.
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.
Consistent. Section 3. 9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
drainage and flooding impacts associated with
future development of the Plan Area. Impacts
associated with storm drainage and flooding,
including flood control, were determined to be less
than significant or less than significant with
implementation of mitigation. As such, future
development of the Plan Area would mitigate,
where necessary and applicable, potential storm
drainage and flooding related impacts. FMFCD also
reviewed and commented on the original Draft EIR
(February 2022). Once this Recirculated EIR is
available for public review, the Recirculated EIR will
be provided to FMFCD.
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.
Consistent. Section 3. 9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
drainage and flooding impacts associated with
future development of the Plan Area. Impacts
associated with storm drainage and flooding,
including flood control, were determined to be less
than significant or less than significant with
implementation of mitigation. As such, future
development of the Plan Area would mitigate,
where necess ary and applicable, potential storm
drainage and flooding related impacts.
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
Consistent. Section 3. 8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
impacts associated with production, use, storage,
disposal, and transport of hazardous materials. As
discussed, prior to bringing hazardous materials
onsite, future development projects would be
required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business
Plan to the County Environmental Health
Department.
applicable.
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.
Consistent. Section 3.14, Transportation and
Circulation, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
impacts associated emergency vehicle access .
Future development within the Plan Area would not
result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
LAND USE 3.10
The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan and has been designed to encourage implementation of the General Plan’s primary objectives. The General Plan’s overarching Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-23
3.10 LAND USE
land use objective for the Growth Areas includes Objective UF-13 that 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; or along future BRT corridors. As discussed throughout the proposed Specific Plan, the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan holds firm to the goal of achieving Complete Neighborhoods.
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan will serve as an implementation tool to support the General Plan’s goals and objectives as well as a vital instrument for much needed comprehensive planning, to improve area -wide connectivity, housing opportunities, recreation, services and infrastructure improvements.
CITY OF FRESNO ZONING CODE
The Specific Plan includes certain development regulations and standards that are intended to be specific to the Specific Plan Area. Where there is a matter or issue not specifically covered by the Specific Plan development regulations and design standards, the Fresno Zoning Code would apply.
Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code, the Zoning Code would prevail (FMC §15-104-B.4).
The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Plan Area. The land use, development standards, and design guidelines are provided to ensure that all proposed developments remain consistent with the vision established by the Specific Plan as the Project is built over time . The Specific Plan development concepts, design guidelines, and standards are in accordance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Ordinances, and City Specifications. The Specific Plan shall be used to review, process, and approve development proposals for the Project site including but not limited to site specific development applications and site improvement plans.
As previously indicated, the City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS- 1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the city which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The proposed Specific Plan would require modifications to the City’s Zoning Map to provide consistency between the General Plan and zoning; however, these modifications will not remove or adversely modify portions of the Fresno Municipal Code that were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect.
The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone
3.10-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
LAND USE 3.10
that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would not apply to the parcel.
CONSISTENCY WITH FRESNO COUNTY’S LAND USE PLANS
The proposed Specific Plan land use designations are not entirely consistent with the County land use designations and Zoning Designations for areas outside the Fresno city limits, but within the Plan Area. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the Fresno city limits as: Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industrial (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential Agricultural (RA), Single Family Residential (12,500) (R1B), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to an nex 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. As described in the requested entitlements in Chapter
2.0, Project Description, no annexations are being requested as part of the proposed Specific Plan .
The properties currently located outside of the current City of Fresno city limits, within the County, would continue to be govern ed under the Fresno County land use policies and designations until such time that 1) the property owners desire to annex the subject properties into the city, 2) all applicable project entitlements have been approved by the City Council, and 3) the LAFCo of Fresno County approves the annexation request. As such, all figures and text in the Specific Plan and this Draft EIR (as they pertain to these unincorporated properties) have been provided for conceptual planning purposes.
The County ’s General Plan includes the major theme of directing urban growth to existing communities, including the City of Fresno. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this land use theme in that the Specific Plan would result in extension of an existing community, the City of Fresno, in any area located adjacent to the city limits. Any future development on County land that is eventually annexed into the city of Fresno would be phased and would include the provision of adequate City services.
CONCLUSION
Subsequent development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to be consistent with all applicable policies, standards, and regulations, including those land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to mitigate environmental effects by the City as well as those adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over components of future development projects. Any potential environmental impact associated with conflicts with land use requirements including conflicts with policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-25
3.10 LAND USE
This page left intentionally blank.
3.10-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
This section provides a general description of the existing noise sources in the Plan Area vicinity, a discussion of the regulatory setting, and identifies potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Specific Plan impacts are evaluated relative to applicable noise level criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. Mitigation measures have been identified for significant noise-related impacts. This section is based on the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study completed for the project (MD Acoustics, June 2024), which can be found in Appendix F.
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (dated August 1, 2019). Cathy Caples noted that, in addition to traffic noise, residents in the area hear gunfire from the Sheriff’s Gun Range; however, no specific-concerns were expressed. The comments related to this topic are addressed within this section; see Impact 3.11-1 regarding traffic noise and Impact 3.11-4 regarding stationary noise. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
KEY TERMS
Acoustics The science of sound.
Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given area consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.
Attenuation The reduction of noise.
A-Weighting A frequency- response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.
Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, defined as ten times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared.
CNEL Community noise equivalent level. Defined as the 24 -hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.
Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic acoustic signal, expressed in cycles per second or Hertz.
Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.
Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level.
Recircula
ted Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-1
Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.
L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period.
For instance, an hourly L 50 is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the one hour period.
Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.
Noise Unwanted sound.
SEL Sound exposure levels. A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one-second event.
3.11 NOISE
FUNDAMENTALS OF ACOUSTICS
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).
Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.
The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase
3.11-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (L eq), which corresponds
to a steady-state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.
The day/night average level (L dn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24 -hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours.
The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because L dn represents a 24-hour average,
it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. CNEL is similar to Ldn, but includes a +5 dB penalty for evening noise. Table 3.11-1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.
TABLE 3.11-1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL (DBA) COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES -- --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) --100-- --
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) --90-- --
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft),
at 80 km/hr (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft)
Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background)
--10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: CALTRANS, TECHNICAL NOISE SUPPLEMENT, TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL. NOVEMBER 2009.
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-3
3.11 NOISE
Environmental noise typically produces effects in t he first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level.
In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existin g ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by t hose hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1 dBA change cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
• A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.
Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric condition s and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Four long-term 24-hour noise measurements and 12 short -term noise measurements were conducted throughout the Plan Area on June 3, 2019 to document the existing noise environment.
Four additional short-term 15-minute noise measurements were taken on December 4, 2023. Noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 3.11-1.
Short-Term Noise Measurements
The results of the 12 short-term noise measurement s are presented below in Table 3.11 -2. The measured noise levels within the Plan Area range between 54.4 and 74.8 dBA Leq. The primary source of ambient noise included vehicle noise associated with surface streets and SR 99, as well as the existing rail. Secondary noise sources included typical residential activities and landscaping equipment. Field notes and meter output are provided in the Noise Impact Study found in Appendix F.
3. 11-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TABLE 3.11-2: SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
LOCATION APPROX. ADDRESS TIME
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA)
LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50
1 Herndon Ave./
N. Parkway Dr. 9:28 AM 67.6 78.3 54.5 74.7 71.3 68.0 65.6 2 N. Bryan Ave./
W. Shaw Ave. 9:48 AM 69.5 84.1 40.9 78.3 75.8 69.4 60.4 3 N. Polk Ave./
W. Gettysburg Ave. 10:15 AM 61.5 82.5 41.3 68.1 62.2 58.8 54.2 4 N. Bryan Ave./
W. Ashlan Ave. 10:32 AM 54.4 69.5 37.8 63.1 58.4 53.7 50.0 5 N. Polk Ave./
W. Ashlan Ave. 12:13 PM 64.6 86.5 45.4 71.6 67.7 64.3 60.8 6 N. Dakota Ave./
W. Brawley Ave. 2:19 PM 74.8 99.8 50.2 79.2 72.6 67.5 64.3 7 N. Grantland Ave./
W. Shields Ave. 12:38 PM 72.8 93.4 37.5 81.4 74.7 65.0 56.2 8 N. Polk Ave./
W. Shields Ave. 12:54 PM 66.1 86.3 51.5 75.5 70.1 62.6 58.9 9 N. Blythe Ave./
W. Shields Ave. 1:09 PM 64.4 79.9 48.1 73.5 68.9 63.4 59.5 10 N. Bryan Ave./
W. Clinton Ave. 1:26 PM 59.6 79.5 31.9 70.4 61.6 52.7 43.8 11 N. Cornelia Ave./
W. Clinton Ave. 1:42 PM 65.8 85.0 44.7 73.4 68.7 64.7 60.4 12 N. Marks Ave./
W. Clinton Ave. 2:00 PM 68.8 85.2 55.2 75.9 72.7 69.6 65.6 13 N. Veterans Blvd. /
W Barstow Ave. 1:26 PM 62.0 77.6 44.2 70.2 65.4 61.3 57.2 14 N. Hayes Ave. / W.
Gettysburg Ave. 2:09 PM 64.0 78.3 42.3 73.8 68.5 62.4 57.8 15 W. Ashlan Ave. / N.
Blythe Ave. 3:16 PM 63.1 81.0 50.3 70.0 65.8 62.2 59.2 16 N. Polk Ave. / W
Dayton Ave. 2:34 PM 66.8 78.8 42.7 76.4 71.4 66.9 60.2 NOISE 3.11
SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2024.
Long-Term Noise Measurements
Four long-term noise measurements (24 consecutive hours) were taken in order to document the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at different locations throughout the Plan Area. The results of the long-term noise measurement are presented below in Table 3.11-3, which outlines the daytime (7AM to 7PM), evening (7PM to 10PM), and nighttime (10PM to 7AM) Leq levels at each location. These represent the average level over each time period (day/evening/night).
As shown in Table 3.11-3, the measured CNEL ranged between 60.5 and 70.2 dBA, and the primary noise source was vehicle traffic. Field notes and meter output are provided in the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study found in Appendix F.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-5
TABLE 3.11-3: LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
LOCATION APPROX.
ADDRESS DATE DESCRIPTION
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA)
DAY-TIME
LEQ
EVENING
LEQ
NIGHT-
TIME LEQ
CNEL
LT1
N. Grantland
Ave./W.
Barstow Ave.
6/3/19-
6/4/19
Vehicle traffic on N.
Valentine Ave. and
SR 99
58.8 56.1 52.7 60.7
LT2
N. Valentine
Ave./W.
Shields Ave.
6/3/19-
6/4/19
Vehicle traffic on N.
Grantland Ave. and
W. Barstow Ave.
65.4 62.1 63.4 70.8
LT3
N. Blythe
Ave./W.
Ashlan Ave.
6/4/19-
6/5/19
Vehicle traffic on N.
Blythe Ave. and W.
Ashlan Ave.
67.3 65.5 61.5 69.1
LT4
N. Hayes
Ave./W.
Ashlan Ave.
6/3/19-
6/4/19
Vehicle traffic on N.
Hayes Ave. and W.
Ashlan Ave.
65.8 61.3 58.6 67.1
3.11 NOISE
SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2020.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Existing land uses within the Plan Area include single and multiple family residential development, commercial, recreational, and industrial land uses. Noise sources associated with existing land uses include residential maintenance, parking lot noise, heating and cooling system (HVAC) noise, property maintenance noise, trash truck noise, loading and unloading noise, and recreational noise.
Roadway Noise
The primary noise source in the community is vehicle traffic traveling on surface streets and on State Route (SR) 99. Long-term (24-hour) and short-term (10-minute) noise measurements were taken at 16 locations throughout the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 3.11 -1. Existing modeled and measured noise levels associated with acoustically significant roadways within the Plan Area are shown on Figure 3.11-2, as well as in Table 3.11 -4 below. The modeled noise levels do not take into account factors such as existing buildings, walls, etc. that may reduce or in some cases, amplify noise sources.
The measured noise levels do take into account existing structures as well as other noise sources. It should be noted that the road segment modeling assumptions for the existing exterior noise levels found in Table 3.11-4 can be found within the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study found in Appendix F.
TABLE 3.11-4: EXISTING EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ALONG ROADWAYS (DBA, CNEL)
3.11-6 Re circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT DBA CNEL
AT 50 FT.
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR (FT.)
70 65 60 55
W Herndon Ave N. Garfield Ave to N
Parkway Drive No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data W Bullard Ave N Garfield Ave to N
Grantland Ave 54 1 4 12 36
W Bullard Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 61 6 18 56 176
ROADWAY SEGMENT DBA CNEL
AT 50 FT.
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR (FT.)
70 65 60 55
W Barstow Ave N Garfield to N
Grantland Ave 59 4 13 42 134
W Barstow Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 55 2 5 15 49
W Barstow Ave N Bryan Ave
Contessa Ave
to N No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
W Shaw Ave N Garfield Ave to N
Grantland Ave 65 16 50 159 504
W Shaw Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 66 19 59 186 588
W Shaw Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 66 22 69 219 693
W Shaw Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 69 41 129 409 1294
W Shaw Ave N Polk Ave to State
Route 99 72 88 277 875 2767
W Gettysburg
Ave
N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 58 3 10 33 103
W Gettysburg
Ave
N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 59 4 12 37 119
W Gettysburg
Ave N Polk Ave to N Barcus 60 5 14 46 145
W Ashlan Ave N. Garfield to N
Grantland No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
W Ashlan Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 65 14 45 142 450
W Ashlan Ave N Bryan Ave to N Hayes
Ave 62 8 26 82 260
W Ashlan Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 60 5 17 54 172
W Ashlan Ave N Polk Ave to N
Cornelia Ave 65 17 55 173 546
W Ashlan Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 69 43 137 434 1373
W Ashlan Ave N Blythe Ave to State
Route 99 71 63 198 626 1981
W Dakota Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
W Dakota Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 59 4 12 37 119
W Dakota Ave N Polk Ave
Cornelia Ave
to N 63 10 31 98 310
W Dakota Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 62 8 26 82 258
NOISE 3.11
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-7
ROADWAY SEGMENT DBA CNEL
AT 50 FT.
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR (FT.)
70 65 60 55
W Dakota Ave N Blythe Ave to N
Brawley Ave 61 6 19 61 191
W Dakota Ave N Brawley Ave to N
Valentine Ave 60 5 15 46 146
W Shields Ave N. Garfield Ave to
Grantland Ave 60 5 16 52 164
W Shields Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 60 5 17 53 167
W Shields Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 61 7 22 68 216
W Shields Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 61 6 20 62 198
W Shields Ave N Polk Ave to N
Cornelia Ave 64 13 42 133 419
W Shields Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 63 9 28 88 280
W Shields Ave N Blythe Ave to N
Brawley Ave 62 8 27 85 267
W Shields Ave N Brawley Ave to N
Valentine Ave 64 11 35 111 353
W Shields Ave N Valentine Ave to N
Marks Ave 64 13 42 133 419
W Clinton Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 53 1 3 11 34
W Clinton Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 56 2 6 19 59
W Clinton Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 58 3 9 28 88
W Clinton Ave N Polk Ave to N
Cornelia Ave 65 15 48 151 478
W Clinton Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 70 46 145 459 1452
W Clinton Ave N Blythe Ave to N
Brawley Ave 71 67 211 667 2110
W Clinton Ave N Brawley Ave to N
Valentine Ave 70 47 150 474 1498
W Clinton Ave N Valentine Ave to N
Marks Ave 70 50 159 503 1590
W Clinton Ave N Marks Ave to W
Vassar Ave 75 144 454 1435 4538
N Garfield Ave W Herndon Ave to W
Bullard Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N Garfield Ave W Bullard Ave to W
Barstow Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
3.11 NOISE
3.11-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT DBA CNEL
AT 50 FT.
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR (FT.)
70 65 60 55
N Garfield Ave W Barstow Ave to W
Shaw Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave W Shaw Ave
Gettysburg Ave
to W No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N Garfield Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N Parkway Drive N Herndon Ave to W
Herndon Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N Grantland
Ave
N Parkway Drive to W
Bullard Ave 65 23 49 105 226
N Grantland
Ave
W Bullard Ave to W
Barstow Ave 67 32 69 149 322
N Grantland
Ave
W Barstow Ave to W
Shaw Ave 68 30 96 303 957
N Grantland
Ave
W Shaw Ave to W
Gettysburg Ave 63 10 33 104 327
N Grantland
Ave
W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 66 18 56 178 563
N Grantland
Ave
W Ashlan Ave to W
Dakota Ave 64 14 43 136 429
N Grantland
Ave
W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N Grantland
Ave
W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 63 10 32 102 324
N Bryan Ave W Shaw Ave
Gettysburg Ave
to W 60 5 15 46 146
N Bryan Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 63 11 35 110 347
N Bryan Ave W Ashlan
Dakota Ave
Ave to W 61 6 20 62 196
N Bryan Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 58 3 11 34 106
N Bryan Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 54 1 4 12 40
N Hayes Ave W Santa Ana Ave to W
Gettysburg Ave 63 10 30 95 302
N Hayes Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 61 6 19 60 190
N Hayes Ave W Ashland Ave to W
Dakota Ave 60 5 15 46 146
N Hayes Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 59 4 13 41 131
NOISE 3.11
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-9
ROADWAY SEGMENT DBA CNEL
AT 50 FT.
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR (FT.)
70 65 60 55
N Hayes Ave W Shields Ave
Clinton Ave
to W 58 3 10 32 100
N Polk Ave W Shaw Ave to W
Gettysburg Ave 68 32 103 325 1027
N Polk Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 64 13 41 129 407
N Polk Ave W Ashland Ave to W
Dakota Ave 65 15 47 149 470
N Polk Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 64 13 41 130 411
N Polk Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 63 10 31 100 315
N Cornelia Ave N Parkway Drive to W
Gettysburg Ave 66 20 64 202 637
N Cornelia Ave W Gettysburg to W
Ashlan Ave 66 20 64 202 637
N Cornelia Ave W Ashland Ave to W
Dakota Ave 67 28 87 276 872
N Cornelia Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 64 11 35 111 353
N Cornelia Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 66 20 63 198 626
N Blythe Ave W Ashlan Ave to W
Dakota Ave 66 18 56 178 562
N Blythe Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 63 9 29 91 289
N Blythe Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 63 9 30 94 298
N Brawley Ave N Parkway Drive to W
Dakota Ave 64 13 40 127 401
N Brawley Ave W Dakota Ave
Shields Ave
to W 64 12 39 122 386
N Brawley Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 64 12 36 115 365
N Valentine Ave N Parkway Drive to W
Shields Ave 60 5 16 50 158
N Valentine Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 59 4 13 40 128
3.11 NOISE
NOTES:
1. EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED AT 5-FEET ABOVE G ROUND.
2. NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED FROM CENTERLINE OF S UBJECT ROADWAY.
3. REFER TO APPENDIX C OF APPENDIX F FOR PROJECTED NOISE L EVEL CALCULATIONS.
4. THE P ROJECTED NOISE L EVELS AT 50 FT ARE THEORETICAL AND DO NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE E FFECT OF TOPOGRAPHY, NOISE BARRIERS, STRUCTURES OR OTHER FACTORS WHICH WILL REDUCE THE ACTUAL NOISE LEVEL IN THE OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS .
THESE FACTORS CAN REDUCE THE ACTUAL NOISE LEVELS BY 5-10 DBA FROM WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE TABLE. THEREFORE, THE LEVELS
3.11-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
THAT ARE SHOWN ARE FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE IN PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT AND WITH THE PROJECT.
SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2024.
As shown in Table 3.11-4 and Figure 3.11-2, areas in the city that currently experience sound levels greater than 65 dBA Ldn are typically near major vehicular traffic corridors. Highway traffic noise levels typically depend on three factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the average speed of traffic, and (3) the vehicle mix (i.e., the percentage of trucks versus automobiles in the traffic flow). Vehicle noise includes noises produced by the engine, exhaust, tires, and wind generated by taller vehicles.
Other factors that affect the perception of traffic noise include the distance from the highway, terrain, vegetation, and natural and structural obstacles. While tire noise from automobiles is generally located at ground level, some truck noise sources may emanate from 12 feet or m ore above the ground.
Vehicle traffic generated noise associated with SR 99 is the dominant noise source in the eastern portion of the Plan Area with average daily vehicle trips (ADTs) ranging between 77,000 -107,000 adjacent to the Plan Area. Existing modeled noise contours shown in Figure 3.11-2 show that traffic noise associated with SR 99 dominates the noise environment of the easternmost portion of the Plan Area. Most noise sensitive land uses adjacent to SR 99 are shielded by existing sound walls, topography, or buildings, however, the attenuation provided by them is not represented in the noise contour map.
Rail Noise
Noise associated with the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line that generally runs parallel to SR 99 also contributes to noise in the Plan Area. The Union Pacific Railroad extends in a southeast/northwest direction ranging between 320 and 2,100 feet east of the project area. Based on count data available provided by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA 2020) fourteen train trips per day (split evenly between daytime and nighttime hours) utilize the rail lines located east of the project area and SR 99 and north of West Ashlan Avenue. There are existing residential land uses located within the project area as close as 380 feet to the rail lines north of West Ashlan Avenue and 380 feet from the rail lines south of West Ashlan Avenue. There is a rail y ard east of SR 99 that extends from approximately 450 feet north of Clinton Avenue to West Ashlan Avenue. Noise level contours associated with the UPRR are shown in Figure 3.11-3.
Airport/Aircraft Noise
There are no airports located within the Plan Area and the Plan Area is not located within any airport noise contours (City of Fresno , 2014). The Plan Area is over two miles from any private or public airport. The Plan Area is , however, affected by fly -over noise associated with the Fresno Yosemite International airport, the Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport, and the Sierra Sky Park Airport.
Commercial jet aircraft operations are limited to the Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The Air National Guard is also stationed there and operates military jets and other aircraft. Private and commercial operations with smaller aircraft use the Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport, while only small private aircraft use the Sierra Sky Park Airport.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-11
3.11 NOISE
VIBRATION SOURCES IN THE PLAN AREA
The main sources of vibration in the project area are related to vehicles, rail, and construction.
Typical roadway traffic, including heavy trucks, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage. However, there hav e been cases in which he avy trucks traveling over potholes or other discontinuities in the pavement have caused vibration high enough to result in complaints from nearby residents.
3.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Noise Control Act of 1972
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows:
• The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies.
• The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible to regulate noise from aircraft and airports. • The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible to regulate noise from the interstate highway system.
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers.
The federal government advocates that local jurisdiction use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway, or alternatively that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.
Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement Codes and land use planning.
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels. CEQA standards are discussed more below under the Thresholds of Significance criteria section.
3. 11-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code
Section 1206.4 of the California Building Code (2019), Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 12 (Interior Environment), establishes an interior noise criteria of 45 dBA CNEL for “dwelling units”. Per California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2 (Definitions), a residential dwelling unit is intended to be used as a residence that is primarily long -term in nature. Residential dwelling units do not include transient lodging, inpatient medical care, licensed long -term care, and detention or correctional facilities.
California Building Code (2019), Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures), applies to all proposed buildings that people may occupy but are not residential dwelling units, with the exception of factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures, and utility buildings.
Section 5.507.4.1 requires wall and roof -ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building, or addition envelope or altered envelope, shall meet a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 50 or a composite Outdoor to Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
For the purposes of evaluating noise impacts due to new projects, the objectives and policies of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element are used. The Fresno General Plan Noise Element sets forth noise standards for transportation noise sources. Ideally, proposed land uses would be developed in areas where future noise levels due to transportation noise sources (except aircraft) would not exceed thos e presented in Table 3.11-5 . Additionally, the Fresno General Plan Element also includes standards for stationary noise sources to regulate noise emanating from one property to another, which are presented in Table 3.11-6.
TABLE 3.11-5: TRANSPORTATION (NON-AIRCRAFT) NOISE SOURCES
NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS1,3 INTERIOR SPACES
LDN/CNEL, DB LDN/CNEL, DB LEQ DB2, 4
Residential 65 45 --
Transient Lodging 65 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 --
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls -- -- 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 -- 45
Office Buildings -- -- 45
Schools, Libraries Museums -- -- 45
NOTES: 1. WHERE THE LOCATION OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS IS UNKNOWN OR IS NOT APPLICABLE, THE E XTERIOR NOISE L EVEL STANDARD SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY LI NE OF THE RECEIVING LAND USE.
2. EXCLUDES FRONT OR SIDE Y ARD AREAS, AND FRONT OR SIDE P ORCHES. BALCONIES OR ROOF DECKS FACING FR ONT AND SIDE
YARDS SHALL BE I NCLUDED IN DESIGNATED AREAS TO BE P ROTECTED FROM NOISE WHERE THESE SPACES ARE U SED TO CALCULATE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED OUTDOOR LIVING AR EA AS REQUIRED BY ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
3. RESIDENTIAL AND NOISE S ENSITIVE USES LOCATED ALONG BUS RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDORS OR WITHIN ACTIVITY CENTERS AS
IDENTIFIED I N T HE CITY O F FRESNO GENERAL PLAN, ARE EXEMPT FROM EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS WHERE I T IS DETERMINED Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-13
3.11 NOISE
APPLICATION OF NOISE M ITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE R EALIZATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN'S MIXED USE POLICIES. INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS SHALL STILL APPLY.
4. AS DETERMINED FOR A TYPICAL WORST-CASE HOUR DURING PERIODS OF USE.
SOURCE: CITY O F FRESNO GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT (TABLE 9-2), 2014.
TABLE 3.11-6: STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE STANDARDS
DAYTIME
(7:00 AM – 10:00 PM)
NIGHTTIME
(10:00 PM – 7:00 AM)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq),
dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
NOTES: 1. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, ON A CASE -BY-CASE BASIS , MAY
DESIGNATE LAND USES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN IN THIS TABLE TO BE NOISE -SENSITIVE, AND MAY REQUIRE APPROPRIATE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES.
2. AS DETERMINED AT OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS. WHERE T HE LOCATION OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS IS UNKNOWN OR NOT APPLICABLE, THE N OISE E XPOSURE STANDARD SHALL BE AP PLIED AT THE P ROPERTY LINE OF THE RECEIVING LAND USE. WHEN
AMBIENT NOISE L EVELS EXCEED OR EQUAL THE LEVELS IN THE TABLE, MITIGATION SHALL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO LIMIT NOISE TO THE AMBIENT PLUS FIVE DBA.
SOURCE: CITY O F FRESNO GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT, 2014.
The Noise Element outlines the following objectives and policies which are pertinent to the project.
This list does not include all noise-related policies, but provides policies which are relevant to the project.
NOISE ELEMENT
Objective NS-1: Protect the citizens of the City from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise.
Policy NS-1-a: Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dB Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise-sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dB Ldn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dB Ldn or CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dB Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be m easured at the property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.
Commentary: The noise ordinance will define usable exterior areas for single family and multiple family residential and noise sensitive uses to include rear yards and other outdoor areas intended to accommodate leisure or active use, excluding front or side yard areas, and front or side porches. Balconies or roof decks facing from side yards shall be included in designated areas to be protected from noise where these spaces are used to calculate compliance with required outdoor living area as required by adopted development standards.
3.11-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
Policy NS -1b: Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2.
Policy NS-1c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposu re of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential or other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study alternative less noise sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally acceptable exterior noise and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards et in Table 9-2 as conditions of permit approval.
Policy NS-1i: Mitigation of New Developments. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise level that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established in Tables 9-2 and 9-3 to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with tables 9 -2 and 9-3 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.
Noise mitigation measures may include:
• The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
• providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; • Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; • Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and • Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.
Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed nois e level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character.
Policy NS-1j: Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance fo r the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL, or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-15
3.11 NOISE
Commentary: When an increase in noise would result in a "Significant" impact (increase of three dBA or more) to residents or businesses, then noise mitigation would be required to reduce noise exposure. If the increase in noise is less than three dBA, then the noise impact is considered insignificant and no noise mitigation is needed.
Policy NS-1k: Proposal Review. Review all new public and private development proposals that may potentially be affected by or cause a significant increase in noise levels, per Policy NS-1-i, to determine conformance with the policies of this Noise Element. Require developers to reduce the noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means.
Policy NS-1l: Enforcement. Continue to enforce applicable State Noise Insulation Standards and Uniform Building Code noise requirements, as adopted by the City.
Policy NS -1m: Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to the City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportation-related stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City's adopted standards for noise sensitive land uses.
Policy NS-1n: Best Available Technology. Require new noise sources to use best available control technology to minimize noise emissions.
Commentary: Noise from mechanical equipment can be reduced by soundproofing materials and sound-deadening installation; controlling hours of operation will also reduce noise impacts during the morning or evening.
Policy NS-1o: Sound Wall Guidelines. Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise barriers. Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, an d reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls, and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area.
Commentary: While acoustical studies need to be site -specific in order to appropriately assess particular settings, having prototypical design measures and noise control templates that can be applied for similar situations and contexts can facilitate infill and other development. These can be provided in this noise report and carried forward into the Specific Plan.
Policy NS -1p: Airport Noise Compatibility. Implement the land use and noise exposure compatibility provisions of the adopted Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use
3. 11-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
Compatibility Plan, the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Master and Environs Specific Plan, and the Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan to assess noise compatibility of proposed uses and improvements within airport influence and environs areas.
City of Fresno Noise Ordinance
Article 1 of Chapter 10 of the City's Municipal Code contains the City's Noise Ordinance, which establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. The standards for ambient noise for varying land uses are somewhat generic and are assumed to be overridden by actual noise mea surements and modeling of noise sources. Those applicable to this analysis are presented below.
SEC. 10-102. Definitions.
(b) Ambient Noise. “Ambient noise” is the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen minutes, without inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of day at which a comparison with the offending noise is to be made.
Where the ambient noise level is less than what is presented in Table 3.11-7 for the applicable type of land use, the sound level presented in Tab le 3.11-7, shall be deemed to be the ambient noise level for that location.
T
ABLE 3.11-7: AMBIENT NOISE
DISTRICT TIME SOUND LEVEL DECIBELS
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50
Residential 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM 55
7:00 AM to 7:00 PM 60
Commercial 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 60
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 65
Industrial Anytime 70
SOURCE: CITY OF FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10-102(B) SEC. 10-105. Excessive Noise Prohibited.
No person shall make, cause, or suffer or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street, alley, or place within the city, any sound or noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorized by or in accordance with this article. The prov isions of this section shall apply to, but shall be limited to, the control, use, and operation of the following noise sources:
(a) Radios, musical instruments, phonographs, television sets, or other machines or devices used for the amplification, production, or reproduction of sound or the human voice. (b) Animals or fowl creating, generating, or emitting any cry or behavioral sound.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-17
3.11 NOISE
(c) Machinery or equipment, such as fans, pumps, air conditioning units, engines, turbines, compressors, generators, motors or similar devices, equipment, or apparatus. (d) Construction equipment or work, including the operation, use or employment of pile drivers, hammers, saws, drills, derricks, hoists, or similar construction equipment or tools.
SEC. 10-107. Schools, Hospitals, and Churches.
No person shall create any noise on any street, sidewalk, or public place adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use, or adjacent to any hospital, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such street, sidewalk, or public place indicating the presence of a school, church, or hospital.
SEC. 10-109. Exceptions.
(a) Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday. (b) Emergency work.
(c) Any acts or acts which are prohibited by any law of the State of California or the United States.
3.11.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project will have a significant impact related to noise if it will result in:
• Generation of a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; and/or
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Noise Standards
The noise standards applicable to the project include the relevant portions of the City of Fresno General Plan, as described in the Regulatory Setting section above, and the following standards.
3. 11-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
Based upon the General Plan Noise and Safety Element, the project will have a significant increase in noise if it exceeds a 3 dB L dn. This is consistent with Table 3.11-8 which is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations.
The recommendations are based upon studies that relate air craft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the L dn.
TABLE 3.11-8: SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL WITHOUT PROJECT, LDN INCREASE REQUIRED FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
SOURCE: FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON NOISE (FICON).
Vibration Standards
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface.
As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.
The City of Fresno does not establish criteria for vibration impacts. However, the Federal Transit Administration establishes vibration impact thresholds for construction/demolition projects. These thresholds are shown in Table 3.11-9 on the following page.
TABLE 3.11-9: GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CRITERIA
ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE BUILDING CATEGORY PPV (IN/SEC) LV (VDB)A I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 NOTE: A RMS VELOCITY CALCULATED FROM VIBRATION LEVEL (VDB) USING THE REFERENCE OF ONE MICRO-INCH/SECOND.
SOURCE: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 2006.
Table 3.11-9 indicates that the threshold for damage to structures ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec p.p.v). One-half this minimum threshold or 0.1 in/sec Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-19
3.11 NOISE
p.p.v. is considered a safe criterion that would protect against architectural or structural damage.
The general threshold at which human annoyance could also occur is typically noted as 0.1 in/sec p.p.v.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.11 -1: Specific Plan implementation could potentially substantially increase mobile noise levels at existing and proposed receptors. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – PROPOSED RECEPTORS Upon future buildout of the Plan Area, the primary noise source in the community will continue to be vehicle traffic traveling on surface streets and on SR 99. Future noise levels associated with acoustically significant roadways within the Plan Area are shown on Figure 3.11 -4. Vehicle traffic generated noise associated with SR 99 will continue to be the d ominant noise source in the eastern portion of the Plan Area with ADTs ranging between 77,000 and 107,000 adjacent to the Plan Area.
Although most noise s ensitive land uses adjacent to SR 99 are shielded by existing sound walls, topography or buildings, there are still some noise sensitive land uses where existing plus project plus cumulative noise levels will exceed the City’s 60 dBA L dn noise standard. Thus, traffic noise impacts to proposed receptors would be potentially significant.
EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – EXISTING RECEPTORS Buildout of the Plan Area will result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels. According to the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study , the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to predict noise levels due to the Specific Plan traffic. Traffic volumes for existing conditions were obtained from the traffic data prepared for the Specific Plan. The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic from the operation of the proposed project on the nearby roadways was calculated by comparing the existing (without project) plus cumulative noise levels. Table 3.11 -10 compares the existing and cumulative plus project noise levels along the Plan Area roadways.
TABLE 3.11-10: CHANGE IN NOISE ALONG ROADWAYS DUE TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN (DBA, CNEL)
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 50 FEET DBA2
EXISTING CUMULATIVE PLUS
PROJECT CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
W Herndon Ave N Garfield Ave to N
Parkway Drive No Data 61.5 N/A No No
W Bullard Ave N Garfield Ave to N
Grantland Ave 53.6 53.6 0.0 No No
W Bullard Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 60.5 64.5 4.0 No No
W Barstow Ave N Garfield to N
Grantland Ave 59.3 50.0 -9.3 No No
3.11-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 50 FEET DBA2
EXISTING CUMULATIVE PLUS
PROJECT CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
W Barstow Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 54.9 67.6 12.7 Yes Yes
W Barstow Ave N Bryan Ave
Contessa Ave
to N No Data 71.9 N/A No5 No
W Shaw Ave N Garfield Ave to N
Grantland Ave 65.0 68.7 3.7 Yes Yes
W Shaw Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 65.7 72.2 6.5 Yes Yes
W Shaw Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 66.4 76.2 9.8 Yes Yes
W Shaw Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 69.1 79.4 10.3 Yes Yes
W Shaw Ave N Polk Ave to State
Route 99 72.4 82.3 9.9 Yes Yes
W Gettysburg
Ave
N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 58.2 67.0 8.8 No5 No
W Gettysburg
Ave
N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 58.7 68.0 9.3 Yes Yes
W Gettysburg
Ave N Polk Ave to N Barcus 59.6 68.6 9.0 Yes Yes W Ashlan Ave N Garfield to N
Grantland No Data 63.3 N/A No No
W Ashlan Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 64.5 72.7 8.2 Yes Yes
W Ashlan Ave N Bryan Ave to N Hayes
Ave 62.2 73.3 11.1 Yes Yes
W Ashlan Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 60.4 73.4 13.0 Yes Yes
W Ashlan Ave N Polk Ave to N
Cornelia Ave 65.4 74.3 8.9 Yes Yes
W Ashlan Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 69.4 73.8 4.4 Yes Yes
W Ashlan Ave N Blythe Ave to State
Route 99 71.0 74.3 3.3 n/a No
W Dakota Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave No Data 64.9 N/A No No
W Dakota Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 58.7 68.7 10.0 Yes Yes
W Dakota Ave N Polk Ave
Cornelia Ave
to N 62.9 67.4 4.5 Yes Yes
W Dakota Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 62.1 66.6 4.5 Yes Yes
NOISE 3.11
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-21
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 50 FEET DBA2
EXISTING CUMULATIVE PLUS
PROJECT CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
W Dakota Ave N Blythe Ave to N
Brawley Ave 60.8 65.1 4.3 No No
W Dakota Ave N Brawley Ave to N
Valentine Ave 59.7 63.2 6.5 No No
W Shields Ave N Garfield Ave to
Grantland Ave 60.2 65.0 4.8 No No
W Shields Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 60.2 67.0 6.8 Yes Yes
W Shields Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 61.4 67.7 6.3 Yes Yes
W Shields Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 61.0 66.2 5.2 Yes Yes
W Shields Ave N Polk Ave to N
Cornelia Ave 64.2 70.7 6.5 Yes Yes
W Shields Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 62.5 68.1 5.6 Yes Yes
W Shields Ave N Blythe Ave to N
Brawley Ave 62.3 68.0 5.7 Yes Yes
W Shields Ave N Brawley Ave to N
Valentine Ave 63.5 68.7 5.2 Yes Yes
W Shields Ave N Valentine Ave to N
Marks Ave 64.2 67.2 3.0 Yes Yes
W Clinton Ave N Grantland Ave to N
Bryan Ave 53.3 60.5 7.2 No No
W Clinton Ave N Bryan Ave to N
Hayes Ave 55.7 64.4 8.7 No No
W Clinton Ave N Hayes Ave to N Polk
Ave 57.5 68.0 10.5 Yes Yes
W Clinton Ave N Polk Ave to N
Cornelia Ave 64.8 68.0 3.2 Yes Yes
W Clinton Ave N Cornelia Ave to N
Blythe Ave 69.6 73.2 3.6 Yes Yes
W Clinton Ave N Blythe Ave to N
Brawley Ave 71.3 74.3 3.0 Yes Yes
W Clinton Ave N Brawley Ave to N
Valentine Ave 69.8 74.0 4.2 Yes Yes
W Clinton Ave N Valentine Ave to N
Marks Ave 70.0 75.1 5.1 Yes Yes
W Clinton Ave N Marks Ave to W
Vassar Ave 74.6 79.4 5.0 No No
N Garfield Ave W Herndon Ave to W
Bullard Ave No Data 62.7 N/A No No
3.11 NOISE
3.11-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 50 FEET DBA2
EXISTING CUMULATIVE PLUS
PROJECT CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
N Garfield Ave W Bullard Ave to W
Barstow Ave No Data 63.4 N/A No No
N Garfield Ave W Barstow Ave to W
Shaw Ave No Data 65.5 N/A Yes Yes
N Garfield Ave W Shaw Ave
Gettysburg Ave
to W No Data 63.9 N/A No No
N Garfield Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave No Data 63.5 N/A No No
N Garfield Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave No Data 63.0 N/A No No
N Parkway Drive N Herndon Ave to W
Herndon Ave No Data 62.9 N/A No No
N Grantland
Ave
N Parkway Drive to W
Bullard Ave 64.8 66.9 2.1 Yes No
N Grantland
Ave
W Bullard Ave to W
Barstow Ave 67.1 70.8 3.7 Yes Yes
N Grantland
Ave
W Barstow Ave to W
Shaw Ave 67.8 70.6 2.8 Yes No
N Grantland
Ave
W Shaw Ave to W
Gettysburg Ave 63.2 71.6 8.4 Yes Yes
N Grantland
Ave
W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 65.5 76.1 10.6 Yes Yes
N Grantland
Ave
W Ashlan Ave to W
Dakota Ave 64.3 74.7 10.4 Yes Yes
N Grantland
Ave
W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave No Data 75.8 N/A Yes Yes
N Grantland
Ave
W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 63.1 74.4 11.3 Yes Yes
N Bryan Ave W Bullard Ave
Barstow Ave
to W No Data 69.8 N/A No No
N Bryan Ave W Barstow Ave to W
Shaw Ave No Data 69.4 N/A No No
N Bryan Ave W Shaw Ave
Gettysburg Ave
to W 59.7 69.8 11.1 Yes Yes
N Bryan Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 63.4 72.0 8.6 Yes Yes
N Bryan Ave W Ashlan Ave to W
Dakota Ave 60.9 71.1 10.2 Yes Yes
N Bryan Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 58.3 66.0 7.7 Yes Yes
N Bryan Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 54.0 64.3 10.3 No No
NOISE 3.11
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-23
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 50 FEET DBA2
EXISTING CUMULATIVE PLUS
PROJECT CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
N Hayes Ave W Santa Ana Ave to W
Gettysburg Ave 62.8 72.2 9.4 Yes Yes
N Hayes Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 60.8 72.8 12.0 Yes Yes
N Hayes Ave W Ashlan
Dakota Ave
Ave to W 59.7 69.0 9.3 Yes Yes
N Hayes Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 59.2 68.8 9.6 Yes Yes
N Hayes Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 58.0 68.3 10.3 Yes Yes
N Polk Ave W Shaw Ave
Gettysburg Ave
to W 68.1 74.9 6.8 Yes Yes
N Polk Ave W Gettysburg Ave to
W Ashlan Ave 64.1 72.8 8.7 Yes Yes
N Polk Ave W Ashland Ave to W
Dakota Ave 64.7 71.7 7.0 Yes Yes
N Polk Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 64.2 70.5 6.3 Yes Yes
N Polk Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 63.0 70.2 7.2 Yes Yes
N Cornelia Ave N Parkway Drive to W
Gettysburg Ave 66.1 68.5 2.4 Yes No
N Cornelia Ave W Gettysburg to W
Ashlan Ave 66.1 71.3 5.2 Yes Yes
N Cornelia Ave W Ashland Ave to W
Dakota Ave 67.4 69.7 2.3 Yes No
N Cornelia Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 63.5 66.1 2.6 Yes No
N Cornelia Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 66.0 69.3 3.3 Yes Yes
N Blythe Ave W Ashlan Ave to W
Dakota Ave 65.5 68.5 3.0 Yes Yes
N Blythe Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 62.6 65.0 2.4 No No
N Blythe Ave W Shields Ave
Clinton Ave
to W 62.7 63.6 0.9 No No
N Brawley Ave N Parkway Drive to W
Dakota Ave 64.0 70.1 6.1 Yes Yes
N Brawley Ave W Dakota Ave to W
Shields Ave 63.9 69.3 5.4 Yes Yes
N Brawley Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 63.6 71.0 7.4 Yes Yes
3.11 NOISE
3.11-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 50 FEET DBA2
EXISTING CUMULATIVE PLUS
PROJECT CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
N Valentine Ave N Parkway Drive to W
Shields Ave 60.0 66.2 6.2 Yes Yes
N Valentine Ave W Shields Ave to W
Clinton Ave 59.1 65.7 6.6 Yes Yes
NOISE 3.11
NOTE:
1 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED AT 5 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. 2 NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED FROM CENTERLINE OF SUBJECT ROADWAY. 3 SEE TABLE 3.11-4.
4 SIGNIFICANT IF RESULTS IN A 3 DB INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AND EXCEEDS STANDARD IN TABLE 3.11-4.
SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, SEPTEMBER 2020.
As shown in Table 3.11 -10, existing plus project plus cumulative traffic conditions will result in significant increases in ambient noise levels along the following road segments:
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shaw Avenue are expected to range between 69 to 82 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 4 to 10 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Ashlan Avenue are expected to range between 63 and 74 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 and 13 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between 65 to 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 to 7 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Clinton Avenue are expected to range between 61 and 79 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 to 11 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Grantland Avenue are expected to range between 67 and 7 6 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 2 to 11dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Bryan Avenue are expected to range between 64 to 72 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increase s ranging between 8 to 11 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Hayes Avenue are expected to range between 64 to 72 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 9 to 12 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Polk Avenue are expected to range between 71 to 75 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 6 to 9 dBA CNEL.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-25
3.11 NOISE
• Traffic noise levels along N. Cornelia Avenue are expected to range between 66 to 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 2 to 5 dBA CNEL.
Based upon Policy NS-1-j of the City’s General Plan, which is used as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB L dn or CNEL above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan Update (or in this case , the modeled increase in traffic noise levels due to the project). Future traffic noise is anticipated to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels on existing sensitive receptors, ranging in increases between 3.0dBA to 13.0 dBA at the roadway segments listed above. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact.
RAIL NOISE IMPACTS (NON-CEQA ISSUE)
The Specific Plan does not contain any policies or features that alter rail activities; as such, rail noise would not increase as a result of the Specific Plan . Noise associated with the existing UPRR line is expected to remain the same or end altogether. The California High-Speed Train Project, which is currently under construction east of SR 99 will introduce more noise into the eastern portion of the Plan Area. According to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report prepared for the Merced to Fresno Section of the High Speed Train (CAHST, FRA 2012), trains in the Fresno area are expected to result in noise levels between 65 to 76 dB L dn at nearby receptors. All of the receptors which would be moderately or severely impacted by the High-Speed Train are located outside of the Plan Area to the east. High-Speed Train noise is not expected to result in significant noise impacts within the Plan Area.
AGRICULTURAL NOISE IMPACTS (NON-CEQA ISSUE)
The Plan Area is currently exposed to agricultural noise including field and crop maintenance, hauling, and crop dusting from small aircraft. The noise from these sources mostly occurs within the confines of the agricultural fields and is seasonal. A characteristic of agricultural noise is sh ort periods of noisy activities separated by long periods of little or no noise -producing activities. The FAA regulates noise associated with aircraft once they leave the ground. FAA regulations require that all aircraft maintain a height of at least 500 feet above ground or objects on the ground, like a house. A crop duster can go below this height only to operate to apply chemicals and for no other reason.
Future development of the Plan Area may result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to agricultural noise. However, noise associated with crop cultivation is specifically exempt from compliance with the noise regulations presented in Section 15-2506 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code.
CONCLUSION
As described above, buildout of the Plan Area would result in substantial increases in ambient traffic noise levels resulting in potentially significant impacts to existing and proposed receptors. With
3.11-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
sorbed
SOURCE
NOISE
BARRIER ,,.,···
...............
tronsmitted
NOISE 3.11
respect to future sensitive receptors, noise levels in the Plan Area are expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL in most areas where shielding from traffic noise is not provided. Additionally, future traffic noise is anticipated to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels on existing sensitive receptors. Of the 90 roadway segments analyzed in Table 3.11 -10, 58 segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, with noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL.
For these reasons, future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement mitigation measures that are specifically intended to ensure compliance with the City of Fresno noise standards and minimize the impact associated with the substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1 would require the implementation of performance standards based on project-specific acoustical analysis for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to significant exterior community noise levels from transportation, which may include noise walls and/or berms, or setbacks.
Walls/Berms: As shown in the diagram below , when a noise barrier is inserted between a noise source and receiver, the direct noise path along the line of sight between the two is interrupted.
Some of the acoustical energy will be transmitted through the barrier material and continue to the source, although at a reduced level. The amount of this reduction depends on the material’s mass and rigidity, and is called the transmission loss (TL), which is expressed in decibels. To be effective, noise barriers need to be solid, without holes and cracks. Concrete walls and earthen berms tend to provide the most noise attenuation, but other materials can be used. The exact amount of reduction provided by a barrier will range depending on the material, location and height of the barrier but barriers can be used to mitigate significant noise impacts to sensitive receptors in outdoor activity areas. Because the Plan Area is flat, noise walls and/or berms would be highly effective.
SOURCE: CALTRANS 2013A
Setbacks: Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source. The movement of vehicles makes the noise source of the sound appear to be emanate from a line rather than from a point when viewed over a time interval. Noise levels associated with vehicle traffic ar e reduced by 3 dB for every Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-27
3.11 NOISE
doubling of distance from the receiver. For this reason, increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver can be used to avoid significant impacts related to traffic noise at sensitive receptors within the Plan Area.
Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1 would reduce traffic noise levels to a less -than-significant level.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Future project proponent(s) for development projects in the Plan Area which involve residential or other noise sensitive uses shall implement performance standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels from transportation sources above 65 dB L dn or CNEL, as shown on Exhibit G: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Noise Contours of the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study prepared by MD Acoustics (dated June 2024, Appendix F of the Recirculated Draft EIR ), or as identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on the target acceptable noise levels set in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).
If future exterior noise levels are expected to exceed the applicable standards presented in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR), the mitigation measure presented below shall be implemented, as applicable. A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard.
• Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
The aforementioned measure is not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.
Impact 3.11 -2: Specific Plan implementation wo uld not substantially increase noise levels associated with construction and demolition activities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 3.11-11. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured 50 feet from the noise source would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet. At 200 feet from the noise source, the noise level would reduce to 74
3.11-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
dBA. At 400 feet from the noise source, the noise level would reduce by another 6 dBA to 68 dBA.
Contractors are required to comply with the City of Fresno’s Noise Ordinance during construction , as described in Section 10-109.
TABLE 3.11-11: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
TYPE1 NOISE LEVELS (DBA) AT 50 FEET
EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
EARTH MOVING
Compactors (rollers) 73 – 76
Front Loaders 73 – 84
Backhoes 73 – 92
Tractors 75 – 95
Scrapers, Graders 78 – 92
Pavers 85 – 87
Trucks 81 – 94
MATERIALS HANDLING
Concrete Mixers 72 – 87
Concrete Pumps 81 – 83
Cranes (Moveable) 72 – 86
Cranes (Derrick) 85 – 87
STATIONARY
Pumps 68 – 71
Generators 71 – 83
Compressors 75 – 86
IMPACT EQUIPMENT
Saws 71 – 82
Vibrators 68 – 82
SOURCE: REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
Future development projects in the Plan Area would result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commute and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Truck traffic associated with project construction should be limited to within the permitted construction hours, as listed in the City’s Municipal Code.
Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum of 87 dBA L
max at 50 fee t from passing trucks, causing possible short- term intermittent annoyances, the effect on ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over one hour or 24 hours.
In other words, the changes in noise levels over 1 hour or 24 hours attributabl e to passing trucks would not be perceptible to the normal human ear. Therefore, short -term construction -related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport on local streets leading to the project site would result in a less than signifi cant impact on noise-sensitive receptors along the access routes.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-29
3.11 NOISE
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The site preparation phase, which includes grading and paving, tends to generate the highest noise levels, since the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders.
Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.
Future development projects in the Plan Area are expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor grader, and water and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to reach between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet f rom the active construction area for the grading phase. The maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be approximately 87 dBA L max at 50 feet from the scraper in operation. Each bulldozer would also generate approximat ely 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. The worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA L max at a distance of 50 f eet from an active construction area. Noise reduction potential will be project and site specific.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during grading phase. A likely worst -case cons truction noise scenario during grading assumes the use of a grader, a dozer, and two (2) excavators, two (2) backhoes and a scrapper operating at 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.
Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unmitigated noise levels at 50 feet have the potential to reach 90 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower and range between 85 to 90 dBA. For this reason, the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study identifies Mitigation Measure
3.11-2 to minimize construction noise impacts associated with the buildout of the Specific Plan, which has been incorporated as a mitigation measure. It is also noted that construction within the Plan Area would be subject to the City’s Municipal Noise Code. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to the Plan Area would not be subject to construction noise levels in excess of the City’s standards, resulting in a less than significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11 -2: The project proponent(s) and/or construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, that buildout of the Specific Plan complies with the following:
• Truck traffic associated with project construction shall be limited to within the permitted construction hours, as listed in the City’s Municipal Code above.
3.11 -30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
• Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps shall be located at least 300 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible.
• Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. The use of manufacturer certified mufflers would generally reduce the construction equipment noise by 8 to 10 dBA. • Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. • Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.
Impact 3.11 -3: Specific Plan implementation wo uld not substantially increase noise vibration association with construction activities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The effects of vibration on structures have been the subject of extensive research. The Federal Transit Administration has compiled data regarding the vibration levels for various construction equipment and activities and is detailed in Table 3.11-12.
The Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manu al for the California Department of Transportation has various recommended vibration thresholds for various types of projects and land uses. According to the Konan Vibration Criteria for Historic and Sensitive Buildings, the criteria for transient vibration sources should not exceed 0.3 peak particle velocity (PPV) (Section 6 – Structures, Table 11). In addition, 0.035 inches per second PPV is barely perceptive.
T
ABLE 3.11-12: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY @ 25 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
APPROXIMATE VIBRATION LEVEL
LV (VDB) @ 25 FEET
Pile Drive (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 (upper range) 105
0.170 (typical) 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drill 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
SOURCE: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES, MAY 2006 Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. Typical development projects in the Plan Area would not likely require the use of equipment such as pile Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-31
3.11 NOISE
drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. For example, t he primary vibration source during most future construction may be from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet, which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage. As shown in Table 3.11-9, a PPV of 0.20 is the threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal dwellings. It also the level at which ground-borne vibration are annoying to people in buildings. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in ground-borne vibration of 0.20 inches per second PPV or higher at sensitive receptors.
For buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, the distance of the construction equipment would likely be at least 10 feet or more from any existing structure. At a distance of 10 feet , a large bulldozer would yield a worst -case 0.244 inches per second PPV which may be perceptible for short periods of time during site preparation of the southeastern corner of the project site , but no damage is expected. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11 -3 would further reduce construction related groundborne vibration. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: For future projects which would require the use of p ile drivers within 200 feet of existing buildings or vibratory rollers within 50 feet of existing buildings , an additional site- and project -specific analysis shall be conducted by a noise and vibration specialist prior to project approval. The analysis shall evaluate potential ground-borne vibration impacts to existing structures and sensitive receptors , and shall also r ecommend additional mitigation measures , as necessary. The recommendations of the site- and project-specific analysis shall be implemented by the project proponent(s), to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.
Impact 3.11 -4: Specific Plan implementation wo uld not substantially increase stationary noise at sensitive receptors. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Specific Plan 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 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 and commercial uses. Typical stationary noise sources and associated noise levels as measured 10-feet from the source are presented in Table 3.11-13.
Due to the suburban/rural nature of the Plan Area, future development of the Plan Area will result in a substantial increase in existing ambient noise conditions. Increases in ambient noise levels associated with existing and future stationary noise impacts may result in potentially significant impacts. However, enforcement of the Sections 10-105 through 10-109 of the City’s Noise Ordinance and analysis of noise producing projects, along with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-4,
3.11-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to the Plan Area would not be subject to stationary noise levels in excess of the City’s standards. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
TABLE 3.11-13: TYPICAL STATIONARY NOISE LEVELS
TYPE NOISE LEVELS (DBA) AT 10 FEET1
Parking Lot Noise 50 – 75
HVAC 55 – 100
Property Maintenance 75 – 95
Trash Truck 85 – 90
Loading/Unloading 65 – 82
Recreational Noise 50 – 90
Amplified Music 85 – 105
Car Wash 85 – 105
Event Venue 65 – 75
Idling Heavy Traffic 72
NOTE: 1. THE NOISE RANGES PRESENTED ARE INTENDED TO GIVE A GENERAL IDEA OF TYPICAL URBAN /SUBURBAN STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES. DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PATRONS AND THE SPECIFIC ACTIVITY, I.E. OUTDOOR WINERY CONCERT VS. A ROCK BAND, NOISE LEVELS WILL VARY.
SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2020.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11 -4: In order to reduce the potential for stationary noise impacts, development projects in the Plan Area shall implement the following measures:
• Avoid the placement of new noise producing uses in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses; • Apply noise level performance standards provided in Table 9-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR) to proposed new noise producing uses; and • Require new noise -sensitive uses in near proximity to noise -producing facilities include mitigation measures that would ensure compliance with noise performance standards in Table 9-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).
Impact 3.11 -5: Specific Plan implementation would not substantially increase ambient interior noise at future sensitive receptors . (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Based on the data provided in the EPA’s Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9 -79-100, Nov 1979), standard homes in California provide at least 12 dBA of noise exterior to interior noise attenuation with windows open and 20 dBA with windows closed. Therefore, residences would need to be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL (45 dBA + 20 dBA = 65 dBA) to potentially exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows closed. A windows closed condition is defined as: the interior noise level with the windows closed. Upgrades are required for residential structures that would experience interior noise levels exceeding the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-33
3.11 NOISE
when windows are closed (e.g. higher grade of insulation in outdoor walls, and/or double-paned windows and air condition units).
As discussed in Impact 3.11-1, the existing and future traffic noise levels anticipated from implementation of proposed Specific Plan would result in exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA, which could result in the interior noise levels at future land uses exceeding the City’s interior noise level standards of 45dBA, as presented in 3.11-5. To reduce the interior noise impacts, site-specific noise analyses will be required for future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.11-5. The site-specific noise analyses will be required to fine- tune and finalize noise reduction features and must demonstrate the interior noise level will not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise limit. Potential noise reduction features may include a “windows closed” condition and possibly upgraded windows with increased STC ratings for doors and windows.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11 -5 would ensure that the future land uses within the Specific Plan would not be subject to interior noise levels in excess of the City’s standards. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-5: Prior to approval, site- and project-specific noise analyses development projects under the proposed Specific Plan shall be completed and submitted to the City in order to fine-tune and finalize noise reduction features. The site-specific noise analyses must demonstrate the interior noise level will not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise limit.
A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard, which includes:
• Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
• Utilize façades with substantial weight and insulation. • Install sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends. • Install mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.
The aforementioned measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.
3.11 -34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NOISE 3.11
Impact 3.11-6 : Specific Plan implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport or aircraft noise. (Less than Significant)
There are no airports located within the Plan Area and noise c ontours associated with airports in the vicinity of the Plan Area are not expected to encroach into the Plan Area (City of Fresno 2014).
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. The Plan Area will however, continue to be affected by fly-over noise associated with the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, the Fresno-Chand ler Downtown airport, and the Sierra Sky Park Airport.
However, airport noise and aircraft noise are not expected to result in significant impacts in the Plan Area. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-35
3.11 NOISE
This page left intentionally blank.
3.11-36 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan c:::J
• • @--
••••
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Long Term Measurement (24-hour)
Short Term Measurement (10-minute)
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Noise Measurement Locations
FIGURE 3.11-1.
CITY OF FRESNO
WES
T AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: MD Acoustics, Fresno WANSP Noise Impact Study. Map date: July 15, 2024.
F R E S N O
Fresno-Clovis
Regional Wastewater
3.11 NOISE
This page left intentionally blank.
3.11-38 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1111
1111
1111
1111
••••
L E G E N D
Roadway Emission Lines
Lev
els in dB(A)
60 - 65
65 - 70
70 - 75
>= 75
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Existing Roadway Noise Level Contours (CNEL)
FIGURE 3.11-2.
CITY OF FRESNO
WES
T AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: MD Acoustics, Fresno WANSP Noise Impact Study. Map date: July 15, 2024.
3.11 NOISE
This page left intentionally blank.
3.11-40 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan c::::I
----
@--
••••
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Railroad Emission Lines
Le
vels in dB(A)
60 - 65
65 - 70
70 - 75
>= 75
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Union Pacific Railroad Noise Level Contours (CNEL)
FIGURE 3.11-3.
CITY OF FRESNO
WES
T AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: MD Acoustics, Fresno WANSP Noise Impact Study. Map date: July 15, 2024.
3.11 NOISE
This page left intentionally blank.
3.11-42 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ----
QJ
> <i
~
'-
"' ~
z
••••
L E G E N D
Roadway Emission Lines
Lev
els in dB(A)
60 - 65
65 - 70
70 - 75
>= 75
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Noise Level Contours (CNEL) FIGURE 3.11-4.
CITY OF FRESNO
WES
T AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: MD Acoustics, Fresno WANSP Noise Impact Study. Map date: July 15, 2024.
3.11 NOISE
This page left intentionally blank.
3.11-44 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-1
The purpose of this EIR section is to analyze and disclose the anticipated growth in population that would result from plan implementation, analyze the plan ’s consistency with relevant planning documents and policies related to population and housing, and recommend mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the significance of potential impacts . Information in this section is based on information provided by the City of Fresno , site survey, ground and aerial photographs, and the following reference materials:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• City of Fresno Housing Element (City of Fresno, 2024); • City of Fresno, Chapter 15, Citywide Development Code (City of Fresno, Adopted December 2015);
• US Census data (U.S. Census data, 2024);
• California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates (E-5 Reports) (California Department of Finance, 2019).
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) . The portion of this comment letter which relate s to this topic is addressed within this section . Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
DEMOGRAPHICS
POPULATION TRENDS
U.S. Census data indicates that the c ity of Fresno experienced moderate population growth from 1990 to 2000 , increasing from 354,091 to 427,719 persons at an annual average increase of 2.1 percent as shown in Table 3.12 -1. During the decade from 2000 to 2010, the rate of growth continued at an annual average increase of 1.6 percent, reaching a total population of 494,665 in 2010. The city’s population has increased during this decade to a population of 542,012 in 2019 and is now estimated at 546,971 in 2024.
TABLE 3.12-1: POPULATION GROWTH – FRESNO
YEAR POPULATION
ANNUAL AVERAGE CHANGE
1990 354,091 --
2000 427,719 2.1%
2010 494,665 1.6%
2015 522,369 1.1%
2020 542,206 0.8%
2024 546,971 0.2%
SOURCE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, E-4 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2001-2010, WITH 2000 & 2010 CENSUS COUNTS AND E-5 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2011-2020, WITH 2010 CENSUS BENCHMARK.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
HOUSING STOCK
Table 3.12-2 summarizes the growth of the c ity of Fresno ’s housing stock from the years 2000 to 2019, based on information from the US Census and California Department of Finance. The number of housing units has increased from 171,288 in 2010 to 180,632 in 2019, an average annual increase of 0.6 percent.
TABLE 3.12 -2: HOUSING UNIT GROWTH – FRESNO
YEAR HOUSING UNITS ANNUAL AVERAGE CHANGE
2000 149,053 --
2010 171,288 1.5%
2015 176,915 0.7%
2020 184,226 0.8%
2024 190,078 0.8%
SOURCE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, E-8 HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2000-2010 AND E-5 HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2011-2020, WITH 2010 CENSUS BENCHMARK.
PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT
The average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in Fresno is 2.96 (California Department of Finance, 2024).
JOBS : HOUSING BALANCE
As described in Section 1.3 of the City’s General Plan, implementation of the Fresno General Plan (General Plan) is realistically expected to result in the construction of 76,000 new residential dwellings by the 2035 planning horizon to arrive at a total of 267,000 housing units and a population of 771,000. The General Plan population projection assumes total buildout of all available residential lands in the city will not be reached by the year 203 5, in which case substantial population and housing growth will continue. According to the General Plan, at the Horizon Year 2035, the General Plan can accommodate 0.48 jobs per new resident, approximately equivalent to the current percentage of the city’s population in the labor force (46 percent according the 2010 U.S. Census).
At General Plan horizon, the SOI could accommodate approximately a total of 108,000 new jobs above current levels, based on 0.48 jobs per 226,000 new residents anticipated by 2035. At General Plan Buildout, well after 2035, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident, roughly equivalent to the current percentage of the city’s population in the labor force (46 percent according to the 2010 US Census). At General Plan buildout, the SOI could accommodate approximately a total of 189,500 new jobs above current levels based on 0.45 jobs per 425,000 new residents anticipated.
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
As described in the General Plan , the city ’s growth is realistically expected to result in the construction of 76,000 new residential dwellings by the 2035 planning horizon to arrive at a total of 267,000 housing units and a population of 771,000. The General Plan residential development projection anticipates that the city will continue to develop beyond the General Plan Horizon. The POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-3
city will grow into the remaining portions of the SOI that were not developed during the horizon of the General Plan. Full Buildout of this SOI is anticipated to occur well after 2035.
3.12.2 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
Senate Bill 330 “The Housing Crisis Act of 2019” is a statewide bill signed into law on October 9, 2019. It is intended to reduce the time it takes to approve housing developments in California. SB 330 declared a statewide housing emergency to originally remain in effect until January 1, 2025, but is now extended to 2030 by SB 8 (signed 2021) . During that period, affected cities and counties would:
• Downzoning certain parcels;
• Imposing a moratorium on development;
• Imposing design review standards that are not objective.
The State Housing Element Law (Government Code Chapter 1143, Article 10.6, §§ 65580 and 65589) requires each city and county to adopt a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing developme nt to meet that need. The amount of housing that must be accounted for in a local housing element is determined through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the RHNA process, the State gives each region a number representing th e amount of housing needed, based on existing need and expected population growth.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan articulates the community's vision of its long -term physical form and development. The Fresno G eneral Plan is comprehensive in scope and represents the city's expression of quality of life and community values. General plans are prepared under a mandate from the State of California, which requires that each city and county prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its jurisdiction and any adjacent related lands. State law requires general plans to address seven mandated components: circulation, conservation, housing, land use, noise, open space, and safety. The Fresno General Plan population, housing, and growth policies relevant to this EIR are identified below.
URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective UF-1. Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.
Policy Uf-1-a: Diverse Neighborhoods. Support development projects that provide Fresno with a diversity of urban and suburban neighborhood opportunities.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
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 transit-oriented, mixed- use corridors 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-d: Range of Housing Types. Provide for diversity and variation of building types, densities, and scales of development in order to reinforce the identity of individual neighborhoods, foster a variety of market-based options for living and working to suit a large range of income levels, and further affordable housing opportunities throughout the city.
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 lifest yle attractive to Fresnans.
Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.
Policy UF-1-f: Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts and development standards to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan.
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 major BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.
Policy UF-12-a: BRT Corridors. Design land uses and integrate development site plans along BRT corridors, with transit -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-c: Local-Serving Neighborhood Centers. Design Neighborhood Centers for local services and amenities that build upon the character and identity of surrounding neighborhoods and communities.
POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-5
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 or adjacent sites. Ensure land use compatibility between mixed-use districts in Activity Centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Policy UF-12-e: Access to Activity Centers. Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoption 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. Mixed-Use in Activity Centers. Adopt a new Development Code which includes use regulations and standards to allow for mixed -uses and shared parking facilities.
Policy UF-12-g: Impacts on Surrounding Uses. Impacts on Surrounding Uses. Establish design standards and buffering requirements for high -intensity Activity Centers to protect surrounding residential uses from increased impacts from traffic noise and vehicle emissions, visual intrusion, interruption of view and air movement, and encroachment upon solar access.
Policy UF-12-h: Parking Standards for Shared Parking. Parking Standards for Shared Parking.
Explore opportunities to provide shared parking within mixed -use designations to reduce the need to construct large parking lots or structures needed for peak use times only.
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.
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.
LAND USE ELEMENT
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 re-developable land within the City Limits where urban services are available by considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
Policy LU-2-b: Infill Development for Affordable Housing. Establish a priority infill incentive program for residential 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-2-c: Infill Design Toolkit. Incorporate standards in the Development Code to preserve the existing residential quality of established neighborhoods.
Objective LU-4. Enhance existing residential neighborhoods through regulations, code enforcement, and compatible infill development.
Policy LU-4-a: Neighborhood Nuisance Abatement. Continue proactive and responsive code enforcement and nuisance abatement programs to improve the attractiveness of residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-2-b: Neighborhood Reinvestment. Promote and consider partnerships with lending institutions that provide a variety of financing alternatives and adhere to the provisions of the federal Community Reinvestment Act.
Policy LU-2-c: Housing Task Force. Establish an interagency housing task force to coordinate the housing programs of the City with similar programs of other local jurisdictions and the Fresno Housing Authority to develop a coordinated affordable housing implementation plan.
Objective LU-5. Plan for a diverse housing stock that will support balanced urban growth, and make efficient use of resources and public facilities.
Policy LU-5-a: Low Density Residential Uses. Promote low density residential uses only where there are established neighborhoods with semi-rural or estate characteristics.
Policy LU-5-b: Medium-Low Density Residential Uses. Promote medium -low density residential uses to preserve existing uses of that nature or provide a transition between low and medium density residential areas.
Policy LU-5-c: Medium Density Residential Uses. Promote medium density residential uses to maximize efficient use of residential property through a wide range of densities.
Policy LU-5-d: Medium-High Density Residential Uses. Promote medium -high density residential uses to optimize use of available or planned public facilities and services and to provide housing opportunities with convenient access to employment, shopping, services, and transportation.
Policy LU-5-e: Urban Neighborhood Residential Uses. Promote urban neighborhood residential uses to support compact communities and Complete Neighborhoods that include community facilities, walkable access to parkland and commercial services, and transit stops.
POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-7
Policy LU-5-f: High Density Residential Uses. Promote high -density residential uses to support Activity Centers and BRT Corridors, and walkable access to transit stops.
Policy LU-5-g: Scale and Character of New Development. Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes.
Policy LU-5-h: Housing Offering Amenities. Support housing that offers residents a range of amenities, including public and private open space, landscaping, and recreation facilities with direct access to commercial services, public transit, and community gathering spaces.
Policy LU-5-i: Housing for Seniors. Facilitate the development of senior housing projects that are accessible to public transportation and services.
Policy LU-5-j: Campus-Centered Communities. Encourage development of campus-centered communities by focusing growth around existing and planned academic facilities and by directing infrastructure to those areas.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Regional Goal 1 Facilitate and encourage the provision of a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of residents.
Policy 1.1 Provide adequate sites for new housing development through appropriate planned land use designations, zoning, and development standards to accommodate the regional housing needs for the 2023-2031 planning period.
Policy 1.2 Facilitate development of new housing for all economic segments of the community, including extremely low, very low -, low -, moderate -, and above moderate - income households.
Policy 1.3 Continue to direct new growth to urban areas in order to protect natural resources.
Policy 1.4 Promote balanced and orderly growth to minimize unnecessary development costs adding to the cost of housing.
Policy 1.6 Promote development of higher-density housing, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development in areas located along major transportation corridors and transit routes and served by the necessary infrastructure.
Policy 1.7 Ensure the adequate provision of water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, public facilities, and other infrastructure necessary to serve new housing.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
Policy 1.9 Encourage development around employment centers that provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing job opportunities with housing types.
Regional Goal 2 Encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing.
Policy 2.1 Support innovative public, private, and nonprofit efforts in the development of affordable housing, particularly for the special needs groups.
Regional Goal 3 Improve and maintain the quality of housing and residential neighborhoods in Fresno County.
Policy 3.1 Preserve the character, scale, and quality of established residential neighborhoods by protecting them from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities.
Policy 3.5 Invest in public service facilities (streets, curb, gutter, drainage, and utilities) to encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods.
Regional Goal 4 Provide a range of housing types and services to meet the needs of individuals and households with special needs.
Policy 4.4 Encourage development of affordable housing units to accommodate large households (three and four bedroom).
Local Goal 7 Protect Fresno residents from displacement and prevent and reduce homelessness.
Policy 7.4 Support the preservation of existing mobile home parks throughout the city as an important source of affordable housing.
3.12.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the standards established by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines , the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on population and housing if it will:
• Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure);
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-9
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.12-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not induce unplanned substantial population growth. (Less than Significant) The proposed Specific Plan would be expected to increase the population of the c ity of Fresno through the future development of a mixed -use, commercial and residential development.
However, the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and development of a diverse housing stock.
The Plan Area does not currently have commercial amenities, forcing residents to travel east of State Route 99 for retail services. The Plan Area also lacks a complete roadway network and parkland.
The Specific Plan would allow for the future development of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area including schools, fire stations, and places of worship. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would allow for approximately 338.95 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.
Based on the General Plan Housing Element estimate of approximately 2.9 6 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Specific Plan is estimated to accommodate 246,061 total residents in the city of Fresno at buildout. Population growth by itself is not considered a significant environmental impact.
However, development of housing, infrastructure, and facilities and services to serve this growth can have significant environmental impacts through land conversion, commitment of resources, and other mechanisms.
The proposed Specific Plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (i.e., by proposed new unplanned homes) or indirectly (i.e., by the extension of roads or other infrastructure). As part of the proposed Specific Plan, 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 proposed land use plan utilizes the existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the Plan Area. Some of the designation changes include: Low Density Residential (1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre [DU/AC]), Medium Low Density Residential (3.5 to 6 DU/AC), Medium Density Residential (5 to 12 DU/AC), Medium High Density Residential (12 to 16 DU/AC), Urban Neighborhood Residential (16 to 30 DU/AC), High Density Residential (30 to 45 DU/AC), Community Commercial (1.0 maximum floor-area-ratio [FAR]), Recreation Commercial (0.5 maximum FAR), General Commercial (2.0 maximum FAR), Regional Commercial (80 DU/AC and 1.0 maximum FAR), Office (2.0 maximum FAR), Business Park (1.0 maximum FAR), Light Industrial (1.5 maximum FAR), Corridor/Center Mixed Use
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
(75 DU/AC and 1.5 maximum FAR), Neighborhood Mixed Use (64 DU/AC and 1.5 maximum FAR), Regional Mixed Use ( 90 DU /AC and 2.0 maximum FAR), Pocket Park, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Open Space, Ponding Basin, Public Facility, Church, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, High School, and Fire Station. The City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS -1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the city which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding city zoning designation. The parcels that are currently within the county will not be rezoned. Instead, 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 not apply to the parcel.
The proposed Specific Plan land uses could result in an increase in the number of residential units in the Plan Area and an increase in the amount of non-residential square footage. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan could increase the number of housing units by 483 DU (including a 10,482 DU reduction in the residential category, a 339 DU increase in the commercial category, and an 10,630 DU increase in the mixed -use category). The proposed Specific Plan could increase the amount of non-residential SF by 13,286,281 SF (including a 832,432 SF decrease in the commercial category, a 3,799,793 SF increase in the employment category, and a 10,318,921 SF increase in the mixed use category). See Table 2.0-1 of Chapter 2.0 for the existing General Plan land use acreages for the Plan Area.
Given the wide density ranges specified in the General Plan for residential and mixed use development, the proposed land use designations for this Specific Plan do not vary substantially from the existing General Plan Land use designations. Therefore, the Specific Plan does not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. This is considered a less than significant impact in this regard.
The Specific Plan also does not induce substantial unplanned growth indirectly (through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). Roads and infrastructure would be developed throughout the Plan Area to provide internal circulation and utilities to the proposed development and would not extend outside the Plan boundaries. Furthermore, proposed growth and annexation of the City’s SOI has been accounted for within the General Plan 10-year planning horizon and would therefore, not induce unplanned growth through the extension of city roads and other infrastructure. This is considered a less than significant impact in this regard.
It is also noted that an important outcome of the proposed Specific Plan is to increase housing opportunity and stability for existing and future Plan Area residents, which is an important tool related to environmental justice. The increase of housing variety in a neighborhood offers a greater range of pricing points for entry, with accessory dwelling units and missing middle housing types POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-11
typically being more affordable. Section 5.7.B of the Specific Plan discusses housing opportunities and stability.
Overall, the Specific Plan is consistent with the regional growth projections prepared by FCOG .
Additionally, the General Plan and housing densities requirements would ensure that the population growth associated with the Plan is consistent with the City’s growth management requirements.
Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Impact 3.12-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing. (Less than significant) The proposed Specific Plan sites where new development is focused are mostly vacant and would not result in significant displacements of residents or the loss of existing dwelling units. Even though several sites may be razed, redeveloped or converted as a result of new development, the addition of homes at all market levels will offset the loss of the few homes that exist. The proposed Specific Plan would also focus new development onto infill and vacant sites located throughout the Plan Area. New development in the Plan Area could result in the loss of a limited number of dwelling units as future sites are redeveloped to a more efficient mixed use or residential project. However, any loss of existing units that may occur as a result of future infill development is not expected to be significant. Overall, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could result in the development of 83,129 additional residential units in the proposed specific Plan A rea, primarily complementary in nature to existing single family residential currently existing in the Plan Area.
Overall, construction and operation of the proposed Specific Plan would not remove a substantial number of existing housing units within the c ity of Fresno, and would not displace substantial numbers of residents. Therefore, this impact is considered a less than significant.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
This page left intentionally blank.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
This section describes and evaluates potential impacts associated with the provision of police protection, fire protection and emergency services, schools, parks, and other services for the proposed project. The information in this section is derived primarily from:
• City of Fresno Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update (City of Fresno, 2016);
• Fresno Parks Master Plan (City of Fresno, 2017);
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 8, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement (2016-2018).
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019) , Central Grizzlies Youth Football & Cheer (August 2, 2019), and Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portions of these comment letters which relate to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POLICE PROTECTION
The Fresno Police Department is responsible for enforcement of state and city laws, investigation of crimes, apprehension of criminals, reducing traffic collisions, maintenance of ongoing crime prevention programs, and building ties with the community and other local law enforcement agencies. The Police Department is divided into four divisions—the patrol division, the investigation division, the administrative division, and the support division. The Chief of Police supervises all divisions. As of July 12, 2024, the Fresno Police Department employs 1,341FTE authorized personnel with 1,234 filled positions , including 926 FTE sworn safety members approved positions w ith 873 sworn filled positions and 415 authorized FTE civilians positions with 361 filled positions .1 There are no police department facilities within the Plan Area.
The Patrol Division covers an area of 104.8 square miles provided by officers traveling by vehicle, bicycle, horse (mounted patrol), helicopter (Skywatch), and on foot. The Patrol Division includes five districts with individual needs and responses to crime. There are 615 staff in the patrol division as of July 18, 2024 with 116 personnel dedicated to the southwest district, 108 in the northwest district, 115 in the southeast district, 109 in the northeast district, and 112 in the central district. In addition, the Police Department has gang focused tactical teams to provide focused and proactive crime suppression as a citywide resource for the patrol division. For example, 25 sworn personnel are assigned to the multi-agency gang enforcement consortium (MAGEC). 1 Personal communication with Brian Pierce, Police Lieutenant for the Fresno Police Department, July 12, 2024.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-1
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
During 2020, Fresno Police Department received 385,177 emergency “911” calls and 520,029 non- emergency calls to the dispatch center. After being entered into the computer -aided dispatch system, each call is assigned a priority and then sent out to the field to be handled by officers.
Typically, the demand for police services and the need for police staff grow s as population and businesses within the city of Fresno grow. Table 3.13-1 provides statistics on police calls/service from 2016 through 2018. The most frequent crimes requiring police services from 2016 through 2018 are related to larceny and burglary/theft. Violent crimes accounted for roughly 7.1% of crimes within the city of Fresno in 2018.
TABLE 3.13-1: CITY OF FRESNO CRIME STATISTICS (2016-2018) CATEGORY/CRIME 2016 2017 2018
Total Violent Crimes 3,206 2,974 2,953
Homicide 39 56 32
Rape 158 174 170
Robbery 1,122 958 909
Assault 1,887 1,786 1,842
Total Property Crimes 20,523 20,220 17,787
Burglary 3,697 3,649 2,949
Motor Vehicle Theft 3,284 2,789 2,365
Larceny 13,542 13,782 12,473
Arson 260 217 264
SOURCE: FBI CRIME STATISTICS; HTTPS://UCR.FBI.GOV/.
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) was established in 1877 and is one of the oldest fire departments in the United Stated. FFD 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 are comprised of the city of Fresno, and also includes extra-territorial services via contracts to provide s ervices to the Fig Garden Fire Protection District and Fresno Yosemite International Airport.
The Fire Chief has an executive assistant and supervises the operations division, administration division, and prevention, investigation and s upport services division. The FFD operates out of 21 stations (including a specialized airport station), a fire apparatus shop, and headquarters. FFD’s21 stations are divided into four battalions that cover the city. As of April 2020, t he Department is staffed by 346 authorized personnel, including 302 sworn safety members and 44 sworn non-safety and civilian personnel. The current daily staffing throughout the service area is as follows: city of Fresno - 75 ; Airports - 2; Fig Garden Fire Protection District - 3; for a total of 80 firefighters.2 Specialized teams within FFD include Urban Search and Rescue (USAR), Aircraft Rescue and Fire 2 Personal communication with Cody Charette, Data Analyst for the Fresno Fire Department, April 23, 2020.
3.13-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Fighting (ARFF), Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT), and a Communication Team. Figure
3.13-1 shows the FFD facilitates in the Plan Area.
FFD is a full -service fire department and provides services including, but not limited to, fire protection, emergency medical services, hazardous material response, and public assistance. There has been a general increasing trend in the number of calls for service since 2007, with some spikes and declines in the intervening years. Call volumes within the city tend to vary less by volume than type during each season. Typical of most fire providers, the City responds to a large proportion of emergency medical calls. The FFD response times for the first arriving unit are shown in Table 3.13-
2. TABLE 3.13-2: FFD RESPONSE TIMES WITHIN CITY BOUNDARIES (2019)
PERCENTILE (MINS) TURNOUT TRAVEL RESPONSE
Median 0:00:59 0:03:30 0:04:30
Mean 0:00:59 0:03:44 0:04:43
Standard Deviation 0:00:32 0:01:50 0:01:56
10% 0:00:11 0:01:56 0:02:46
20% 0:00:32 0:02:26 0:03:21
30% 0:00:43 0:02:49 0:03:46
40% 0:00:51 0:03:09 0:04:08
50% 0:00:59 0:03:30 0:04:30
60% 0:01:05 0:03:51 0:04:53
70% 0:01:14 0:04:15 0:05:19
80% 0:01:24 0:04:49 0:05:53
90% 0:01:38 0:05:45 0:06:51
SOURCE: CITY O F FRESNO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE O F INFLUENCE UPDATE, FIGURE 10-7.
The three performance areas tracked by FFD are the 911-dispatch alarm process time, turnout time and travel time. These performance areas have been identified in both the Commission on Fire Accreditation International process and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710. The benchmark for the 911 dispatch alarm process time is 60 seconds, as defined by the time between answering the call at the Fire/EMS dispatch center and activation of the station and/or company alerting devices by the computer -aided operator. The benchmarks for the turnout time are 60 seconds between 7:00 am and 9:59 pm and 90 seconds between 10:00 pm and 6:59 am. The interval between the activation of station and/or company alerting devices and the time when the responding crew begins rolling toward the call defines the turnout time. Travel time is defined as the time between the responding crew/apparatus signaling the dispatch center they are responding to the alarm and when the team arrives on scene.
While the 911 dispatch processing time benchmark is 60 seconds, 90 percent of the time, the Department’s processing time is somewhat longer at 57 seconds 50 percent of the time and greater than 90 seconds at 90 percent of the time. The greater processing times are in large part due to the use of cell phones for 911 calls. When a 911 call is received from a cell phone, the address information is not captured by the emergency call system, thereby requiring the dispatch staff to Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-3
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
ask a series of questions to determine location. In response to the increase in cell phone use for 911 calls, a discussion of the relativity and appropriateness of the 60-second benchmark is underway at the national level.
SCHOOLS
Central Unified School District
The Specific Plan Area is within the Central Unified School District ( CUSD). CUSD has 28 schools, including six preschools, 14 elementary schools, three middle schools, two high schools, and three alternative schools. Collectively, CUSD’s school facilities have a net classroom capacity of 21,307 seats. Of these 21,307 seats, 11,779 are at the elementary school level , 3,762 are at the middle school level, and 5,027 are at the high school level. Based on student enrollment data for school year 2020/2021, the enrollment of the CUSD is 15,577 students.
Additionally, a second high school in the CUSD area has recently opened. Justin Garza High School, located adjacent to Glacier Point Middle School at the intersection of West Ashlan and North Grantland Avenues, recently opened to freshman and s ophomores in August 2021. The CUSD’s original high school, Central High, is split into two campuses — Central East, which opened in 1996 and sits on Cornelia and Dakota avenues, and Central West, which opened in 1922 and sits on McKinley and Dickenson avenues. About 4 ,200 students are split between those two campuses.
Since Justin Garza High School opened, the attendance boundaries have been split between Central East and Garza.3
Table 3.13 -3 provides the enrollment and capacity for each school within the CUSD for the 2017/2018 school year. As shown in the table, all CUSD schools are currently operating under capacity, except for the Central Learning Adult/Alternative School Site (C.L.A.S.S.). Figure 3.13 -1 shows the schools in the Plan Area.
3 The Fresno Bee. Does Fresno’s new high school favor rich families on the north side? Here’s the map.
Published November 11, 2020.
3.13-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
TABLE 3.13-3: CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: SCHOOL INVENTORY AND 2020/2021ENROLLMENT AND
CLASSROOM CAPACITY
SCHOOL NET
CLASSROOMS
NET
CLASSROOM
CAPACITY
2020/2021
ENROLLMENT
2020/2021
UTILIZATION
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Biola-Pershing Elementary School 10 290 211 72.8%
Harvest Elementary School 39 1,084 805 74.3%
Herndon-Barstow Elementary School 31 860 644 74.9%
Houghton-Kearney K-8 School 1 359 203 56.5%
Liddell Elementary School 32 894 656 73.4%
Madison Elementary School 36 1.010 460 45.6%
McKinley Elementary School 35 985 747 75.8%
Polk Elementary School 33 918 793 86.4%
River Bluff Elementary School 36 1,018 754 74.1%
Roosevelt Elementary School 28 778 466 59.9%
Saroyan Elementary School 33 927 714 77.0%
Steinbeck Elementary School 35 976 682 69.9%
Teague Elementary School 32 902 648 71.8%
Tilley Elementary School 28 778 667 85.8%
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
El Capitan Middle School 33 1,129 697 61.8%
Glacier Point Middle School 37 1,265 878 69.4%
Rio Vista Middle School 40 1,368 813 59.4%
HIGH SCHOOL
Central High School 147 5,027 4,420 87.9%
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS
C.L.A.S.S. 7 239 226 --
West Arts Center 10 -- -- --
Pershing-Pathway Continuation High School 18 500 93 -- TOTAL 701 20,298 15,577 --
SOURCES: CUSD FACILITIES MASTER PLAN (2021).
LIBRARY SERVICES
Library services in the city of Fresno are provided by the Fresno County Public Library. The Fresno County Public Library provides collections and services through its Central Resource Library and 34 branches. The County Public Library is part of the San Joaquin Valley Library System (SJVLS), a cooperative network of 10 public library jurisdictions in the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced and Tulare.
The Plan Area contains one library, the Teague Branch, located in a newly constructed community resource center across from Teague Elementary School on Polk Avenue. The other nearest libraries to the Plan Area include the Biola Branch Library, the Fig Garden Regional Library, Gillis Branch Library, and the Central Library:
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-5
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The Teague Branch Library is located at 4718 North Polk Avenue. The library was originally hosted in Teague Elementary from 1932 to 1950, reopening in 2014. The library was relocated to the community resource center in 2019.
The Biola Branch Librar y is located at 4885 North Biola Avenue. Opened in 1924, this branch operated in several different town locations. This branch was replaced by Fresno County Bookmobile service from 1963 to 2012. In 2012, t he Biola Branch Library reopened at the Biola -Pershing Elementary School.
The Fig Garden Regional Library is located at 3071 West Bullard Avenue in a 9,929 square foot building. This library opened in 1962 to meet the needs of northern Fresno's growing population.
This library was first located in the Fig Garden Village shopping center, but relocated in 1995 to a larger facility at Bullard and Marks Avenues.
The Gillis Branch Library is located at 629 West Dakota Avenue in a 6,263 square foot building. This branch opened in 1940 on Olive Avenue, in rented space; the branch moved to the corner of Dakota and Fruit Avenues in 1975. This library was named in honor of James Gillis (1857-1917), founder of the California county library system.
The Central Library is located at 2420 Mariposa Street in an 82,716 square foot building. The Central Library is the successor to several different downtown Fresno libraries; the first of which opened in 1876. The first true Fresno public library opened in 189 1 and occupied its first real home on Broadway in 1904. The current Central Library branch opened its doors in 1959 and is known for its Heritage Center and Government Documents collection.
PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM
City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services (PARCS) Department owns and operate numerous parks including regional parks, neighborhood parks, trails, dog parks, community centers, action sports facilities, play structures, pools, splash parks, and golf courses.
PARCS offers recreation opportunities through s ports activities for youth and adults at a minimum or no cost.
The City maintains approximately 1,417 acres of developed parkland, 41 acres of natural area, and 67 acres of owned land for future parks . Other facilities include three community pools, seven wading pools, nine splash parks, 480 picnic tables, 1 84 barbeque grills, one amphitheaters, 45 baseball/softball fields, 5 2 soccer fields, 39 basketball courts, six dedicated volleyball courts, six volleyball/basketball combo courts, 32 dedicated tennis courts, six tennis/pickleball combo courts, nine skate parks, two bike parks, and 11 dog parks. The park system also provides and maintains 56 miles of paths and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. The City also owns a campground, a hockey rink, disc golf course, and a few cultural arts venues. Figure 3.13-1 shows the parks in the Plan Area.
The City of Fresno presently operates three regional parks. The Regional Sports Complex is located at Jensen and West Avenues and is a 114.3-acre sports center. This park contains six softball and
3. 13-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
nine soccer fields. The PARCS Department offers softball leagues and tournaments for approximately 1,380 teams each year. The Regional Sports Complex is located approximately 5.1 miles south of the southern boundary of the Plan Area.
Roeding Park has evolved into a regional park since its inception in 1903. Although originally intended as a large community park that would provide picnicking and recreation space for Fresno residents, the addition of Storyland, Playland and the Fresno Chaffee Zoo have turned this into a major regional park site. This park now services a significant number of guests who live outside of Fresno and visit the park for the major attractions located at the facility. Roeding Park is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the southern boundary of the Plan Area.
Woodward Park is a 300-acre site that contains the Rotary Amphitheater, the Shinzen Japanese Garden, numerous walking trails, picnic shelters and serves as a gateway to the San Joaquin River.
Because of its size and mature trees, this facility draws thousa nds of visitors for exercise and major cultural arts functions. Woodward Park is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Plan Area.
Table 3.13 -4 summarizes the City’s park and recreation facilities, including the facility name, location, size, hours, and amenities.
TABLE 3.13-4: CITY OF FRESNO PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES Alfonso
Hernandez Youth
1515 E.
Divisadero St.
N/A Dawn - 10PM Recreation room, computer lab
Center
Almy Park 228 W Almy Ave. 0.5 acres Dawn - Dusk Playground, grass areas, picnic tables Al Radka Park 5897 E. Belmont
Ave.
14.35 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
field lights, picnic tables & BBQ, shade
structures, restrooms, community
garden.
Belcher
Neighborhood
Park
2158 E. Alluvial
Ave
5.50 acres Mon - Sun
7AM – 10PM
Turf areas, playground, picnic tables
& BBQs, restrooms.
Bigby Villa 1329 E. Florence,
Ave.
2.43 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket park with turf areas, playground.
California/Mayor
/A
607 Mayor Ave. 0.13 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket park with a picnic table & BBQ.
California/
Tupman
2094 S. Tupman
St.
0.95 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket park with 3 picnic tables & a BBQ.
Maxie L. Parks
Community
Center
1802 E. California
Ave.
2.12 acres Mon - Fri 9AM –
8PM
Gymnasium, meeting rooms, kitchen.
Camp Fresno 53849 Dinkey
Creek Rd., Shaver
Lake
40.0 acres Late May - Late
Oct
51 rental cabins with wood burning
stove, table and stools. BBQ pit, picnic
table and campfire ring. Cold lockers in
a walk-in refrigerator, washing
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-7
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES machines and showers located
throughout camp. Recreation hall.
Camp Fresno
Junior
53849 Dinkey
Creek Rd., Shaver
Lake
N/A Late May - Late
Oct
Two dorms, three counselor cabins,
dining pavilion, fully equipped
kitchen and shower house with
washing machines.
Carozza
Neighborhood
Park
4921 E. Olive
Ave.
6.0 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, restrooms
Cary
Neighborhood
Park
4750 N. Fresno
St.
8.8 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
in-line hockey court, tennis courts,
picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Centex Park 5626 E. Burns
Ave.
0.98 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area, picnic tables.
Chandler 1225 S Crystal
Ave.
1.93 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, basketball courts, picnic tables & BBQs.
Cultural Arts
District Park
1615 Fulton St. 0.15 acres 9AM – 6PM Playground, shade areas, grass areas, picnic tables & BBQs.
Dickey
Playground
50 N. Calaveras
St.
2.02 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, tennis courts, splash
park, picnic shelter, picnic tables &
BBQs, restrooms.
El Capitan Dog
Park (Basin AH1)
4257 W. Alamos
Ave.
1.5 acres May -
November:
7AM – 10PM
Turf areas, picnic tables.
daily
East Fresno Boys
& Girls Club
1621 S. Cedar
Ave.
4.63 acres M-F Turf areas, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields, basketball
court, gymnasium,
social hall, kitchen, restrooms.
Eaton Plaza 2330 Fresno St. 2.93 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, amphitheater. Movies in the Park program
Einstein
Neighborhood
Center
3566 E. Dakota
Ave.
12 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, tennis courts,
7PM volleyball courts, learner pool, picnic
shelter, picnic tables & BBQs, social hall,
computer lab, kitchen, restrooms.
El Dorado Mini
Park
1343 E. Barstow
Ave.
1.64 acres Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, basketball courts, picnic
tables, computer lab, restrooms.
Recreational activities.
Emerald Park 3599 W. Wathen 1.28 Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area.
Ave. acres
Figarden Loop
Park
4265 W.
Figarden Dr.
8.54 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, baseball fields, splash park, picnic shelter, picnic tables
& BBQs, shade structures, restrooms,
and concession building.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
Fink-White
Neighborhood
Center
535 S. Trinity St. 8.71 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Summer Pool:
1-5PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, learner pool, wading
pool, picnic shelter, picnic tables &
BBQs, picnic shelter, social hall,
computer lab, kitchen, restrooms.
First & Nevada 253 N First St. 0.08 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area Frank H. Ball
Neighborhood
Center
760 Mayor Ave. 2.94 acres Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
8PM
Sat. 12-5PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, gymnasium,
swimming pool, wading pool, picnic
tables & BBQs, social hall, computer lab,
kitchen, restrooms.
Granny's Park 2024 E. Pontiac
Way
1.15 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Turf areas, basketball courts, picnic
tables & BBQs.
Recreational facility.
Habitat Park 300 W. Garrett
Ave.
1.05 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area
Highway City
Neighborhood
Center
5140 N. State St. 2.0 acres Science
Workshop: 3-7
PM Mon-Fri
Playground, picnic tables, BBQ.
Hinton
Neighborhood
Park
2385 S. Fairview
Ave.
6.23 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf area, baseball/softball fields, soccer/football field, tennis
courts, picnic table, BBQ.
Holmes
Neighborhood
Center
212 S. First St. 9.10 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, tennis courts, lawn
bowling court, outdoor stage,
gymnasium, wading pool, picnic tables
& BBQs, social hall, computer lab,
kitchen, restrooms. Full-service center
offering many recreational programs.
Holman
Neighborhood
Park
6522 N. West
Ave.
4.55 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
volleyball courts, picnic tables & BBQs,
picnic shelter, restrooms
Hyde
Neighborhood
Park
319 W. Florence
Ave.
19 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas
Inspiration Park* 5770 Gettysburg
Ave.
7.9 acres Dawn - Dusk Grass areas, playground, baseball field, basketball courts, picnic shelter,
restrooms.
Kaiser
Neighborhood
Park
425 E. Alluvial
Ave.
4.66 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball/ softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, court lights, skate
park, picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Kearney/Fresno
Park
Kearney Blvd. &
Fresno St.
1.0 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area, playground.
Keith Tice
Memorial
8695 N.
Millbrook Ave.
4.06 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, par/fitness course, picnic tables & BBQs,
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-9
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES Neighborhood
Park
restrooms. Turf areas, playground,
football & soccer fields, basketball
court, picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Koligian
Neighborhood
Park
5165 W. Alluvial
Ave.
7.20 acres Dawn - Dusk Grass area, playground, picnic tables.
Lafayette
Neighborhood
Center
1516 E. Princeton
Ave.
4.13 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, handball courts tennis
7PM
Summer
Wader Pool:
courts, volleyball courts, wading pool,
picnic tables, social hall, computer lab,
kitchen, restrooms. Recreational
1-5PM programs.
Large
Neighborhood
Park
4424 N Millbrook
Ave.
6.24 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, football & soccer field.
Lewis S. Eaton
Trail
Northeast edge
of Woodward
4 miles Dawn - Dusk Benches, bridges, trees.
Park and
continuing north
parallel to Friant
Ave.
Lions
Neighborhood
Park
4650 N. Marks
Ave.
9.02 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Skate: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
tennis courts, volleyball courts, court
lights, picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms,
skate park.
Logan
Neighborhood
Park
5450 N. Santa Fe
Ave.
9.0 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, tennis courts, court
lights, picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Manchester
Neighborhood
Park
3414 N. Fresno
St.
9.4 acres Park: Dawn -
Dusk
Summer Wader
Pool: 1-5PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, wading pool, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Maple/Huntingto
n Park
Maple Ave. &
Huntington Blvd.
0.03 acre Dawn - Dusk Pocket park. Turf area.
Maple/McKinley
Park
Maple Ave. &
University Ave.
0.11 acre Dawn - Dusk Pocket park. Turf area with picnic table.
Martin Ray Reilly
Park
770 N. Chestnut
Ave.
3.38 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, football & soccer fields, basketball court, picnic
tables & BBQs, splash pad, restrooms.
Mary Ella Brown
Community
Center
1350 E. Annadale
Ave.
4.48 acres Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, swimming pool,
social hall, community center,
computer lab, kitchen, restrooms.
Open recreation activities and Fresno
Connect Computer Lab.
Mayor & Ventura
Park
Mayor Ave. &
Ventura Ave.
0.11 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park. Turf area
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
Melody
Neighborhood
Center
5935 E. Shields
Ave.
5 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, tennis courts, court
lights, skate, park, picnic tables & BBQs,
social hall, computer lab, kitchen,
restrooms. Crafts programs.
Mosqueda
Community
Center
4670 E. Butler
Ave.
10.02 acres Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, bike park, swimming
pool, picnic tables & BBQ, community
center, social hall, computer lab, library,
auditorium with stage, meeting &
conference rooms, kitchen, restrooms.
Senior hot meals & recreation, dance
classes, martial arts, Fresno Connect
Computer Lab.
Nielsen
Neighborhood
Park
1730 S. Fruit St. 4.44 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, basketball courts, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Ninth & Tulare
Park
3925 E Tulare
Ave.
0.15 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park, turf area
Orchid
Neighborhood
Park
3420 W. Fir Ave. 5.18 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
tennis courts, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.
Oso de Oro Lake
Neighborhood
Park
5550 N. Forkner
Ave.
5.6 acres N/A Turf areas, playground, basketball courts, lake, picnic tables & BBQs, covered
pavilion, restrooms.
Pilibos
Neighborhood
Park
4945 E. Lane Ave. 13.29 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, football & soccer fields, picnic tables & BBQs,
picnic shelter, restrooms.
Pinedale
Community
Center
7170 N. San
Pablo Ave.
0.50 acre Mon-Fri: 8AM -
8:30PM
Pool: Seasonal
Turf areas, playground, basketball
courts, learner pool, social hall with a
stage, computer lab, kitchen,
restrooms, parking lot. Senior nutrition
program, open recreation activities,
youth club, special summer activities.
Pride Park Fresno Ave. &
California Ave.
0.75 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park. Turf area, picnic table, BBQ.
Quigley
Neighborhood
Center
808 W. Dakota
Ave.
8.26 acres Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, tennis courts,
volleyball courts, court lights, learner
pool, picnic tables & BBQs, computer
lab,
kitchen, restrooms.
Radio
Neighborhood
Park
2233 N First St. 7.51 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
picnic tables, restrooms, parking lot.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-11
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES Home to the Fresno Arts Center which
displays art exhibits, provides classes,
workshops, concerts, festivals.
Reedy Discovery
Center
1944 N. Winery
Ave.
5.64 acres Tues-Sun:
10AM-4PM
Garden of the
Home to the Garden of the Sun
Demonstration Garden, Discovery
Center science education center and
Sun: Mon, Deutsch Cactus Garden.
Wed Fri, Sat
9AM-1PM
Regional Sports
Complex
1707 W. Jensen
Ave.
116.09
acres
Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playgrounds, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
field lights, vert ramp, paintball zone,
concession booth, picnic tables & BBQs,
picnic shelter, restrooms.
Riverbottom Park 6038 W. Bluff
Ave.
41.22 acres Dawn – Dusk Located along the river (no amenities) Riverside
Municipal Golf
Course
7492 N. Riverside
Dr., Fresno
10 acres Dawn – Dusk 18-hole driving range, practice putting green, coffee shop, pro shop,
restrooms, parking. New cart paths,
greens and water hazard. Fees charged
per round of golf.
Robinson
Neighborhood
Park
401 E. Browning
Ave.
4.97acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, football & soccer field, picnic tables.
Roeding Regional
Park
890 W. Belmont
Ave.
145.47
acres
Apr-Oct: 6AM –
10PM
Turf areas, playgrounds, football &
soccer fields, handball courts, tennis
Nov - Mar: 6AM
– 7PM
courts, volleyball court, court lights,
par/fitness course, dog park, lake, picnic
shelter, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms. Home to the Fresno Chaffee
Zoo and Rotary Storyland and Playland.
Romain
Neighborhood
Center
745 N. First St. 8.02 acres N/A Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
basketball courts, skate park,
gymnasium, learner pool, picnic tables
& BBQs, social hall, computer lab,
kitchen, restrooms. Full-service center
providing swim lessons, youth leagues,
day camps.
Rotary East
Neighborhood
Park
6464 N. Cedar
Ave.
4.27 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
tennis courts, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.
Rotary West
Neighborhood
Park
3202 E.
Gettysburg Ave.
13.64 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer field,
basketball court, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.
Safety Park 6350 N. Rafael
Ave.
0.89 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park. Turf area
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
San Pablo Family
Park
511 N. San Pablo
Ave.
1.45 acres Dawn – Dusk Playground
Selma Layne
Neighborhood
Park
2065 E. Shepherd
Ave.
8.52 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
basketball court, picnic shelter, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Spano Park 8090 N. Palm
Ave.
1.22 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, picnic tables
Stallion
Neighborhood
Park
6245 N. Polk Ave. 5.65 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
basketball court, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.
Sugar Pine Trail Copper Avenue
to Nees Avenue
N/A Dawn – Dusk Paved trail, benches, large variety of
trees
Sunnyside
Neighborhood
Park
5279 E. Butler
Ave.
4.27 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Sunset
Neighborhood
Center
1345 W. Eden
Ave.
0.97 acres Mon-Fri 3PM -
7PM Wader
Pool: Seasonal
Turf areas, playground, wading pool,
picnic tables & BBQ, social hall,
community center, computer lab,
kitchen, restrooms.
Ted C. Wills
Community
Center
770 N. San
Pablo Ave.
4.28 acres Mon-Fri 7AM –
8 PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, basketball courts,
volleyball courts, field lights, picnic
tables & BBQ, gymnasium, social hall,
community center, meeting &
conference rooms, computer lab,
library, kitchen, restrooms, parking lot.
Senior nutrition program, EOC
Headstart program, and the Valley Art
and Science Academy (VASA) Charter
School.
Todd Beamer
Neighborhood
Park
9797 N Maple
Ave.
6.94 acres 6AM – 10PM
daily
Turf areas, playgrounds, football &
soccer field, basketball courts, par &
fitness course, skate park, splash park,
dog park, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.
Trolley Creek
Park
5100 E.
Huntington Ave.
3.0 acres N/A Turf areas, playgrounds, amphitheater,
picnic shelters & BBQs, restrooms
University
Neighborhood
Park
4085 S. Angus St. 2.38 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, picnic tables & BBQs Jaswant Singh
Khalra Park
3861 West
Clinton Ave.
19.71 acres 6AM – 10PM
daily
Turf areas, playgrounds, baseball &
softball field, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, court lights, dog park,
shade structures & picnic shelter, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.
Victoria
Neighborhood
Park
3165 W. Shields
Ave.
19.71 acres Dawn – Dusk Grass areas, shade areas, picnic tables & BBQs
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-13
FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES Vinland
Neighborhood
Park
4695 E.
Gettysburg Ave.
7.88 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playgrounds, baseball & softball field, football & soccer fields,
tennis courts,
court lights, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.
Willow/Balch
Pocket Park
4963 E. Balch
Ave.
1.15 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, picnic tables & BBQs.
Woodward
Regional Park
7775 N. Friant
Rd.
300 acres Spring and
Summer: 6AM -
10PM
Fall and Winter:
6AM – 7PM
Turf areas, playgrounds, lake, Shinzen
Japanese Garden with tea house, par &
fitness course, dog park, shade
structures & picnic shelters, picnic
tables & BBQs, amphitheater,
restrooms. BMX track, Disc Golf Course,
Art of Life Garden.
NOTE: * = WITHIN PLAN AREA.
SOURCE: FRESNO MSR, FIGURE 12-1.
3.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is an overview o f the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
STATE
Police Protection
There are no State regulations related to police protection services applicable to the proposed project.
Fire Protection and Emergency Response
CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sections 1270 "Fire Prevention" and 6773 "Fire Protection and Fire Equipment" the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppr ession and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maint enance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.
3. 13-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND UNIFORM FIRE CODE
The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions to protect and assist first responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises.
Additionally, the Uniform Fire Code with the State of California Amendments contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire- safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code.
This includes regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION 1710
The NFPA 1710 Standards are applicable to urban areas and where staffing is comprised of career Firefighters. According to these guidelines, a career fire department needs to respond within six minutes, 90 percent of the time with a response time measured from the 911 call to the time of arrival of the first responder.
The standards are divided as follows:
• Dispatch time of one (1) minute or less for at least 90 percent of the alarms • Turnout time of one (1) minute or less for EMS calls (80 seconds for fire and special operations response)
• Fire response travel time of four (4) minutes or less for the arrival of the first arriving engine company at a fire incident and eight (8) minutes or less travel time for the deployment of an initial full alarm assignment at a fire incident • Eight (8) minutes or less travel time for the arrival of an advanced life support (ALS) (4 minutes or less if provided by the fire department
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-15
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Parks/Recreation
QUIMBY ACT
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical development of new park facilities or associated opera tions and maintenance costs. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case- by-case basis with new residential development. The City collects impact fees for both parks and recreation, but anticipates that a West Area Parks Impact Fee will be established. For residential projects, the fees are collected at the time of occupancy and include both capital impacts and land acquisition. Commercial projects are required to pay impact fees at building permit issuance.
Schools
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the State.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The California Department of Education (CDE) School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) prepared a School Site Selection and Approval Guide that provides criteria for locating appropriate school sites in the State of California. School site and size recomm endations were changed by the CDE in 2000 to reflect various changes in educational conditions, such as lowering of class sizes and use of advanced technology. The expanded use of school buildings and grounds for community and agency joint use and concern for the safety of the students and staff members also influenced the modification of the CDE recommendations.
Specific recommendations for school size are provided in the School Site Analysis and Development Guide. This document suggests a ratio of 1:2 between buildings and land. CDE is aware that in a number of cases, primarily in urban settings, smaller sites cannot accommodate this ratio. In such cases, the SFPD may approve an amount of acreage less than the recommended gross site size and building-to-ground ratio.
Certain health and safety requirements for school site selection are governed by State regulations and the policies of the SFPD relating to:
• Proximity to airports, high-voltage power transmission lines, railroads, and major roadways; • Presence of toxic and hazardous substances;
• Hazardous facilities and hazardous air emissions within one-quarter mile;
3. 13-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
• Proximity to high-pressure natural gas lines, propane storage facilities, gasoline lines, pressurized sewer lines, or high-pressure water pipelines; • Noise;
• Results of geological studies or soil analyses;
• Traffic and school bus safety issues.
THE KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2002 (PROP 47) This Act was approved by California voters in November 2002 and provides for a bond issue of $13.05 billion to fund necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older schools.
Funds will be targeted at areas of greatest need and must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds have also be en used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California in order to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate growing student enrollment.
LEROY F. GREENE SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT OF 1998 (SB 50) The “Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998,” also known as Senate Bill No. 50 or SB 50 (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998), governs a school district’s authority to levy school impact fees. This comprehensive legislation, together with the $9.2 billion education bond act approved by the voters in November 1998 known as “Proposition 1A”, reformed methods of school construction financing in California. SB 50 instituted a new school facility program by which school districts can apply for State constructio n and modernization funds. It imposed limitations on the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provided the authority for school districts to levy fees at three different levels:
• Level I fees are the current statutory fees allowed under Education Code 17620. This code section provides the basic authority for school districts to levy a fee against residential and commercial construction for the purpose of funding school construction or rec onstruction of facilities. These fees vary by district for residential construction and commercial construction and are increased biannually.
• Level II fees are outlined in Government Code Section 65995.5, allowing school districts to impose a higher fee on residential construction if certain conditions are met. These conditions include having a substantial percentage of students on multi -track year-round scheduling, having an assumed debt equal to 15 –30 percent of the district’s bonding capacity (percentage is based on revenue sources for repayment), having at least 20 percent of the district’s teaching stations housed in relocatable classrooms, and having placed a local bond on the ballot in the past four years which received at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast. A Facility Needs Assessment must demonstrate the need for new school facilities for unhoused pupils is attributable to projected enrollment growth from the construction of new residential units over the next five years.
• Level III fees are outlined in Government Code Section 655995.7. If State funding becomes unavailable, this code section authorizes a school district that has been approved to collect Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-17
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Level II fees to collect a higher fee on residential construction. This fee is equal to twice the amount of Level II fees. However, if a district eventually receives State funding, this excess fee may be reimbursed to the developers or subtracted from the amount of State funding.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to public services and recreation:
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Ob
jective PU-1: Provide the level of law enforcement and crime prevention services necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and stable urban living environment through a Police Department that is dedicated to providing professional, ethical, efficient and innovative service with integrity, consistency and pride.
Policy PU-1-a: Integration of Crime Data. Develop a mechanism to share pertinent crime data from multiple sources with other law enforcement agencies as a means of improving service delivery, officer safety, and providing a safer community for the citizens of Fresno. • Strive to develop and implement data sharing agreements externally throughout County of Fresno Law Enforcement Agencies with the intent of participating in region-wide data sharing agreements throughout the State of California. • Utilize developing technologies internally to ensure that crime specific data is made available for first responders and criminal investigators. • Develop advanced predictive policing capabilities to ensure that limited law enforcement resources are properly placed to reduce criminal activity in locations of the city that are identified as having a high probability of criminal activity. • Fully implement a Real Time Crime Center which provides responding officers integrated computer data, video data from the Video Policing Unit, and up-to-date emergency dispatch information as a means of improving officer safety to critical incidents and service delivery to the community.
Policy PU-1-b: Involvement in General Plan. Facilitate Police Department participation in the implementation of General Plan policies, including citizen participation efforts and the application of crime prevention design measures to reduce the exposure of neighborhoods to crime and to promote community security.
• Facilitate Police Department communication with citizen advisory committees. • Refer appropriate development entitlements to the Police Department for review and comment.
Policy PU-1-c: Safety Considerations in Development Approval. Continue to identify and apply appropriate safety, design and operational measures as conditions of development
3.13 -18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
approval, including, but not limited to, street access control measures, lighting and visibility of access points and common areas, functional and secure on -site recreational and open space improvements within residential developments, and use of State licensed, uniformed security.
Policy PU-1-d: New Police Station Locations. Consideration will be given to collocating new police station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.
Policy PU -1-e: Communication with Public. Maximize communication and cooperative efforts with residents and businesses in order to identify crime problems and optimize the effectiveness of crime prevention measures and law enforcement programs.
Policy PU-1-f: Law Enforcement Collaboration. Collaborate with community-based public, non-profit and private agencies to:
• Develop comprehensive narcotics and violence prevention programs designed to discourage delinquent behavior and narcotics abuse and to encourage viable alternative behaviors.
• Develop a more concentrated understanding of how to assist and support citizens with a variety of disabilities, especially those with cognitive and developmental auditory disabilities.
• Maintain active involvement in youth development and delinquency prevention activities.
Policy PU-1-g: Plan for Optimum Service. Create and adopt a program to provide targeted police services and establish long -term steps for attaining and maintaining the optimum levels of service - 1.5 unrestricted officers per 1,000 residents.
Policy PU -1-h: Retail Conversion. Assist community groups seeking information on conversion of establishments with off -site or on -site liquor sales licenses to other retail products that better meet community needs.
Policy PU-1-i: Crime and Nuisances. Assist community and neighborhood groups seeking to reduce crime and nuisances they associate with high concentrations of establishments with off-sale or on-sale liquor licenses through Police Department consultations, other available services, and programs such as Neighborhood Watch.
Policy PU-1-j: Lighting and Safety. Ensure adequate lighting at off-sale liquor stores to help deter crime and to promote a more inviting and safe atmosphere around them.
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.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-19
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
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 o f 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 t he city.
Policy PU-2-c: Rescue Standards. Develop 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 for 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.
Policy PU -2-f: Plan for Optimum Service. Create and adopt a program to provide appropriate number of employees to effectively respond to call volume and type; and establish a long-term plan to attain a level of service of 0.81 firefighters per 1,000 residents.
Policy PU-2-g: Community Facilities District for Emergency Services. Develop strategies on the formation of Community Facilities Districts in new Development Areas to fund emergency services.
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
3. 13-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
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.
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.
Policy PU -3-h: Annexations. Develop annexation strategies to include the appropriate rights-of-way and easements necessary to provide cost effective emergency services.
Policy PU-3-i: New Fire Station Locations. Consideration will be given to co -locating new Fire Station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, police substations, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Objective ED-5: Achieve fiscal sustainability.
Policy ED-5-b: Fair and Proportional Payments. Require new residential and commercial development that requires annexation to the City to pay its fair and proportional share of needed community improvements through impact fees, assessment districts, and other mechanisms. Approve new residential and commercial development projects that require annexation to the City only after making findings that all of the following conditions are met:
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-21
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
• No City revenue will be used to replace or provide developer funding that has or would have been committed to any mitigation project;
• The development project will fully fund public facilities and infrastructure as necessary to mitigate any impacts arising from the new development; • The development project will pay for public facilities and infrastructure improvements in proportion to the development’s neighborhood and citywide impacts; and
• The development will fully fund ongoing public facility and infrastructure maintenance and public service costs.
LAND USE ELEMENT
Objective LU-1: Establish a comprehensive citywide land use planning strategy to meet economic development objectives, achieve efficient and equitable use of resources and infrastructure, and create an attractive living environment.
Policy LU-1-e: Annexation Requirements. Adopt implementing policies and requirements that achieve annexations to the City that conform to the General Plan Land Use Designations and open space and park system, and are revenue neutral and cover all costs for public infrastructure, public facilities, and public services on an ongoing basis consistent with the requirements of ED-50b.
Objective LU-11: Encourage coordination with adjacent jurisdictions in providing public services, infrastructure and cooperative economic development.
Policy LU-11-a: Regional Programs. Coordinate with the County of Fresno, County of Madera, the City of Clovis and other cities or special districts to:
• Promote resource management programs to avoid overlap and duplication of effort;
• Promote the development of a regional justice system program to meet future needs of the justice system, both adult and juvenile, including the judicial system and law enforcement;
• Promote the development of a regional public health program to meet f uture needs including community, environmental and mental health services; and • Promote the development of a regional program to meet future library, recreational and social service needs of the region.
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS ELEMENT
Objective POSS-1: Provide an expanded, high quality and diversified park system, allowing for varied recreational opportunities for the entire Fresno community.
Policy POSS-1-a: Parkland standard. Implement a standard of at least three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout
3. 13-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
the city, while striving for five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the city, subject to identifying additional funding for regional parks and trails.
Policy POSS-1-b: Parks Implementation Planning. Conduct ongoing planning to implement park policies established in this General Plan and continue to strive for well- maintained and fully accessible playgrounds, with accessible amenities, throughout the city. • Keep an up- to-date inventory of existing and planned parks, including locations mapped on the Parks and Open Space Diagram;
• Plan for acquiring new parkland designated in the General Plan, as shown in Figure POSS-1;
• Establish a standard protocol for working with new development to arrange for parkland acquisition and dedication;
• Establish a protocol for working with established neighborhoods to provide needed parks, including the fostering of neighborhood and district associations to help plan, acquire, improve and care for public parks, and coordinating new City service facilities to provide new open space;
• Establish detailed design, construction, and maintenance standards; • Prepare an assessment of the recreation needs of existing and future residents; • Create an action plan defining priorities, timeframes, and responsibilities; • Adopt and implement a comprehensive financing strategy fo r land acquisition, park development, operations, and maintenance;
• Identify opportunities for using existing or planned park space as passive stormwater storage, treatment, and conservation areas that also provide scenic and/or recreational opportunities;
• Identify opportunities for siting and using existing or planned park space as passive “purple pipe” waste water storage, treatment, and conservation areas that also provide scenic and/or recreational opportunities; and
• Update the Parks Master Plan.
Policy POSS-1-c: Public Input in Park Planning. Continue to provide opportunities for public participation in the planning and development of park facilities and in creation of social, cultural, and recreational activities in the community.
Policy POSS-1-d: Additional Parkland in Certain Areas. Strive to obtain additional parkland of sufficient size to adequately serve underserved neighborhood areas and along BRT corridors in support of new and intense residential and mixed use infill development. • Identify, where appropriate, joint use opportunities in siting parks with other City service facility needs.
Policy POSS-1-e: Criteria for Parks in Development Areas. Continue to use park size and service area criteria for siting new parks and planning for parks in Development Areas:
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-23
PARK TYPE SIZE RANGE (ACREAGE) POPULATION SERVED SERVICE AREA RADIUS Neighborhood 2.01 to 10 10,000 - 15,000 Up to 1 mile Community 10.01 to 40 50,000 - 80,000 Up to 4 miles Regional More than 401 100,000 100,000 residents
1 Or when amenities provide regional service.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Policy POSS-1-f: Parks and Open Space Diagram. Require parks to be sited and sized as shown on the Parks and Open Space Diagram (Figure POSS -1) of the General Plan, subject to the following:
• All new park designations carry dual land use designations, so that if a park is not needed, private development consistent with zoning and development standards may be approved. (See Figure LU-2: Dual Designation Diagram in the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element);
• Revised and/or additional park sites will be identified through subsequent implementation and planning in established neighborhoods and Development Areas;
• Locations for future park sites as shown on Figure POSS -1 are schematic to the extent that park sites may be relocated as necessity and opportunity dictate, and a General Plan amendment is not required if the park continues to serve the target areas as determined by the Planning Director; and
• A park may be located on any suitable land in the general vicinity of the sites depicted. However, the zoning of potential park site must be made consistent with the General Plan.
Policy POSS-1-g: Regional Urban Forest. Maintain and implement incrementally through new development projects, additions to Fresno’s urban fores t to delineate corridors and the boundaries of urban areas, and to provide tree canopy for bike lanes, sidewalks, parking lots, and trails.
Objective POSS-2: Ensure that adequate land, in appropriate locations, is designated and acquired for park and recreation uses in infill and growth areas.
Policy POSS-2-a: Identify opportunities to site, develop and co -locate Fire and Police stations with needed parks and open space as joint-use facilities. • Capital Improvement Plans should be updated to reflect this policy.
Policy POSS-2-b: Park and Recreation Priorities. Use the following priorities and guidelines in acquiring and developing parks and recreation facilities:
• Acquire and develop neighborhood park space in existing developed neighborhoods that are deficient of such space and in areas along BRT corridors that are designated as priorities for encouraging new mixed-use transit -oriented development;
3.13 -24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
• Provide accessible recreation facilities in established neighborhoods with emphasis on those neighborhoods currently underserved by recreation facilities; • Improve established neighborhood parks with emphasis on those neighborhoods with the greatest need;
• Acquire and develop neighborhood and community parks in new Development Areas;
• Recognize community parks as a special need in areas that lack these facilities or are planned for transit supportive urban densities, and explore all potential sources of revenue to secure and develop appropriate sites including joint use facilities;
• Develop new special purpose parks, such as outdoor gym equipment, natural resource based trail parks, equestrian centers, dog parks, and amphitheaters, as well as alternative recreation facilities, such as community recreation centers, passive wildlife observation park, cultural heritage and diversity park, military veterans memorial park, and universal access open space park; and • Acquire and develop park and open space in established neighborhoods and Development Areas, prioritizing existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies, so that all residents have access to park or open space within one-half mile of their residence. Develop these facilities to be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities as required by law.
Policy POSS -2-c: Review of Development Applications. Coordinate review of all development applications (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, and subdivision maps) in order to implement the parks and open space standards of this Plan. • Assure the provision of adequate active and passive open spaces and facilities as appropriate within residential subdivisions through Development Code requirements for mandatory dedication and improvement of land and/or development fees.
• Require the provision of appropriate outdoor living areas or private open space in multi-family residential developments not subject to the Subdivision Map Act. • Request open space easements where feasible and warranted to secure appropriate public use of sensitive areas with scenic or recreation values, and for buffering space for sensitive areas.
• Require provision of appropriate open space areas in private projects, in the form of trails, enhanced landscaped setbacks, parks, and water features. • Evaluate the merits of establishing a development bonus entitlement program in which development incentives (i.e., bonus densities, bonus floor area square footage) are provided for contributions to public recreational facilities on-site or in the vicinity of the development project.
Policy POSS -2-e: Open Space Dedication for Residential Development. Ensure new residential developments provide adequate land for parks, open space, landscaping, and Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-25
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
trails through the dedication of land or otherwise p roviding for Pocket Parks, planned trails, and other recreational space, maintained by an HOA, CFD, or other such entity.
Objective POSS-3: Ensure that park and recreational facilities make the most efficient use of land; that they are designed and managed to provide for the entire Fresno community; and that they represent positive examples of design and energy conservation.
Policy POSS-3-a: Centralized Park Locations. Site parks central and accessible to the population served, while preserving the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy POSS-3-b: Park Location and Walking Distance. Site Pocket and Neighborhood Parks within a half-mile walking distance of new residential development.
Policy POSS-3-c: Link Parks with Walkways. Link public open space to adjacent, schools, and residential uses and Activity Centers through a series of la ndscaped linear walkways and bikeways that enhance and encourage pedestrian use.
Policy POSS-3-d: Sidewalks to Connect Neighborhoods. Sidewalks should be designed for internal neighborhood circulation, and to connect neighborhoods to other residential areas, parks, community trails, shopping, and major streets.
Policy POSS-3-e: Minimum Park Size for Active Recreation. Minimize City acquisition or acceptance of dedication of park sites less than two acres in size for active recreational uses, except where maintenance costs are secured through a CFD, HOA, or other such mechanism.
URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective D-4: Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.
Policy D-4-d: Design for Safety. Continue to involve the City’s Police Department in the development review process to ensure new buildings are designed with security and safety in mind.
Fresno Parks Master Plan
The Fresno Parks Master Plan was adopted in December 2017. The Plan articulates a vision for improving Fresno’s park and open space system based on robust community engagement and thorough analysis . The Parks Master Plan is an update to the 1989 Master Plan for Parks and Recreation, which was a component of the 1984 General Plan Open S pace and Recreation Element.
The 2017 Plan accounts for changes that have occurred since the 1984 General Plan was dra fted, and reflects a vision for improving the city’s park and recreation system so that it better serves current and future needs of the people of Fresno.
3. 13-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
City of Fresno Impact Fees
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
The City includes a development impact fee schedule to fund public services and facilities, including but not limited to fees to fund police and fire, library, and recreation services. The fees are established in Chapter 12, Impact Fees, Historic Resources, and Other Miscellaneous Topics.
Article 4.6 – Payment of Development Fees and Charges , notes that the development of real property within the city creates demands on existing municipal facilities, improvements, and services. Various development fees and charges are imposed upon new development in order to mitigate such demands. Payment of those fees and c harges is required at various stages of the development process, including the amendment of applicable land use plans, rezoning, tentative tract map, tentative parcel map, Urban Growth Ma nagement permit, the issuance of special permits, building permits, certificates of occupancy, and similar entitlements. To facilitate the orderly collection and administration of such development fees and charges, this article sets forth the terms and conditions upon which the payment thereof may be deferred and paid simultaneously upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the buildings or structures within such development.
Article 4.7 – Park Facilities Fee, notes that, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain park facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a park facilities fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements.
Article 4.8 – Police Facilities Fee, notes that, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain police facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Police Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements.
Article 4.9 – Fire Facilities Fee, notes that, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain fire department facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Fire Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements.
3.13.3 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 public services if it would result in:
Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered government facilities, and/or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-27
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
• Fire Protection
• Police Protection
• Schools
• Parks
• Other public facilities
It is important to note that, in addressing public service demand issues under CEQA, the appropriate focus is on the environmental effects of whatever steps might be necessary to achieve or maintain adequate service. For example, if proposed new development would create an increased demand for law enforcement or fire protection services, an EIR should inquire as to whether new or expanded physical facilities may be required in order t o provide such service. The “impacts” addressed under CEQA are the physica l effects of providing service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“[t]he need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”]; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1031–1034 [school overcrowding attributable to new development is not an environmental effect subject to CEQA, though the physical effects of new facility construction to serve new students would be]; and CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”].)
This does not mean, however, that a city or county is powerless to require new development to take the steps needed to ensure adequate public services, such as law enforcement service. Such steps are simply beyond the scope of CEQA. They should instead be imposed under some other body of State statutory law (e.g., the Planning and Zoning Law [Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.] or the Subdivision Map Act [Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.]) or under a local government’s broad police power under the California Constitution. (See Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7; Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 885.)
It is also important to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities.
According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction.
Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited
3. 13-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.13-1: The proposed Specific Plan may require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (Less than Significant)
The FFD 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. These services are provided 24-hours per day from 21 fire stations strategically located throughout the city of Fresno. Additionally, FFD has an extensive inventory of fire and emergency response equipment. The FFD service areas are comprised of the city of Fresno, and also includes extra-territorial services via contracts to provide services to the Fig Garden Fire Protection District and Fresno Yosemite International Airport.
Fresno General Plan Policy PU-1-g sets forth the following plan for optimum services: “Create and adopt a program to provide appropriate number of employees to effectively respond to call volume and type; and establish a long-term plan to attain a level of service of 0.81 firefighters per 1,000 residents.”
Additionally, Fresno General Plan Policy PU -2-e outlines the following fire response 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 incident s and 21 firefighters for 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.
As such, fire protection service level is generally defined in terms of the timely arrival of a sufficient number of personnel necessary to stabilize and mitigate various types of emergencies (including low and high-risk fire incidents). This is accomplished through a community wide risk management plan that strives to meet the service objectives for first unit on scene (5 minutes and 20 seconds or less, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-29
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
90 percent of the time) and effective response force (9 minutes and 20 seconds, 90 percent of the time).
The Plan Area is currently served by Stations 18 (5938 N. La Ventana, Fresno), 16 (2510 N. Polk, Fresno), and 14 (6239 N. Polk, Fresno). Station 18 was constructed in 2005 and is in good condition; this station is staffed with three FFD employees daily (one captain, one engineer and one firefighter) and has one fire engine. Station 18 was recently relocated to a permanent location on the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s “4 Minutes to Excellence” response time goa l. Station 16 was constructed in 2009 and is in good condition; this station is staffed with three FFD employees daily (one captain, and two engineers) and has one fire engine and one HAZMAT vehicle. Station 14 was constructed in 1992 and is in good condition; this station is staffed with three FFD employees daily (one captain, one engineer and one firefighter) and has one fire engine, one water tender, and one relief engine.
As shown in Table 2.0-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools and churches.
The proposed Specific Plan would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities that could result in offsite physical impacts on the environment. Any future development under the approved General Plan, which includes development within the Plan Area, is required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014).
Additionally, Development Impact Fees will recover future development’s proportionate share of FFD capital asset costs. As outlined in Article 4.9 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development, for purposes of mitigating for project impacts on public facilities, including fire protection facilities. The City a lso reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis for new development.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project may require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the future project applicants, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by future projects and/or as specified in a Development Agreement, would ensure that project impacts to fire services are less than significant.
3. 13-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Impact 3.13-2: The proposed Specific Plan may result in , or have the potential to require the construction of police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (Less than Significant)
The Fresno Police Department is responsible for enforcement of state and city laws, investigation of crimes, apprehension of criminals, reducing traffic collisions, maintenance of ongoing crime prevention programs, and building ties with the community and other local law enforcement agencies. The Police Department is divided into four divisions — the patrol division, the investigation division, the professional standards division, and the support division. The Chief of Police supervises all divisions. July 12, 2024, the Fresno Police Department employs 1,341 FTE authorized personnel with 1,234 filled positions , including 926 FTE sworn safety members approved positions w ith 873 sworn filled positions and 415 authorized FTE civilians positions with 361 filled positions. . There are no police department facilities within the Plan Area.
Fresno General Plan Policy PU-1-g sets forth the following plan for optimum services: “Create and adopt a program to provide targeted police services and establish long-term steps for attaining and maintaining the optimum levels of service—1.5 unrestricted officers per 1,000 residents.” As noted above, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. Based on the California Department of Finance’s estimate of approximately 2.96 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Specific Plan is estimated to accommodate 246,061 total residents in the city of Fresno at buildout.
To keep current staffing levels throughout the city, the addition of 246,061 residents would require an additional 369 unrestricted officers, based upon the 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents standard.
Additional equipment may also be required to accommodate the additional personnel and ensure adequate levels of service and response times throughout the Plan Area. As the proposed Specific Plan Area population increases , there would be a need for new or expanded police protection facilities that could result in offsite physical impacts on the environment. It is noted that Development Impact Fees are currently collected for the provision of capital facilities for fire facilities that will provide for future facilities as the city’s population increases. Future development within the Plan Area would be subject to the Police Facilities Fee outlined in Article 4.8 of the City’s Municipal Code.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Specific Plan would likely have the potential to require the construction of police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
Development of the Plan Area would trigger the need for a new facility as additional staffing and patrols are required to serve the proposed Plan Area.
Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of a police station site within the Plan Area are addressed throughout this EIR. A future police station site may be Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-31
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
accommodated within the Plan Area within the 21.78 acres of Public Facility uses proposed by the Specific Plan. It is also noted that police stations, as a Public Safety Facility, would be permitted or conditionally permitted in all land uses within the Plan Area. This EIR programmatically analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. A future police station, when population growth warrants construction of a police station to accommodate additional police staffing, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.
The City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development. The City also reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis for new development . As noted previously, police stations, as a Public Safety Facility, would be permitted or conditionally permitted in all land uses within the Plan Area . The development of any new facility would be subject to environmental review to meet the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, payment of the applicable impact fees by future project applicants and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by future buildout of the Plan Area, would ensure that project impacts to police services are less than significant.
Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts . (Significant and Unavoidable)
As shown in Table 2.0-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The increase in population would result in the introduction of additional students to the CUSD.
According to the CUSD Facilities Master Plan ( 2021), 0.725 students are generated from each residential unit. Using this factor, future buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 60,269 additional students for the CUSD. It is also important to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction. However, even where applicants have agreed to pay school impact mitigation fees, if the proposed development requires the construction or expansion of
3. 13-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
additional facilities that would cause other physical environmental impacts , then those physical impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA (Gov. Code § 65995(i)).
Currently, as shown in Figure 3.13-1, seven schools are located within the Plan Area, including four elementary schools, one middle school, and two high schools. The proposed land use map includes an additional 10.0 acres of Elementary School land uses from what is shown in the Fresno General Plan Planned Land Use Map. This additional 10.0 acres for future development of an elementary school is located at the northwestern corner of the N. Brawley Avenue and W. Shields Avenue intersection. This elementary school would be part of the CUSD. In addition to this 10.0 -acre elementary school site, there are also proposed and not yet built school sites in the Plan Area, including the following: an elementary school off Shields Avenue and west of Hayes Avenue, an elementary school at the northwest corner of Grantland and Dakota A venues, and an elementary school off Dakota Avenue and east of Hayes Avenue.
Physical impacts from future construction of this 10.0-acre elementary school site within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact
3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3- 3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15 -1 through 3.15 -3). Furthermore, site-specific environmental review would be required for this future school by the CUSD prior to approval of a design for the facility and would consider any site-specific impacts unknown at this time.
It is noted that future development of residential uses would be required to pay the applicable school fees mandated by SB 50 to the CUSD and provide documentation of said payment to the City.
CONCLUSION
Future buildout of the Specific Plan would include construction of a 10.0-acre elementary school site in the Plan Area , which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the proposed land use map, including the 10.0-acre school site within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR.
This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. This future school, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.
It is noted, however, that future development of school s within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1 -3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), and air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing a school facility to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-33
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts . (Significant and Unavoidable)
Fresno General Plan Policy POSS-1-a establishes the following parkland dedication standard, consistent with the State Quimby Act:
Implement a standard of at least three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city, while striving for five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the city, subject to identifying additional funding for regional parks and trails.
For the purposes of extracti ng and collecting fees to mitigate for increase park demands (Quimby Act), the California Government Code Section 66477 states: The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density, which shall b e determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available federal census or a census taken pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 40200) of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. As noted, the Quimby Act population should be based on the most recent available federal census. According the most recent U.S. Census (2018-2022) estimate, the average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in the c ity of Fresno is 2.99. As noted above, the proposed land use map for the Plan Area would result in the addition of up to 83,129 new residential units at project build-out. Using this most recently available federal Census figure of 2.99 persons per household and the potential maximum buildout of 83,129 units, the Quimby Act population would be 248,555 persons.4 This Quimby Act population would require 1,242.8 acres of parkland in order to meet the City’s parkland dedication standard of three acres of public parkland p er 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city.
The proposed Specific Plan land use map includes a total of 214.44 acres of park and open space uses, including parks ( 8.94 acres), neighborhood parks ( 76.9 acres), community parks ( 66.3 acres), and open spaces (62.3 acres). The proposed project would increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities based on the future maximum population growth, and the amount o f parkland and open space provided within the Plan Area does not meets the City’s General Plan parkland dedication standard outlined in Policy POSS-1-a. Future development within the Plan Area would be subject to the Park Facilities Fee outlined in Article 4.7 of the City’s Municipal Code.
3.13-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
4 The Quimby Act Population was calculated pursuant to California Government Code Section 66477 using the most recently available federal census figure of 2.99 persons per household and the potential maximum buildout of 83,129 units.
CONCLUSION
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
As noted previously, the City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development. The City also reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis for new development. Payment of the applicable impact fees by future project applicants, and ongoing revenues that would come from, property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by future buildout of the Plan Area, would ensure that project impacts to park facilities are reduced to the extent feasible.
Specific Plan implementation may result in effects on parks, or has the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impact.
Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of park and other recreational facilities within the Plan Area are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of future development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. Each future park, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. Further, as detailed plans for future parks and recreational facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities would be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting . It is noted, however, that future development of 214.44 acres of park space within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1 -3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2 -1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15 -1 through 3.15- 3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing new park facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts . (Significant and Unavoidable)
Future buildout of the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed land use map would increase demand for other public facilities within the city of Fresno, such as libraries, and community/recreation buildings. The proposed land use map includes two land use designations that could be developed with other public facilities: Public Facilities – Public Facilities, and Public Facilities – Church. Future buildout of the Specific Plan may include construction and/or expansion of existing church sites on 68.55 acres, 124.5 acres of ponding basins, and 22.84 acres of other public facility uses in the Plan Area, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the proposed land use map, including the 68.55-acre church sites, 124.5 acres of ponding basins, and
22.84 acres of other public facility uses , are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-35
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
urban land uses within the Plan Area. These future church site and public facility use, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. Further, as detailed plans for other public facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities would be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA.
CONCLUSION
Project implementation may result in effects on other public facilities. The Specific Plan would result in new demand for other public facilities, including library facilities, ponding basins, and recreational facilities. Although a specific public facility use i s not currently proposed by the Specific Plan, the future development of public facility uses are anticipated by the proposed Plan. Future development would be responsible for paying the applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues from the Specific Plan would be generated from property taxes, sales taxes, and other appropriate fees/payments.
Future development of public facility uses within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1 -3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2 -1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15 -1 through 3.15- 3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing other public facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.
3. 13-36 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ._•I
I•-.
-----. L ____ J
c:::::I
r·-··-=--1 i .-·-·· i • I• . . . r··.. ....
_j
-. ..... ,
i
__L·-••y•-··7
I ~---··!
··-··-··-··-··-··-··-·'
( ..... ··-· •• • I j
r·-··----··-r-··-··• l, ___ _; j
.--■■--. •
I j
"-··-·· .... ·-··-··
r··-··-··-··1
r··-··-··-··J r··----=
I .... ..: ··-: ,_:
-··-··-··-··-··--. •• J :.. ••
L,0 -••1 .. ! 1
• •• • I
~-.. ,------1 r').
'1 : ~. ,••L :
• ~---■■-' • ··-
·-··-j i
r·---1
·---~ l •. , . .
~-- : - ■ - ■■ .-..J
I I
I j"-··" ••
i r-··-1
- - - - '7' - - - - - - - - - - -~ ........ - - :· - - - - - - - - - : I I J
• Lp••-=• .f • • • • •
i i
=-- ■--■-■■- ·
··-··-: i·-··-:
I -
_., ·-·· i _ ., .,.-
1 "'-··- · -··-··-"
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
28 13
1 6 30
31 17
2 9 23
33 19
18 20
32 7
14 34
1126
3 24
25 1229
27 4 5
10 22
21 8
15 16
99 99
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
!( Fire Station
!( Golf Course
!( Park
!( Post Office
!( School
!( Shopping
!( Special Point of Interest
0 ½¼
Miles
Public Facilities
FIGURE 3.13-1.
CITY OF FRESNO
WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: January 22, 2024
1 Station #18
2 Station #16
3 Station #14
4 Riverside Golf Course
5 San Joaquin Country Club
6 Neighborhood Park
7 Inspiration Park
8 Highway City Community Center
9 Jaswant Singh Khalra
Neighborhood Park
10 Fresno County Horse Park
11 Stallion Park
12 US Post Office
13 Herndon-Barstow Elementary
14 Teague Elementary School
15 Harvest Elementary School
16 Justin Garza High School
17 Glacier Point Middle School
18 Central High School East Campus
19 John Steinbeck Elementary
20 Roosevelt Elementary School
21 Central Elementary School
22 El Capitan Middle School
23 Hanh Phan Tilley Elementary
24 Rio Vista Middle School
25 River Bluff Elementary School
26 William Saroyan Elementary
27 Lawless Elementary School
28 Marketplace at El Paso
29 Costco
30 Island Water Park
31 Deran Koligian Stadium
32 Central Unified Aquatics Complex
33 Gateway Ice Center
34 Highway City Science Center
Shopping
Special Point of Interest
Fire Stations
Golf Courses
Parks
Post Office
Schools
Map Key
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This page left intentionally blank.
3. 13-38 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan) on the surrounding transportation system including roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit services. An evaluat ion of emergency access and design features is also provided. This section is based on the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations that was completed for the project (Kittelson & Associates, Inc., June 2024), which is included in Appendix G.
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: City of Fresno Department of Transportation (July 29, 2019), Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (July 15, 2019), Carl and Lydia Franklin (August 2, 2019), Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019), and Patricia and Clifford Upton (July 24, 2019). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan”, “West 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. The footprint of the Specific Plan is referred to as the “Plan Area.” Of the eleven 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 (SR-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 SR-99.
ROADWAY NETWORK
The existing roadway network in the Plan Area is comprised of a street system made up of freeways, super arterials, arterial roads, and collector roads. Roadway classifications listed are from the City of Fresno General Plan.
Freeway
State Route 99 (SR-99) is a six-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour (MPH).
The northwest-southeast freeway connects most major cities in Central California including Chico, Bakersfield, Selma, Sacramento, Modesto, and Fresno. It also provides access to the greater freeway network with direct connections to State Route 180 and State Route 41.
The Plan Area is generally bordered by SR-99 on the northeast. The average daily traffic on SR -99 near the Plan Area ranges between approximately 82,000 and 112,000 vehicles per day. Bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on this facility.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-1
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Super Arterial
Grantland Avenue is a two-lane to four-lane north -south roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility exten ds from SR-9 9 on the north to Kearny Boulevard on the south. The facility is a four-lane roadway with a median north of Shaw Avenue, and a two-l ane roadway south of Shaw Avenue. Sidewalks are limited; additional sidewal ks, Class I, and Class II bikeways are planned along the roadway.
Veterans Boulevard opened in 2023 and is a six-lane super arterial in northwest Fresno connecting Herndon Avenue in the north to Shaw Avenue in the south. It includes an interchange with SR-99.
Arterials
Polk Avenue is a two-lane north-south roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 or 40 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility extends from SR-99 on the north to Olive Avenue on the south. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist intermittently and are proposed along the roadway.
Shaw Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 to 45 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility extends from t he San Joaquin River on the west to the F riant-Kern Canal on the east. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes are proposed along the roadway.
Ashlan Avenue is a two-lane to four-lane east-west roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 to 50 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility extends from Grantland Ave on the west and becomes Watts Valley Road on the east. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist intermittently and are proposed along the roadway.
Grantland Avenue north of Shaw Avenue is a two lane north-south roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH in the Plan Area. North of Shaw Avenue, Grantland Avenue extends north to SR-99 near the Herndon Avenue interchange. There are some sidewalks and bicycle facilities on this roadway.
Blythe Avenue from Ashlan Avenue to Dakota Avenue is a two lane north-south roadway with a center median located along most of its length. The speed limit is posted as 40 MPH. Sidewalks are generally available along frontages that have been developed but no sidewalks a re present along undeveloped parcels. Class II bicycle lane exist intermittently in both the northbound and southbound directions.
Collectors
Collectors in the Plan Area include the following:
• North-south collectors:
o Garfield Avenue
o Bryan Avenue
o Hayes Avenue
3.14-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
o Cornelia Avenue
o Blythe Avenue
o Brawley Avenue
o Valentine Avenue
o Marks Avenue
• East-west collectors:
o Bullard Avenue
o Barstow Avenue
o Gettysburg Avenue
o Dakota Avenue
o Shields Avenue
o Clinton Avenue
Collectors are generally two-lane roadways with posted speeds of 30 to 45 MPH. Sidewalks and bike lanes are generally not present but are proposed along most collectors.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are important components of the transportation network in the Plan Area. These facilities not only offer non -vehicular opportunities for both commute and recreational trips, but also provide connections to the region’s transit network.
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are defined by the following four classes1:
• Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with vehicular crossing points minimized. • Class II – Provides a restricted right-of -way designated lane for the exclusive or semi- exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. • Class III – Provides a right -of-way with signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.
• Class IV – Provides a restricted right -of-way designated lane for the exclusive use of bicyclists that is separated by a vertical element to provide further separation from motor vehicle traffic.
The City of Fresno adopted the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in March 2017. This plan identifies existing and future planned bicycle facilities within the City’s jurisdiction. 1 As detailed in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2015).
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-3
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
As shown in Figure 3.14-1, the following bikeways are currently present within the Plan Area and vicinity at intermittent locations on major roads:
• East-west streets with Class II Bike Lanes:
o Bullard Avenue, east of Grantland Avenue
o Barstow Avenue, west of Grantland Avenue
o Gettysburg Avenue, east of Hayes Avenue
o Ashlan Avenue, east of Cornelia Avenue
o Dakota Avenue, east of Polk Avenue
o Clinton Avenue, east of Cornelia Avenue
• North-south streets with Class II Bike Lanes:
o Grantland Avenue, south of SR-99
o Bryan Avenue, south of Gettysburg Avenue
o Hayes Avenue, south of Shaw Avenue
o Polk Avenue, south of Shaw Avenue
o Cornelia Avenue, south of Gettysburg Avenue
o Brawley Avenue, south of Dakota Avenue
Planned and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
As shown in Figure 48, the ATP includes the following planned and proposed bikeway facilitie s in the Plan Area:
• Streets with Class I Bike Paths:
o Grantland Avenue
o Veteran’s Boulevard
o Gettysburg Avenue
o Garfield Avenue
o Bullard Avenue
o Parkway Drive
• Streets with Class II Bike Lanes:
o All arterials and collectors
Class II Bike Lanes are located along a ll arterials and collectors. Bike lanes on Veterans Boulevard, Gettysburg Avenue, and Cornelia Avenue are identified as priority bikeways in the ATP.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are present in the Plan Area. Sidewalks are present intermittently along some major roadways. Sidewalks are proposed on most arterials and collectors. Crosswalks are present intermittently at signalized and unsignalized intersections in the Plan Area. Figure 51 shows existing and planned sidewalks in the Plan Area.
3.14-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
The City of Fresno adopted the 2016 Update to the ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW) in February 2016. The ROW Transition Plan incorporates retrofitting Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals and replaced the 2003 Amended Curb Ramp Transition Plan.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
Fresno is primarily served by the Fresno Area Express (FAX) transit system which operates bus service and paratransit operations servicing the city. Regional connections are provided by the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) and Amtrak for travel o utside of the Fresno -Clovis Metropolitan Area.
Fresno Area Express (FAX)
FAX provides the principal bus service in the city of Fresno. It operates 18 fixed-route bus lines and Handy Ride paratransit service., The fixed-route fleet is over 100 buses, and the Handy Ride fleet is over 50 vehicles . The paratransit service, FAX Handy Ride, is a service designed to meet the transportation needs of eligible persons with disabilities who cannot functionally use the FAX fixed- route bus system. Handy Ride is a shared ride, curb-to-curb service, provided from any origin to any destination throughout the service area for any trip purpose. Handy Ride operates during the same hours and days as the FAX fixed-route bus system. The service area boundaries for the FAX Handy Ride service are generally Copper Avenue to the north, east to Willow Avenue, south to Ashlan Avenue, east to Temperance Avenue, south to Central Avenue, west to Polk Avenue, north to the Fresno County line, and east to Copper Avenue.
FAX operates three routes that directly serve the Plan Area through curbside bus stops. Bus service on these routes is detailed in Table 3.14-1 with the routes near the Plan Area shown in Figure 3.14-
3. T
ABLE 3.14-1: BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PLAN AREA
ROUTE SERVING DAY TIMES FREQUENCY
Starting at Shaw and Brawley and serving Forestiere
Underground Gardens, Teague Elementary School,
Week-
day
6:00
AM
10:00
PM
Every 30
minutes
12-35 Inspiration Park, Central High School East, Tower District, DMV, Roeding Park, Yosemite Middle School, and Social
Security Office
Week-
end
7:00
AM
7:30
PM
Every 30
minutes
Starting at Brawley Avenue/Shields Ave. and serving
Hamilton K-8, Fresno High, Fresno City College, VA Medical Week-
day
5:30
AM
10:00
PM
Every 30
minutes
39 Center, McLane High, Alliant University, and Fresno
Yosemite International Air Terminal primarily along Clinton Ave.
Week-
end
7:30
AM
7:00
PM
Every 30
minutes
45 Along Ashlan Avenue serving Central High School East, Cooper Middle School, Blackbeard’s Family Entertainment, Army Navy Reserve, and ARC Fresno Production Center
Week-
day
5:45
AM
9:30
PM
Every 45
minutes
Week-
end
6:30
AM
6:30
PM
Every 45
minutes
SOURCE: FAX WEBSITE, WWW.FRESNO.GOV/FAX, ACCESSED MARCH 11, 2021, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2021.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-5
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Route 12 provides local commuter and weekend service with the route originating or terminating at Shields Avenue/Brawley Avenue and San Jose Avenue/Marty Avenue intersections. Between these two origin/destinations, the route has fixed stops as it runs mostly along Brawley Avenue and Cornelia in the Plan Area, from Shields Avenue to Shaw Avenue . Key destinations served include Central High School, Inspiration Park, and Forestiere Underground Gardens.
Route 35 provides local commuter and weekend service with the route originating or terminating in the Plan Area at Shields Avenue/Brawley Avenue and on the east side of Fresno at the intersection of Belmont Avenue/Clovis Avenue. In the Plan Area, the route provides fixed stops along Brawley and Clinton Avenues, as well as Marks and Olive Avenues. Key destinations served by the route include the DMV, Talking Book Library, Post Office, and the Social Security Office.
Route 39 provides local commuter and weekend service with the route originating or terminating at Brawley Avenue/Shields Avenue intersection and Fresno Yosemite International Air Terminal.
Between these two origin/destinations, Route 39 runs in a loop from Clinton Avenue/Marks Avenue to Brawley Avenue/Shields Avenue in the Plan Area where it has fixed stops. Key destinations served include Fresno High School, Fresno City College, Veteran’s Medical Center, Alliant University, and the Fresno Yosemite International Airport.
Route 45 provides local weekday commuter and weekend service with the route originating or terminating in the Plan Area at Ashlan Avenue/Bryan Ave (Glacier Point Middle School) and on the east side of Fresno at the intersection of Fowler/Shields. In the plan area, the route provides fixed stops along Ashlan Avenue. Key destinations served by the route include Justin Garza High School, Glacier Point Middle School, Central East High School, and Blackbeard’s Family Entertainment.
TRUCK FACILITIES
According to the City of Fresno Public Works Department, there are designated truck routes in the Plan Area. Existing and future truck routes are shown in Figure 3.14-4.
3.14.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Existing transportation polices, laws, and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below. This information provides a context for the impact discussion related to the project’s consistency with applicable regulatory conditions and development of significance criteria for evaluating project impacts.
FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws pertaining to transportation have been determined to be applicable to this project.
3.14-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
STATE
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013) required changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Those proposed changes identify vehicle-miles-traveled ( VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. Since the bill has gone into effect, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Auto -mobility (often expressed as “level of service”) may continue to be a measure for planning purposes.,
In December 2018, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Natural Resources Agency submitted updated CEQA Guidelines to the Office of Administrative Law for final approval to implement SB 743. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines, thus implementing SB 743 and making VMT the primary metric used to analyze transportation impacts. Beginning July 1, 2020 local agencies are required to implement the updated guidelines.
LOCAL
Fresno Council of Governments
The Fresno Council of Governments ( COG) is a voluntary association of local governments and a regional planning agency comprised of 16 member jurisdictions, including the City of Fresno. The members are represented by a Policy Board consisting of mayors of each incorporated city, and the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, or their designated elected official. The Fresno COG’s purpose is to establish a consensus on the needs of the Fresno County area and further action plans for issues related to the Fresno County region. The current regional transportation plan, known as the Fresno County Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP) (2046), was adopted in 20 22. The RTP addresses the mobility needed to keep regions moving and communities connected. Fresno COG;s 2022 RTP addresses new requirements for reducing GHG emissions and other air emissions related to transportation, with the goal of providing transportation choices that enhance residents’ quality of life. The plan specifies how funding will be sourced and financed for the region’s planned transportation investments, ongoing operations, and maintenance. The goals, objectives, and policies of the RTP are established to direct the courses of action that will provide effici ent, integrated multimodal transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people, including accessible pedestrian and bicycl e facilities, and freight, while fostering economic prosperity and development, and minimizing mobile sources of air pollutio n.
The 2022 RTP vision, goals, and policies have been streamlined to focus on five key policy areas:
• Equity;
• Sustainability and Resiliency;
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-7
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
• Infrastructure and Safety;
• Economy; and
• Innovation.
The RTP is updated every four years.
Fresno County Congestion Management Process
In June 1990, California voters approved legislation that required Congestion Management Plans (CMP) be developed in urbanized counties to address congestion on California’s highways and roads. The Fresno County Congestion Management Process (CMP) implements this requirement and its responsibilities include providing information on transportation system performance and assessing alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and improving mobility for people and goods to levels that meet State and local needs. The Fresno County CMP identifies four general objectives:
1. Optimize the transportation facilities through efficient system management;
2. Invest in strategies that reduce travel demand, improve system performance, increase safety, and provide effective incident management;
3. Reduce VMT by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and promotion of sustainable land use development; and
4. Improve public transit, extend bicycle and pedestrian systems, and promote car-sharing and bike-sharing programs to facilitate the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system in the Fresno region.
Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno adopted the Fresno General Plan2 in December 2014 as an update to the previous Fresno General Plan approved in 2002. It serves as the City’s guide for the continued development, enhancement, and revitalization of the Fresno metropolitan area.
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to transportation and circulation:
MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.
Policy MT-1-d: Integrate Land Use and Transportation Planning. Plan for and maintain a coordinated and well-integrated land use pattern, local circulation network and
2 City of Fresno General Plan, December 18, 2014.
3.14-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
transportation system that accommodates planned growth, reduces impacts on adjacent land uses, and preserves the integrity of established neighborhoods.
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, a nd abilities and providing mobility for a variety of 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 maintaining 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
Objective MT-2: Make efficient use of the City's existing and proposed transportation system and strive to ensure the planning and provision of adequate resources to operate and maintain it.
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.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-9
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
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-d: Street Redesign where Excess Capacity Exists. Evaluate opportunities to reduce right of way and/or redesign streets to support non-automobile travel modes along streets with excess roadway capacity where adjacent land u se is not expected to change over the planning period
Policy MT -2-e: Driveway and Access Consolidation. Take advantage of opportunities to consolidate driveways, access points, and curb cuts along designated major roadways when a change in development or a change in intensity occurs or when traffic operation or safety warrants
Policy MT -2-f: Optimization of Roadway Operations. Optimize roadway operations by continuing to expand the use of techniques such as the City’s intelligent transportation system (ITS) to manage traffic signal timing coordination in order to improve traffic operations and increase traffic -carrying capacity , while reducing unnecessary congestion and decreasing air pollution emissions. In order to facilitate roadway optimization and as a potential revenue source for the optimization, the following strategies need to be implemented:
• Dig Once Policy. Install conduit for telecommunications use when trenching or construction occurs.
• Telecommunications Strategy. Develop a costing mechanism for allowing the use of excess conduit within the City for use by communication carriers. The Policy shall follow regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission. • Grant Funding. Pursue grant funding to assist in construction and/or implementation of fiber- optic or other telecommunication infrastructure for additional public services such as education, economic development, reaching underserved populations, and public safety communications.
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-i: Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements.
3.14-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
• When a project includes a General Plan amendment that changes the General Plan Land Use Designation.
• When the project will substantially change the off-site transportation system (auto, transit, bike or pedestrian) or connection to the system, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
• Transportation impact criteria are tiered based on a project’s location within the City’s Sphere of Influence. This is to assist with areas being incentivized for development. The four zones, as defined on Figure MT-4, are listed below. The following criteria apply:
o Traffic Impact Zone I (TIZ-I): TIZ-I represents the Downtown Planning Area.
Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of F or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone II (TIZ -II): TIZ-II generally represents areas of the City currently built up and wanting to encourage infill development. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone III (TIZ -III): TIZ -III generally represents areas near or outside the City Limits but within the SOI as of December 31, 2012.
Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of D or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 100 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone IV (TIZ-IV): TIZ-IV represents the southern employment areas within and planned by the City. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIZ will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
Policy MT -2-l: Region-Wide Transportation Impact Fees. Continue to support the implementation of metropolitan-wide and region-wide transportation impact fees sufficient to cover the proportional share of a development's impacts and need for a comprehensive multi -modal transportation system that is not funded by other sources.
Work with the Council of Fresno County Governments, transportation agencies (e.g., Caltrans, Federal Transportation Agency) and other jurisdictions in the region to develop a method for determining:
• Regional transportation impacts of new development;
• Regional highways, streets, rail, trails, public transportation, and goods movement system components, consistent with the General Plan, necessary to mitigate those impacts and serve projected demands;
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-11
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
• Projected full lifetime costs of the regional transportation system components, including construction, operation, and maintenance; and • Costs covered by established funding sources.
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 purposes and implementation of Capi tal 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 l ikely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers
Objective MT-5: Establish a well-integrated network of pedestrian facilities to accommodate safe, convenient, practical, and inviting travel by walking, including for those with physical mobility and vision impairments.
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 ne ighborhoods 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 -5-d: Pedestrian Safety. Minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts on both major and non-roadways through implementation of traffic access design and control
3.14-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
standards addressing street intersections, median island openings and access driveways to facilitate accessibility while reducing congestion and increasing safety. Increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities through the installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals at signalized intersections
Policy MT -5-e: Traffic Management in Established Neighborhoods. Establish acceptable design and improvement standards and provide traffic planning assistance to established neighborhoods to identify practical traffic management and calming methods to enhance the pedestrian environment with costs equitably assigned to properties receiving the benefits or generating excessive vehicle traffic
Objective MT-6 : Establish a network of multi -purpose pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as limited access trails, to link residential areas to local and regional open spaces and recreation areas and urban Activity Centers in order to enhance Fresno's recreational amenities and alternative transportation options.
Policy MT -6-g: Path and Trail Development. Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose path and trail development standards and corridor linkages consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-by-case determinations as a condition of project approval
Objective MT -8: Provide public transit options that serve existing and future concentrations of residences, employment, recreation and civic uses and are feasible, efficient, safe, and minimize environmental impacts.
Policy MT-8-a: Street Design Coordinated with Transit. Coordinate the planning, design, and construction of the major roadway network with transit operators to facilitate efficient direct transit routing throughout the Planning Area.
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 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
Objective MT -11: Achieve necessary capacity increasing and inter -modal connectivity enhancing improvements to the goods movement transportation system to support the growth in critical farm product and value added industries.
Policy MT -11-c: Truck Route Designations. Continue to plan and designate truck routes within the Metropolitan Area to facilitate access to and from goods production and processing areas while minimizing conflicts with other transportation priorities Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-13
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The General Plan also has policies related to maintaining acceptable Levels of Se rvice (LOS).
However, LOS can no longer be used f or CEQA evaluations and is, therefore, not relevant to this section which focuses on CEQA impacts. Additional analyses of the Specific Plan will be documented in another report that will detail LOS.
City of Fresno VMT Guidelines
The City of Fresno adopted their VMT guidelines on June 25, 2020 3. This document serves as a detailed guideline for preparing VMT analysis consistent with SB 743 requirements for development projects, transportation projects, and plans. Key elements of these guidelines include:
• The County of Fresno was selected as the region for assessing VMT impacts. Therefore, all projects will compare their VMT metrics against the county averages. • The draft guidelines recommend the following significant thresholds for land development projects in the city of Fresno:
o 13 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita for residential projects o 13 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee for office projects o No net increase in VMT for retail projects.
• For land use plans such as specific plans and general plans, the guidelines recommend comparing the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan. If there is a net increase in the applicable VMT metrics (VMT/capita and VMT/employee) under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact.
City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan
The City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP)4 is a comprehensive guide that creates a vision for active transportation in the city of Fresno. It is an update to the City of Fresno Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails, Master Plan that was adopted in 2010. The ATP lays out specific goals to improve bicycle access and connectivity in Fresno. The goals include the following:
• Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno; • Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user friendly facilities; • Improve the geographical equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno; and • Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks.
City of Fresno ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW) On February 25, 2016, the City Council adopted the 2016 Update to the ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW). The ROW Transition Plan incorporates retrofitting Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, and
3.14-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3 https://www.fresno.gov/darm/planning-development/plans-projects-under-review/#tab-02 4 City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan, December 2016.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Accessible Pedestrian Signals and replaces the 2003 Amended Curb Ramp Transition Plan. The goal of the ADA Transition Plan for the ROW is to ensure that the City maintains accessible paths of travel in the ROW for people with disabilities.
City of Fresno Complete Streets Policy
The City of Fresno Complete Streets Policy (240.3) 5 is drafted to solidify current city practices and ensure consistency in the application. This policy aids in the planning, design, and construction of transportation facilities that balance safety, access, and mobility for users of all abilities and ages.
The policy includes the following components:
• A. Vision and Intent;
• B. Diverse Users;
• C. Commitment;
• D. Land Use and Context Sensitivity;
• E. Exceptions;
• F. Performance Measures; and
• G. Implementation.
3.14.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The transportation analysis assesses how the study area’s transportation system would operate with the implementation of the proposed project. The analysis includes effects that would result in significant impacts as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.
The project’s impact is not considered to be significant unless it would:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). d) Result in inadequate emergency access.
5 https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Complete-Streets-091119.pdf Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-15
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Significance criteria “b” is related to the implementation of VMT as the primary performance metric.
The following criteria are used to assess a significant impact related to VMT consistent with the City of Fresno “CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds” dated June 25, 2020:
• A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 13 percent below existing regional average6 VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. • A similar threshold would apply to office projects (13 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee).
• VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT.
• Section 6 of the VMT guidelines includes Significance Criteria for Specific Plans: For land use plans such as the Specific Plan for the West Area, the r ecommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments is to compare the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan. If there is a net increase in the VMT metric under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities . (Less than Significant)
Development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion o f the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes the following guiding principles related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel:
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecks exist. • Accommodate planned transit services in the West Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well- maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well- maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the West Area to other sections of the city and region. 6 The City of Fresno defines the region for applying these thresholds as Fresno County.
3.14-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
These guiding principles are consistent with General Plan policies which detail how the circulation system will be improved to meet the needs of all users. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would promote the use of alternative transportation mod es by accelerating development in the Plan Area, which would in turn require development of a circulation system that addresses all users. Development of the Specific Plan would be required to be consistent with the following General Plan policies that address transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian travel:
• Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. o Requires transportation facilities be 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 of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals
• Policy MT-1-m: Standards for Planned Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and Activity Centers. o Requires intersections and roadways along transit corridor and in activity centers maintain acceptable operations to facilitate transit movement. • Policy MT-2-d: Street Redesign where Excess Capacity Exists. o Requires roadways with extra capacity to be modified to “right size” the roadway. • Policy MT-4-b: Bikeway Improvements.
o Requires new development to set aside an adequate amount of right of way to construct bicycle facilities.
• Policy MT-4-d: Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements. o Prioritizes connections between existing facilities to complete a comprehensive bicycle network.
• Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development.
o Establishes a goal of developing sidewalks to improve connectivity to transit • Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements.
o Requires sidewalks to be constricted to the latest standards • Policy MT-6-g: Path and Trail Development.
o Requires planned multi use paths be constructed along with new development • Policy MT-8-a: Street Design Coordinated with Transit. o Requires coordination with roadway design and transit to ensure an efficient public transportation system
• Policy MT-8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit. o Requires new development to facilitate transit.
Additionally, the Specific Plan has a strong emphasis on Complete Neighborhoods, which is a tool to achieve environmental justice. The concept of Complete Neighborhoods is to enable residents of Fresno to live in communities with convenient access to services, employment, and recreation within walking distance. It provides residents with amenities that make their neighborhood mostly self-sufficient and interconnected. According to the Specific Plan, p lanning for Complete Neighborhoods will help support the provision of resources to neighborhood s where they are currently lacking or are under-resourced. Section 5.4 of the Specific Plan includes a series of maps Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-17
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
which show a reasonable walkshed from existing and planned schools; bus stops; commercial uses; and existing and planned parks.
Since the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
Impact 3.14-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b) – VMT per capita for residential uses. (Less Than Significant) The Fresno COG Activity Based travel demand model was used to estimate existing and horizon year average VMT per capita for the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that comprise the Specific Plan Area and Fresno County. The number of dwelling units for the Speci fic Plan Area was calculated at buildout and provided to Fresno COG. Fresno COG used the buildout numbers to run a population synthesizer to generate land use input files for running the activity-based model. These land use input files were then run through the activity-based model to develop horizon year (20 46) forecasts with the buildout of the Specific Plan Area.
Table 3.14-2 presents VMT per capita findings for existing conditions in Fresno County and for the Plan Area at buildout in the horizon year. Based on the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, a specific plan would have a significant impact if the VMT per capita of the Specific Plan Area exceeded the same metrics for existing conditions in all of Fresno County.
TABLE 3.14-2: VMT PER CAPITA - EXISTING AND HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS
IMPACT HRESHOLD T
TRIP TYPES FRESNO COUNTY
(2019)
FOR INDIVIDUAL LAND
DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
(2046)
AREA % COMPARED TO
REGIONAL AVERAGE
PROJECTS
VMT Per Capita 15.4 13.4 9.4 -39%
NOTE: THESE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON FRESNO COG’S ACTIVITY-BASED TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL, AND T HE LAND USE INPUTS OBTAINED FOR HORIZON YEAR 2046 FROM FRESNO COG (ASSUMING FULL BUILDOUT OF THE FRESNO WEST AREA OUTLINED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN).
SOURCE: FRESNO COG TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL, AND KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2024.
As Table 3.14-2 shows, the projected VMT per capita in the Plan Area would be lower than existing conditions and lower than the impact threshold. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita would be
9.4, which is 6.0 VMT (VMT per capita of 9.4 for Specific Plan Area minus VMT per capita of 15.4 for Fresno County) or 39% lower than the countywide average. The decrease in residential VMT is the result of the increased retail and employment opportunities within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in shorter trips or possible use of non-auto modes.
3.14-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
CONCLUSION
The City of Fresno VMT Guidelines state specific plans would have an impact if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the specific plan area for the horizon year increases compared to the existing VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the region (Fresno County). The VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is 9.4. Under existing conditions in Fresno County, the VMT per capita is 15.4. Because the VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita for existing conditions in Fresno County, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in a significant impact for residential projects. Therefore, impacts related to CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b), would be less than significant.
Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b) – VMT per employee for non-residential uses. ( Significant and Unavoidable) As noted above in Impact 3.14-2, the Fresno COG Activity Based travel demand model was used to estimate existing and horizon year average VMT per employee for the TAZs that comprise the Specific Plan Area and Fresno County. The employment for the Specific Plan Area was calculated at buildout and provided to Fresno COG. Fresno COG used the buildout numbers to run a population synthesizer to generate land use input files for running the activity -based model. These land use input files were then run through the activity-based model to develop horizon year (2046) forecasts with the buildout of the Specific Plan Area.
Table 3.14-3 presents VMT per employee findings for existing conditions in Fresno County and for the Plan Area at buildout in the horizon year. Based on the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, a specific plan would have a significant impact if the VMT per employee of the S pecific Plan Area exceeded the same metrics for existing conditions in all of Fresno County.
T
ABLE 3.14-3: VMT PER EMPLOYEE - EXISTING AND HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS
TRIP TYPES FRESNO COUNTY
(2019)
IMPACT THRESHOLD
FOR INDIVIDUAL
LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
(2046)
COMPARED TO REGION
AVERAGE
VMT Per Employee 25.1 21.9 27.3 +9%
NOTE: THESE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON FRESNO COG’S ACTIVITY-BASED TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL, AND THE LAND USE INPUTS OBTAINED FOR HORIZON YEAR 2046 FROM FRESNO COG (ASSUMING FULL BUILDOUT OF THE FRESNO WEST AREA OUTLINED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN).
SOURCE: FRESNO COG TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL, AND KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2024.
As Table 3.14 -3 shows, the projected VMT per employee in the Plan Area would be higher than existing countywide conditions and the impact threshold. VMT per employee would be 27.3, which is 2.2 VMT (VMT per employee of 27.3 for the Specific Plan Area minus VMT per employee of 25.1 for Fresno County) or 9% higher than the existing countywide conditions. The VMT per employee would exceed the impact thresholds for employment land uses despite the mixed-use nature of the Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-19
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Specific Plan, most likely because the high amount of potential non -residential uses would attract additional long trips from outside of Fresno County.
CONCLUSION
Because VMT per employee would be 2.2 VMT or 9% higher than the existing countywide conditions, this impact is potentially significant . Mitigation measures for the VMT impacts of employment uses in the Specific Plan Area would be focused on reducing the number and/or lengths of vehicle trips by employees. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures for VMT has been estimated using t he CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity7.
VMT reduction depends on factors such as actual implementation of planned land use development, demographic change, household preferences for housing types and locations, the cost of fuel, and the competitiveness of transit relative to driving, which relates to congestion along vehicular commute routes that are not under the Project’s jurisdiction, as well as transit provided by parties other than the Project or the City of Fresno. The feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation measures is either ins ufficient or unknown at this time. The Project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these policies would achieve VMT reductions to meet the VMT per employee thresholds. Even with implementation Mitigation Measures 3.14-1 and 3.14-2, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.14-1: Large employers (greater than 100 employees) within the Plan Area shall implement feasible Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in order to decrease daily commute vehicle trips by 9% compared to standard trip generation. Specific potential TDM strategies include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Implement subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees. Employment developments should be accessible within 1 mile of high-quality transit service, 0.5 mile of local or less frequent transit service, or along a designated shuttle providing last -mile connections. This is consistent with the West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan (WANSP) which recommends large employers (having 100 or more employees) consider providing subsidized transit passes for employees. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-9 estimates that implementing subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees could reduce VMT generated by employee vehicles accessing the sites by up to 5.5 percent. 7 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, December 2021, https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf
3.14-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
• Provide bicycle facilities at land uses that would generate more than 500 daily person trips.
Facilities may include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-10 estimates that provision of end-of-trip bicycle facilities can reduce commute VMT by up to 4.4 percent depending on the existing propensity for commuters to use bicycles.
• Price workplace parking to increase the cost of parking on site. Characteristics of workplace pricing may include:
o Explicitly charging for employee parking
o Validating parking for only invited guests
o Implement above market rate onsite parking
o Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances.
Alternative modes of transportation that are convenient and have competitive travel times should be available such as transit services near the project site, shuttle service, or a complete active transportation network serving the site and the surrounding community. In addition, employers should educate employees about alternative modes o f transportation.
The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T -12 estimates by pricing workplace parking, VMT from employees commuting to the project site can be reduced to up to 20 percent. VMT reductions may not be combined with Measure T-14, Implement Employee Cash Out to avoid double counting.
• Implement employee parking cash-out to encourage employees to choose alternative modes of transportation. This measure requires employers to provide employees with the option of forgoing subsidized or free parking for a cash payment equivalent to or greater than the cost of the parking space. To prevent spill- over parking and use of single occupancy vehicles, residential parking must be available, and public on- street parking must be at market rate.
The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T -13 estimates that implementing employee cash -out could reduce employee commute VMT by up to 12 percent. VMT reductions may not be combined with Measure T-13, Price Workplace Parking, to avoid double counting. • Provide a well-connected street network, particularly for non -motorized connections.
Characteristics of street network connectivity include short block lengths, numerous three and four-way intersections, and minimal dead- ends (cul-de-sacs). Street connectivity helps to facilitate shorter vehicle trips and greater numbers of walk and bike trips and thus a reduction in VMT. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-17 uses increased vehicle intersection density as a proxy for street connectivity improvements. The CAPCOA H andbook estimates that VMT can be reduced up to 30 percent if a development provides a street grid that has much greater density (up to about three times) of streets and street intersections than the average American street grid density of 36 street intersections per square mile. • Improve and enhance pedestrian networks to improve pedestrian access. This can be achieved by expanding the sidewalk coverage which may include but not be limited to building new sidewalks or improving degraded or substandard sidewalks. Pedestrian networks should be contiguous and link externally with existing and planned pedestrian Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-21
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
facilities. Characteristics of an enhanced pedestrian networks include high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other pedestrian signals, mid-block crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, speed tables, bulb -outs, curb ramps, signage, pavem ent markings, pedestrian-only connections and districts, landscaping, and other improvements to pedestrian safety. Walls, landscaping buffers, slopes, and unprotected crossings should be minimized.
This mitigation measure is consistent with the WANSP policy number IPR 1.4 and IPR 1.5.
Policy number IPR 1.4 states that providing a connected, safe, and pleasant pedestrian experience can be achieved by requiring the installation of curbs, curb ramps, gu tters, streetlights, sidewalks, and street trees on both sides of the street and adjacent to new developments. Policy number IPR 1.5 encourages the installation of pedestrian enhancing amenities to include sidewalks with the width of at least five to seven feet to allow for pedestrians to walk together or apart at a comfortable distance, benches shade greenery, and prominent gathering places. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement can reduce VMT in the project site by up to 6.4 percent.
The TDM Plan shall be submitted to the City for review prior to approval of improvement plans, and the effectiveness of the TDM Plan shall be evaluated, monitored, and revised, if determined necessary by the City. The TDM Plan shall include the TDM strategies that will be implemented during the lifetime of the proposed Project and s hall outline the anticipated effectiveness of the strategies. The anticipated effectiveness of the TDM Plan may be monitored through annual surveys to determine employee travel mode split and travel distance for home-based work trips, and/or the implementation of technology to determine the amount of traffic generated by and home -based work miles traveled by employees, which shall be determined in coordination with the City. The frequency and duration of the anticipated effectiveness would depend on the ultimate strategy determined in coordination with the City.
Mitigation Measure 3.14-2: The City of Fresno shall expand local transit networks by modifying, adding, or extending existing transit services to enhance the service within the Specific Plan Area.
This can be achieved by reducing the average wait time by increasing the service freque ncy, or by extending services to cover new areas and times. This mitigation measure is consistent with WANSP Policy IPR 1.8, which states that expanding transit services into the Fresno West Area as development occurs helps improve access, movement, and safety for all transportation modes in the West Area. This can be also achieved by exploring the transit connectivity options near business districts to create a West Area-Downtown Connecter Route. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-25 estimates that an improved transit network can reduce VMT produced in the project site by up to
4.6 percent.
3.14-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Impact 3.14-4: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) . (Less than Significant)
The proposed Specific Plan would result in a relocation of density in the Plan Area to central corridors compared to what would develop under the City’s General Plan where density is more distributed throughout the Plan Area ; however, the Specific Plan does not propose to change the types (i.e., residential, commercial, office, etc.) of land uses in the Plan Area . The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes the following guiding principles related to transportation and hazards:
• Provide a complete, safe, and well- maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well- maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the West Area to other sections of the city and region.
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in some changes to the c ity’s circulation network, but would not increase hazards or incompatible uses due to design features. All future roadway system improvements associated with development and redevelopment activities under the Specific Plan would be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards, some of which have also been incorporated into the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.
The City’s General Plan policies that would address design and safety issues are:
• Policy MT-2-e: Driveway and Access Consolidation.
• Policy MT-2-i: Transportation Impact Studies.
• Policy MT-5-d: Pedestrian Safety.
• Policy MT-5-e: Traffic Management in Established Neighborhoods.
The future roadway improvements that would result with implementation of the Specific Plan would be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Fresno. An evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features would be needed.
Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with the City’s Circulation Plan, roadway functional design guidelines, and would have to meet design guidelines such as the accessibility requirements of Title 24 (California Building Code), ADA standards, California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in hazardous conditions, or create conflicting uses. With implementation of General Plan Policy MT-2-e, Policy MT-2-I, and application of the conditions of approval at the time of review of land development projects, the Specific Plan would be designed to ensure that no hazardous circulation conditions are created as a result of implementation of the Plan. The Specific Plan would implement components of the roadway system consistent with the Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-23
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Impact 3.14-5: Implementation of the S pecific Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant)
Emergency response requires a balance of emergency response time and evacuation needs with other community concerns, such as urban design and traffic calming. Future roadway improvements associated with buildout of the Plan Area would be made in accordance with the City’s Circulation Plan and roadway functional design guidelines.
With the a pplication of the conditions of approval at the time of review of land development projects, the Specific Plan would be designed to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. The Specific Plan would implement components of the roadway system consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
3.14-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
L E G E N D
0 1½
Miles
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Routes
FIGURE 3.14-1.
CITY OF FRESNO
WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno
Sierra
Bu am
Sh
cu .00
1 rn - 1 mle r
General IPlan, 1Fig ure 1Mili~2)
_ San oaqui Aiver Parkway
Pa: and Tr: · '
, 11 Rails ta, rails'
- CourrtylCcy rail'
S5 I B:icycleJPed p
1 -• Specffi(: Plan !Boundary
D Fre5110 City Limns
·-t-----.-- ~
11 I•
II
II
ii:.:•-..---tt----~~~-..----
1 I
I
•
I
)-
-~r- ..,..,...._.-"-'"I~~..--..,---...- .....~-
' '-
ATP !Plann ed Bic,yscle Facilitiies ATP Exisfim g Bicyd e Facilitiies --- Cla.s:s II Bike Lane - Cl:as:s I Bike a'lh
--- Cla.s:s ID B'ike· Ro , e - Cl:as:s II Bike·Lane
- - - C ss ~ Separated Bl°keways. - C :s:s 1£1 Blke-lRoute• Pl'iicrii:/ B'ike N~k
1. c~allgM1en.1arex1s-:n, ""aproposee1 pa11land "
planned IPatl'Na)' = "'1d ~OjeclE, lllelr :e-a.iies , uses , ,..dklc:3'Jon>..are sut(e::l!ollle '""l'fsllloo<ll nd& and'« ea&emen.ls il!OOll'll 1091ieters_ ana Jlf'C!OC:-sp: • .ne- 6fl"dl'.c "'1'11ioomenlal ew.
2. Requreo llfeflo OEre ts m.ang ralmad . Sll<Mld exl6Ung raD:lad llnes lle "'30JIE<I, ll'le)' Slla l C>e co,r,-e r.e<I toa~ J. C"""'PIJJal allglllllen.1, st.q;ecl to Ctty/Coully coqpara:r,e pla, mlng a<bpUD<I. ;rid IITl'lem=nta1! City~
lrx:all'al~ctE<1
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
3.14-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ,---
l- _I
,.,..,. I,,,
,<
0 z
.,. ,,
N '"'
' ' ' ' '
AV
---• I
I
I
I
' ' ' ' ' '
.. ... z
W RIVER VISTA DR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
W SPRUCE AVE
' ' ' ' ' '
2 -----------
:z
A
Iv
... ::, W BARSTO ..,
v , .. "' ..,
~
2 ITHW
w
> <(
"' .... :c
Cl :,
:c
z
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Existing Sidewalk
Planned Sidewalk
0 1½
Miles
Existing and Proposed Sidewalks
FIGURE 3.14-2.
CITY OF FRESNO
WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 6-18-2024. Map date: July 15, 2024.
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
3.14-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
L E G E N D
Existing Transit Service
FIGURE 3.14-3.
CITY OF FRESNO
WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno
1 i
.. II rd
j
rshlw
r··--- 1i ,, I I
! L - ---- •!I!!!!!!!!!! ■■ ~
Bl, d~ -----■t
'Cl
;i;
'E..
l!I
31iiiii ■ LE
D
FAX R<11I1tes
- 0 3, - 35 CJ Specilitc Plan BOIIJ ndary
- og, - 39 C_J 1Rres110 Cily Lin its
- 12 411 □Sp heire Of lrni 11J:e11.ce·
- 20 - 45 --+- R -rroad
- 22 =sta ignway
- Planned BRT
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
3.14-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ,.,. .,.
I 1,, .,. ,, ~
,, ~ .....
' '1"f':z:
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
W l!ARST W V
...
AVE
z
N V
I
I
I
I
----
Av
,---
l- _I
--
W RIVER VISTA OR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
W SPRUCE AVE
w
> c(
z
0,.
::,
~
W HERNDON AVE i
z
/ll
W FIGARDEN DR
W PRUC AV z
c(
> z
W SIERRA AVE
' ~
'
<
w
> c(
z
c(
►
0,.
..
z
' 'Y~
' ' ' ' ..
w
> c(
.,,
' ' ' '
-------
:z
W BULLARO AVE
w
> W BARSTO c(
W SAN JOSE AVE
' '
,U
> I(
'
W SH>- AVE
' ' ' ". ' ' '
W ASHLAN AVE
w
> <
' ' ' ' ' '
< :::; w
z
W DAr )TA AVE
"' 0
u
-
W MC. 11\11 Y AVF
t ouv"
.,. .,.
I
' ..
' ,.
'
w
> c(
~
z
w OSA E
WG
' ,,
' ' ' ' ' --------~ z
~ ...
~ >
VE
W DLEY AV
ITHW
w
> c(
.,,
w :c
C> ::,
:c
z
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Existing Route
Future Planned Route
0 1½
Miles
Existing and Planned Truck Routes
FIGURE 3.14-4.
CITY OF FRESNO
WE
ST AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 6-18-2024. Map date: July 15, 2024.
3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
3.14-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
This section describes the regulatory setting, impacts associated with wastewater services, water services, storm drainage, and solid waste disposal that are likely to result from Specific Plan implementation, and measures to reduce potential impacts to wastewater, water supplies , storm drainage, and solid waste facilities.
This section is based in part on the following documents, reports and studies:
• CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (CalRecycle, 2020); • CalRecycle Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (CalRecycle, 2020); • City of Fresno Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update (City of Fresno, 2016);
• City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Fresno, 2021); • Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• City of Fresno Specific Plan for the West Area Utility Background Summary (West Yost Associates, 2022) (included in Appendix D of this EIR). • Specific Plan of the West Area Water Supply Assessment (West Yost Associates, 2024) (included in Appendix E of this EIR);
Comments were received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding stormwater from Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (August 1, 2019). These comments are included in Appendix A of this EIR.
3.15.1 WASTEWATER SERVICES
EXISTING SETTING
The City is the regional sewer agency for the Fresno -Clovis Metropolitan Area (FCMA) . The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities that serve the Fresno metropolitan area: the Fresno -Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility ( RWRF) and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF).
Wastewater is composed of sanitary flow and Infiltration and Inflow (I&I):
• The sanitary flow is the actual wastewater that is generated in the homes and businesses that are connected to the sewer system. The sewer system (or collection system) is intended to collect and convey all the sanitary flow from the homes and businesses to the wastewater treatment plant. The sanitary flow is often called the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) because it is the primary source of wastewater during dry weather. • I&I is stormwater that enters the wastewater collection system through flooded maintenance holes; defects in pipes, pipe joints, and sewer structures; or a s inflow through illicitly connected downspouts, area drains, and catch basins. Sewer systems are intend ed to prevent (or minimize) the I&I that enters the sewer system so that the stormwater does not cause the sewer capacities to be exceeded or result in treating stormwater at the wastewater treatment plant. The combined ADWF and I&I is called the peak wet weather flow (PWWF).
Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-1
3.15 UTILITIES
Collection systems are sized, designed, and constructed to the convey the PWWF to the City’s wastewater treatment plants. The City’s wastewater collection system has roughly 26,000 manholes, 18 lift stations, about 12 miles of 1 force mains, and about 1,600 miles of gravity sewer pipes, ranging in size from 4 inches to 84 inches in diameter, and ranging in age from new to more than 100 years old. Generally, the collection system flows from northeast to southwest across the entire city. In the West Area, wastewater generally flows from the north to the south.
The City of Fresno owns and maintains the majority of the wastewater collection systems that convey wastewater to the RWRF, and all of the wastewater collection system that conveys wastewater to the NFWRF. The system also includes some pressure flow pipelines, by which pumped wastewater is conveyed to a point of discharge usually tributary to a gravity flow pipeline. Wastewater collection system pipelines consist of a number of different pipe materials, but the majority of the gravity flow pipelines consist of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, vitrified clay pipe (VCP) or concrete pipe, which includes both reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and standard or non- reinforced concrete pipe (SCP). Together, these pipe materials account for approximately 98.4 percent of the wastewater collection system pipelines.
In the Plan Area, wastewater generally flows from the north to the south. There are no lift stations or other special structures to aid in wastewater collection in the Plan Area. Eight-i nch, 10- to 18-inch, 20- to 20-i nch, and greater than 36-i nch wastewater pipelines are found throughout the Plan Area. There are approximately 720,496 feet (136.46 miles) of sewer mains and 2,185 manholes in the Plan Area.
Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility The RWRF is located southwest of the city in the area generally bounded by Jensen, Cornelia, Central and Chateau Fresno Avenues. Wastewater from the Plan Area is treated at the RWRF, which has an average annual flow of approximately 60 million gallons per day (MGD). The RWRF receives and treats wastewater from three additional service areas, including the: City of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District. The RWRF has an ADWF capacity of 92 MGD; however, it can treat the PWWF that occurs during storm events, which is higher than the ADWF but lasts for short duration. The City of Clovis owns 12.86 MGD of ADWF capacity, while the remaining capacity belongs to the City.
The RWRF received and treated approximately 72,302 acre-feet (AF) of wastewater during 2011, representing an annual average daily flow of approximately 64.5 MGD. The quantity of wastewater received and treated by the RWRF has been declining since 2006, when it peaked at a total of approximately 80,801 AF, representing an annual average daily flow of approximately 72.1 MGD.
Wastewater treatment plant capacities are typically rated based on the ADWF flow. The permitted wastewater treatment capacity of the RWRF is currently 80.0 MGD as an annual monthly average flow, and 88.0 MGD as a maximum monthly average flow. The City is currently evaluating upgrades and modifications to the existing RWRF that may result in a capacity rating increase of 15.0 MGD.
3. 15-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
The RWRF employs an activated sludge wastewater treatment process, which produces un - disinfected secondary effluent. Most of the effluent is discharged to an array of percolation basins, where it percolates through the underlying soil strata and into the groundwa ter beneath the basin. However, some of the effluent is recycled by direct delivery to nearby farmland where it is used for restricted irrigation for feed/fodder and fiber crops. In addition, some of the percolated effluent is extracted from the groundwater beneath the basins by pumping and is recycled for irrigation by delivery to the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) canal system. The RWRF also has a 5 MGD tertiary treatment facility, which treats a portion of the overall plants rated capacity.
The facility includes the following major processes/facilities:
• Headworks and Grit Chambers – The screening facilities remove the larger trash and grit from the raw wastewater. From the headworks, the wastewater is pumped into pipes that flow to the primary clarifiers.
• Primary Clarifiers – These six tanks allow finer sediment to settle out of the effluent and skim fats, oils and grease from the top. Wastewater leaving the settling tanks is called primary effluent and either flows to the aeration basins or is diverted for additional screening prior to tertiary treatment.
• Aeration Basins – In the aeration basins air is pumped into the wastewater to increase the growth o f bacteria and other micro -organisms that consume the organic waste. From the aeration basins the partially treated wastewater flows to the Secondary Clarifiers. • Secondary Clarifiers – The secondary clarifiers are basins where the bacteria and micro - organisms settle out of the wastewater. There are 16 secondary clarifiers. Effluent leaving the secondary clarifiers is called secondary effluent, and it flows to storage ponds. There is currently no disinfection system for the secondary effluent. • Membrane Bioreactor Tanks – Primary effluent designated for tertiary treatment is passed through a fine screen and two pre -aeration basins before entering four membrane bioreactor (MBR) tanks. MBRs combine biological treatment with membrane filtration.
Effluent leaving the MBRs flows to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection vessels. • UV Disinfection – Effluent from the MBRs is exposed to UV light to inactivate pathogens.
There are four in -vessel UV disinfection trains. After disinfection, effluent is called tertiary effluent and is sent to recycled water storage.
• Storage Ponds – There are 1,720 acres of storage ponds where the effluent percolates into the groundwater, evaporates, or is pumped for irrigation of non-food crops. • Solids Treatment – The bacteria and micro -organisms that settle out of the wastewater in the clarifiers are called the solids. Flotation thickeners, digesters, and belt filter presses are used to extract liquid from the solids. The liquid is returned to the settling tanks. The remaining solids are then stored in silos to await disposal. A private company will haul to a location off-site.
North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
The NFWRF is a tertiary level wastewater treatment facility located in north Fresno, near the intersection of Copper Avenue and Cedar Avenue. The NFWRF treats wastewater from the northern portion of the city. It was constructed in late 2006 to provide wastewater treatment service for Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-3
3.15 UTILITIES
residential and commercial development in the surrounding area of north Fresno. The NFWRF employs a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment process for secondary treatment, cloth media filtration for tertiary treatment, and an ultraviolet system to produce disinfected tertiary treated effluent. The effluent is used for golf course irrigation at the nearby Copper River Country Club.
The permitted capacity of the plant is 0.71 MGD average monthly flow and 1.07 MGD maximum daily flow. Treatment processes include a sequencing batch reactor for secondary treatment, cloth media filtration for tertiary treatment and sodium hypochlorite for disinfection. The tertiary treated wastewater is currently used for landscaping irrigation. Although the NFWRF does not serve the Plan Area directly, it contributes to the City’s total wastewater treatment capacity.
The North Facility operates under a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR), Order No R5-2014-0162 . The WDR for the North Facility establishes limits for the average dry weather flow discharge. The current permitted average dry weather flow discharge is 0.71 MGD. The North Fresno Facility’s current average dry weather flow is less than 0.71 MGD.
Effluent Disposal and the Recycled Water System
The RWRF includes preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units with disinfection.
Secondary treatment consists of three treatment trains with an annual average capacity of 87 mgd, consisting of 30 mgd for Train A and 57 mgd for Trains B and C combined. In 2017, a 5-mgd tertiary treatment system — the Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility — was completed. The system can be expanded to 15 mgd and ultimately to 30 mgd (Water Systems Consulting Inc., 2021).
The City has three primary means of effluent disposal:
1. Undisinfected secondary effluent to on-site and off-site farmland for restricted irrigation;
2. Undisinfected secondary effluent to percolation ponds; and
3. Disinfected tertiary effluent to the recycled water distribution system.
The percolated effluent has been deemed equivalent to Title 22 tertiary treated water by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The City has been extracting this water for reuse in a reas within and s urrounding the RWRF, as well as to FID’s canals, through an exchange agreement for delivery to FID agricultural customers.
The discharged effluent is disposed within the city boundaries and just southwest of the metropolitan area. The treated effluent percolation ponds are within the City’s SOI and hydrologic sphere that benefit the City’s overall regional water budget.
In addition to the RWRF, the NFWRF serves the residential and commercial development and golf course in a portion of northeast Fresno. Since the treatment includes filtration and disinfection producing water quality that meets Title 22 tertiary criteria, it is suitable for additional future uses such as landscape irrigation, freeway irrigation, and many industrial water reuse opportunities.
3. 15-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
Future Wastewater Flow and Effluent Disposal
The City has the capacity to produce more recycled water than it can currently use. The City will continue to expand the recycled water delivery system. The City’s most recent Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Carollo, 2015) was based on land uses from the City’s General Plan. At General Plan build-out, the city will encompass approximately 156.6 square miles of land and is projected to generate 202.4 MGD of future PWWF.
REGULATORY SETTING – WASTEWATER
The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations related to wastewater that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
State and Federal
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) / NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PERMITS
The CWA is the cornerstone of water quality protection in the United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non -regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilitie s, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” The CWA regulates discharges from “non-point source” and traditional “point source” facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and industrial facilities. Section 402 of the Act creates the NPDES regulatory program which makes it illegal to discharge pollutants from a point source to the waters of the United States without a permit. Point sources must obtain a discharge permit from the proper authority, in this case the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. NPDES permits cover industrial and municipal discharges, discharges from storm sewer systems in larger cities, stormwater associated with numerous kinds of industrial activity, runoff from construction sites disturbing more than one acre, mining operations, and animal feedlots and aquacultu re facilities above certain thresholds.
Permit requirements for treatment are expressed as end-of -pipe conditions. This set of numbers reflects levels of three key parameters: (1) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), (2) total suspended solids (TSS), and (3) pH acid/base balance. These levels can be achieved by well-operated sewage plants employing "secondary" treatment. Primary treatment involves screening and settling, while secondary treatment uses biological treatment in the form of "activated sludge." All so-called "indirect" dischargers are not required to obtain NPDES permits. An indirect discharger is one that sends its wastewater into the sanitary sewer system for treatment. Although not regulated under NPDES, "indirect" discharges are covered by another CWA program called pretreatment. "Indirect" dischargers send their wastewater into a city sewer system, which carries it to the municipal sewage treatment plant, through which it passes before entering surface water.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-5
3.15 UTILITIES
Local
FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 6-335(a) of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the following requirements for wastewater discharge permits:
Wastewater Discharge Permit Required. At the discretion of the Control Authority, all users proposing to connect to or contribute to the POTW shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit before connecting to or contributing to the POTW.
(1) All existing users connected to or contributing to the POTW on the effective date of this section must obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit within ninety (90) days of such date. (2) Any user proposing a new connection to the POTW shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit prior to beginning discharge.
(3) Liquid Waste Haulers shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit prior to transporting liquid waste to a discharge point designated by the Control Authority.
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to wastewater for the proposed Specific Plan:
Objective PU-4: Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve existing and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.
Policy PU-4-a: Plan for Regional Needs. Coordinate and consult with the City of Clovis, pursuant to the Fresno-Clovis Sewerage System Joint Powers Agreement, so that planning and construction of sewer collection facilities will continue to meet the regional needs of the Metropolitan Area.
Policy PU-4-b: New Trunk Facilities. Pursue construction of new or replacement sewer trunk facilities or other alternatives consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan to accommodate the uses as envisioned in this General Plan.
Policy PU-4-c: System Extension and Cost Recovery. Pursue enlargement or extension of the sewage collection system where necessary to serve planned urban development, with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between the existing users and new users.
Policy PU-4-d: Capacity Modeling. Continue development and utilization of citywide sewer flow monitoring and computerized flow modeling to determine availability of sewer collection system capacity to serve planned urban development.
Policy PU-4-e: Evaluate and Maintain Infrastructure. Promote the health and safety of the community, and p reserve the longevity and sound condition of the sewer collection system through evaluation and maintenance of the sewer infrastructure.
3. 15-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
• Continue assessments of existing infrastructure and facilitate necessary repair to damaged and worn-out pipelines.
• Continue routine sewer line maintenance and cleaning programs to prevent line blockages caused by root intrusion, grease buildup, and pipe failure. • Continue a sewer line replacement program and funding to repair or replace sewer lines damaged or worn beyond useful life.
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, onsite 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.
Objective PU-7: Promote reduction in wastewater flows and develop facilities for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and biosolids for management and distribution of treated wastewater.
Policy PU-7-a: Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE –W ASTEWATER
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-7
3.15 UTILITIES
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Significant and Unavoidable)
As noted previously, in the Plan Area, wastewater generally flows from the north to the south. There are no lift stations or other special structures to aid in wastewater collection in the Plan Area. Eight- inch, 10 - to 18 -inch, 20 - to 20 -inch, and greater than 36 -inch wastewater pipelines are found throughout the Plan Area. There are approximately 720,496 feet (136.46 miles) of sewer mains and 2,185 manholes in the Plan Area.
The Specific Plan does not trigger a need to expand the RWRF. There would be a network of sewer collection infrastructure installed throughout the Plan Area to serve the West Area Specific Plan The Specific Plan wastewater collection system will include future construction of sewer improvements and replacements of existing lines, some of which are now over 75 years old. Approximately 11.25 miles of public and privately-owned (i.e., homeowner’s responsibility) sewer system drainage lines are proposed to serve the Plan Area at buildout.
Physical impacts from future construction of the wastewater infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1 - 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).
CONCLUSION
The construction of the new wastewater facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the wastewater system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future wastewater infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.
It is noted, however, that future development of wastewater infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13 -3 through 3.13 -5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.
3. 15-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
Impact 3.15-2: The proposed Specific Plan would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Plan Area that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Specific Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Less than Significant)
PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION
The projected future average dry weather base flow as a result of buildout of the City’s General Plan is 150 MGD. This flow includes 8.7 MGD from large dischargers and 15.86 MGD from Clovis. The 8.40 MGD designated by Clovis for treatment at a satellite wastewater treatment plant is not included.
This flow also includes all flow from the Southeast Growth Area and the flow from the anticipated treatment plant in the North Growth Area.
The wastewater generation resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan Area is shown in Table 3.15-
1. As shown, buildout of the Specific Plan Area would result in 11,365,120.30 gpd, or approximately
11.4 MGD. It is noted, however, the wastewater generation calculated and shown in Table 3.15 -1 includes much of the wastewater that is currently generated by the existing developed uses in the Plan Area.
TABLE 3.15-1: WASTEWATER GENERATION
PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY
PROPOSED
GROSS ACREAGE
UNIT FACTOR
(EDU/ACRE)1 GPD
Residential Low 508.04 1 147,331.60
Residential Medium Low 1,381.46 1 400,623.40
Residential Medium 2,082.32 12 7,246,473.60
Residential Medium High 300.84 12 1,046,923.20
Residential Urban Neighborhood 168.56 15 733,236.00
Residential High 27.38 15 119,103.00
Commercial Community 55.14 4 63,962.40
Commercial Recreation 41.33 3 35,957.10
Commercial General 155.81 7 316,294.30
Commercial Regional 4.24 4 4,918.40
Employment Office 52.48 7 106,534.40
Employment Business Park 74.97 4 86,965.20
Employment Light Industrial 32.75 4 37,990.00
Mixed Use Neighborhood 225.25 4 261,290.00
Mixed Use Corridor/Center 215.98 7 438,439.40
Mixed Use Regional 14.89 15 64,771.50
Open Space Neighborhood Park 76.9 - -
Open Space Community Park 66.3 - -
Open Space Open Space 62.3 - -
Open Space Park 8.94 - -
Open Space Ponding Basin 124.5 - -
Open Space Easement 18.86 - -
Public Facilities Public Facility 22.84 2 13,247.20
Public Facilities Church 68.55 2 39,759.00
Public Facilities Elem. School 91.82 3 79,883.40
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-9
PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY
PROPOSED
GROSS ACREAGE
UNIT FACTOR
(EDU/ACRE)1 GPD
Public Facilities Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 3 126,471.90 Public Facilities High School 46.95 3 40,846.50
Public Facilities Special School 18.37 3 15,981.90
Public Facilities Fire Station 3.32 3 2,888.40
TOTAL 6,096.46 -- 11,365,120.30
3.15 UTILITIES
NOTE: 1 ACCORDING TO THE CITY’S WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, 290 GALLONS PER DAY (GPD) OF WASTEWATER ARE GENERATED PER EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU). UNIT FACTORS ARE PROVIDED IN TABLE 4-4 OF THE CITY’S WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN.
SOURCE: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2024.
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
As noted previously, the RWRF is located s outhwest of the city in t he area generally bounded by Jensen, Cornelia, Central and Chateau Fresno Avenues. Wastewater from the Plan Area is treated at the RWRF, which has an average annual flow of approximately 60 MGD. The RWRF receives and treats wastewater from three additional service areas, including: the City of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District. The RWRF has an ADWF capacity of 92 MGD; however, it can treat the PWWF that occurs during storm events, which is higher than the ADWF but lasts for short duration. The City of Clovis owns 9.3 MGD of ADWF capacity, while the remaining capacity belongs to the City. Additionally, although the NFWRF does not serve the Plan Area directly, it contributes to the City’s total wastewater treatment capacity.
Wastewater treatment plant capacities are typically rated based on the ADWF flow. The permitted wastewater treatment capacity of the RWRF is currently 80.0 MGD as an annual monthly average flow, and 88.0 MGD as a maximum monthly average flow. The City is currently evaluating upgrades and modifications to the existing RWRF that may result in a capacity rating increase of 15 MGD.
The Specific Plan would require wastewater collection and treatment services. The City owns and operates their own collection system. Sewer collection and treatment issues and opportunities that would result from buildout of the Plan Area (as noted in the City of Fresno Specific Plan for the West Area Utility Background Summary) are discussed below.
At build out, the City’s wastewater flows are expected to increase substantially. As such, there are some areas of the existing collection system that cannot convey the build out PWWF w ithin the established maximum flow to full flow ( q/Q) ratio of 1.15. There are several localized driven improvements needed in the Downtown area (C -1 through C-7), and an additional upsizing for the pipeline along the city’s southern border that feeds the RWRF (C-8, C-10).
Four development driven projects (D-26A, D-26B, D-27A, D-27B) are identified within or along the borders of the Plan Area. Approximately 3.6 miles of public and privately-owned (i.e., homeowner’s responsibility) sewer system drainage lines are proposed to serve the West Area at buildout. The City does not currently collect supervisory c ontrol and data acquisition (SCADA) data for their lif t stations. Were feasible, Collection System Master Plan (Carollo, 2015) re commends that upgrades be performed to allow for proper f low monitoring data acquisition, which will help confirm lift station capacity and monitor lift station performance.
3. 15-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
Additional agricultural or urban water reuse in the future is a possibility with additional distribution and/or treatment facilities. The RWRF currently delivers approximately 4,700 acre-feet per year (AFY) (Water Systems Consulting Inc., 2021) of undisinfected secondary effluent to growers of non- food crops within the city. An additional 1,400 acres could be served with an expansion of the conveyance system or the establishment of an exchange agreement with FID. Within the Plan Area, approximately 10 miles of new recycled water distribution pipelines are planned to be constructed by buildout.
The 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan outlines three locations for potential regional recharge areas.
Also referenced as a "super recharge basin", one of the regional recharge areas is located partially within the Plan Area. If the basins are constructed, a portion of the recharge water could be made up of recycled water, provided there is at least six months travel time from the super recharge basin to the nearest drinking water well.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Specific Plan would increase the amount of wastewater requiring treatment. The wastewater would be treated at the RWRF. Given the capacity of 92 MGD, the average annual flow of approximately 56 MGD, and the 11.4 MGD generated by the buildout of the Plan Area (including existing demand and future demand), there is sufficient plant capacity. This is a less than significant impact.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-11
3.15 UTILITIES
3.15.2 WATER SUPPLIES
EXISTING SETTING
Water Purveyor and System
The existing incorporated area of the City of Fresno encompasses approximately 115 square miles (2020 UWMP). The City’s General Plan includes the area outside of the city limits that the City expects to annex and urbanize in the future, also known as the SOI. With a few exceptions, the City’s water service area is coterminous with the city limits. As future developments within the SOI, but outside the city limits, are approved, they will be annexed into the city and served by the City’s water system.
The City’s water system consists of about 1, 909 miles of distribution and transmission mains, 2 60 municipal groundwater wells, three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 MGD, five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system, and three booster pump facilities.
As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the city has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 AF of water.
In addition to the City’s water system, there are four independent water systems located within the city limits, including Bakman Water Company, Pinedale County Water District, California State University Fresno, and Park Van Ness Mutual Water Company. These independent water systems have their own water supplies, and do not receive water from the City, with the exception of a portion of the Pinedale County Water District east of Highway 41 and south of Herndon Avenue.
The City has emergency interties with the C ity of Clovis and California State University, Fresno, that provides additional water supply flexibility.
The Plan Area is served by nearly 157 miles of water distribution pipelines and 7 miles of recycled water distribution pipelines . These run primarily on Cornelia (Shields to Belmont/edge of West Boundary) and on Belmont (Cornelia to West/edge of West Boundary).
Water Demand
HISTORICAL AND EXISTING WATER DEMAND
The following information is based on the Specific Plan of the West Area Water Supply Assessment (WSA) (West Yost, 2024).
The City’s water demand has decreased as a result of the economic downturn of 2008 through 2011, water use reductions in response to recent drought conditions, and metering of residential properties. Since 2013, all water services in the City’s water service area have been metered. Single- family residential water use has decreased since the Single-Family Metering Program was completed in 2013. Landscape irrigation demands did decrease in 2015 and 2016, likely due to the drought
3.1 5-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
restrictions, and continue to recover after the drought ended in 2017. Table 3.15-2 shows the City’s historical water demands for 2013 through 2020.
TABLE 3.15-2: H ISTORICAL WATER DEMAND
2013(a) 2014(a) 2015(a) 2016(a) 2017(a) 2018(a) 2019(a) 2020(b) Total Potable and Raw
Water Demand, af/yr 133,692 122,191 102,308 103,045 110,525 110,725 106,500 121,993 NOTES: (A) CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, FIGURE-4-1.
(B) CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 4-2.
SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2024.
FUTURE WATER DEMAND
The City’s 2045 projected water demand at buildout (based on existing water demand, the projected demands for the Plan Area under the General Plan, the difference in demands for the Plan Area between the Specific Plan and the General Plan, and undefined future developments) is summarized in Table 3.15 -3. The General Plan is expected to be built out by 2056, but for the purposes of the WSA that was completed for the proposed Specific Plan, the Plan Area was assumed to be annexed and built out by 2045. The City’s preliminary water demand projections for the Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan, resulting in a negative value if the proposed Specific Plan land use map is built out instead of the General Plan.
TABLE 3.15-3: PROJECTED FUTURE WATER DEMAND AT 2045
UNITS, AF/YR WATER DEMAND
Current (2020) Water Demand(a) 121,993
General Plan for West Area(b) 6,971
Subtotal (without Project) 8,964
Project (West Area Specific Plan)(b,c) 2,448
Subtotal (with Project) 151,412
Undefined Future Developments 90,035
Total Water Demand 241,447
NOTES:
(A) DATA FROM TABLE 5-1 OF THE WSA [TABLE 3.15-2 OF THIS SECTION]. (B) DATA FROM TABLE 2-2 OF THE WSA [TABLE 3.15-2 OF THIS SECTION]. (C) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PLAN AREA. (D) BALANCE BETWEEN SUBTOTAL (WITH PROJECT) AND TOTAL WATER DEMAND.
SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2024.
DRY YEAR WATER DEMAND
As shown in Table 3.15-2, the City’s 2015 water demand was significantly lower than the 2013 demand in response to the drought and the Governor’s April 2015 Executive Order B -29-15 mandating 25 percent water conservation statewide. To reduce water use by 25 percent statewide, the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) adopted a regulation which placed each urban water supplier into one of nine tiers which are assigned a conservation standard, ranging between four percent and 36 percent. Each month, the SWRCB compared every urban water suppliers’ water use with their use for the same month in 2013 to determine if they were on track for meeting their conservation standard. The city of Fresno was initially placed into Tier 7 with a water conservation Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-13
3.15 UTILITIES
standard of 28 percent as compared to 2013 use (the City’s conservation standard was reduced to 25 percent in early 2016).
The City currently has a demand management program in place, as described in Section 9 of the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, outlined in Section 8 and Appendix J of the City’s 2020 UWMP, includes a five-stage plan describing specific actions to reduce water demand by up to 50 percent in the event of a water supply shortage or emergency. Demand is expected to decrease as the City implements water conservation measures in response to multiple dry years or other supply changes.
Table 3.15-4 presents the projected future dry year potable water demand.
TABLE 3.15-4: PROJECTED FUTURE DRY YEAR TOTAL WATER DEMAND, AF/YR HYDROLOGIC CONDITION 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Dry Year(a) 164,092 176,132 184,174 192,228 200,287 Multiple Dry Years First Year(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Multiple Dry Years Second Year(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Multiple Dry Years Third Year(b) 190,267 193,637 197,736 201,753 205,708 Multiple Dry Years Fourth Year(b) 162,551 165,920 170,020 174,036 177,992 Multiple Dry Years Fifth Year(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 NOTES:
(A) DATA FROM THE CITY O F FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2. (B) DATA FROM THE CITY O F FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-3.
SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2024.
Water Supply
The City currently receives water supplies from four sources:
• Surface water contract water that is delivered to the city by two separate sources:
o FID Agreement for Kings River water.
o USBR Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division Contract for San Joaquin River water.
• Groundwater that is pumped from groundwater wells located within the city. • Recycled water that is treated at the RWRF and NFWRF. This water may only be used for non-potable uses.
Each of these existing supplies is described below.
SURFACE WATER CONTRACTS
The cumulative supply these contracts bring to the City provide the opportunity to construct surface water treatment facilities and optimize the use of these supplies. This conjunctive use approach continues the process of allowing the groundwater system t o recover. Each of the surface water supplies is summarized in the following two sections.
Surface Water Supplies through FID Agreement: In May of 1976 the City of Fresno and FID executed an agreement that stipulated that as land is annexed to the city, the City will receive a pro rata share
3.15-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
of FID’s Kings River entitlement; this agreement was revised, amended and restated in December, 2016. The pro rata share is based on the area annexed to the city, and within FID’s boundaries, as compared to the total area of FID’s water service area. The agreement stipulates the allocation amount will be reviewed each year by the two agencies to address new annexations to the city. So, as the City annexes new areas, the allocation will increase up to the limits stipulated in the 2016 agreement. Utilizing GIS, there will be approximately 71,925 acres of land within the SOI and within FID’s water service boundaries at SOI buildout, excluding Bakman Water Company, CSU Fresno, and County islands.
As the City incorporates new land area into its service area, the percentage of FID supply increases.
However, the 2016 FID Agreement sets the maximum percentage as 29.0 percent, although the City’s service area is anticipated to expand and encompass more than 29.0 percent of FID’s service area between 2025 and 2030. In 2020, the City’s percentage of overall FID Kings deliveries was
25.79 percent. The supply projections in this plan limit the City’s FID supply with the 29.0 percent cap, but if the agreement were revised in the future the City’s FID allocation percentage could grow beyond 29.0 percent as the water service area expands (City of Fresno 2020 UWMP).
Surface Water Supplies through USBR Contract: The City, through an agreement originally executed in January of 1961, secured a surface water supply from USBR CVP - Friant Division. This agreement, for an annual water supply of 60,000 AF of Class 1 water, was last renewed in 2010 as a Section 9(d) Contract that provides water from the San Joaquin River in perpetuity. The USBR C VP – Friant Division facilities generally include: Friant Dam (Millerton Reservoir); the Friant Kern Canal; and the Madera Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is maintained and operated by the Friant Water Authority. The USBR water supply is a wholesale supply.
Class 1 water was intended to be a supply that would be dependable in practically every year, regardless of the type of hydrologic water year. Class 2 water is essentially excess water available as determined by USBR and less reliable than Class 1 water. Class 1 water has historically been very reliable until the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement and more recently by the restrictions on diversions from the Delta due to concerns over the declining health of Delta ecosystem.
GROUNDWATER
The City pumps groundwater from a portion of the Kings Subbasin underlying the city. The City’s 2020 UWMP states that the City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin. Groundwater quality is a concern because the groundwater basin has several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants . The total well capacity, when the City’s Water Master Plan was written, was approximately 460 MGD.
Groundwater Basin Description: The City’s wells are located within the northern part of the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The following section describes the Kings Subbasin, including its water -bearing 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 sub-basin 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.
Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-15
3.15 UTILITIES
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 groundwa ter. 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 c ity’s average groundwater depth in 2015 is approximately 130 feet below the ground surface.
Conditions of Overdraft: 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 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Contro l District (FMFCD) and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but also to specific facilities owned and operated by 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 the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available.
Groundwater Management: 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 (City of Fresno 2020 UWMP). The city of Fresno falls within the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). The NKGSA prepared and submitted
3. 15-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
its GSP on January 28, 2020 and is awaiting completion of DWR’s review (DWR SGMA Portal GSP Status Summary).
Historical Groundwater Use: As discussed previously, the City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin, according to the 2020 UWMP. The City’s groundwater production over the last 18 years is provided in Table 3.15-5.
TABLE 3.15-5: CITY OF FRESNO HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION
YEAR TOTAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION (AFY)
2003 165,200
2004 160,000
2005 141,500
2006 136,000
2007 146,300
2008 148,700
2009 138,200
2010 128,600
2011 119,900
2012 119,500
2013 123,200
2014 106,800
2015 82,500
2016 99,100
2017 105,200
2018 76,800
2019 54,600
2020 55,000
NOTES: (A) FROM CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 6-7.
SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2024.
Projected Future Groundwater Use : The amount of groundwater pumped during dry years is not projected to differ from the amount pumped during normal years. The City’s projected future groundwater production through 2045 is provided in Table 3.15-6.
TABLE 3.15-6: CITY OF FRESNO PROJECTED FUTURE GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION IN NORMAL AND DRY YEARS 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Groundwater Production During
a Normal Year(a) 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820 Total Groundwater Production During
Dry Years(b) 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
NOTES: (A) FROM CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-1. (B) FROM CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2.
SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2024.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-17
3.15 UTILITIES
REGULATORY SETTING – W ATER SUPPLIES
The following is an overview of the State and local regulations related to water supplies that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
State
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Sections 10610 -10610.4) requires urban water suppliers such as Cal Water that provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or more than 3,000 AFY of water, to prepare an UWMP. UWMPs assist water supply agencies in water resource planning given existing and anticipated future demands and must include a water supply and demand assessment comparing total water supply available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over a 20 -year period. The Act requires that the plans be updated every five years and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources. The purpose of the plans is to support long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. UWMPs must also report progress on a 20% reduction in per-capita urban water consumption by 2020.
SENATE BILL (SB) 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 was adopted in 2001 and reflects the growing awareness of the need to incorporate water supply and demand analysis at the earliest possible stage in the land use planning process. SB 610 amended the statutes of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, as well as the California Water Code Section 10910 et seq. The foundation document for compliance with SB 610 is the UWMP, which provides an important source of information for cities and counties as they update their general plans. Likewise, planning documents such as general plans and specific plans form the basis for the demand information contained in an UWMP, as well as a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) required under SB 610.
Water Code Section 10910 (c)(4) states “If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20 -year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.” Water supply planning under SB 610 requires reviewing and identifying adequate available water supplies necessary to meet the demand generated by a project, as well as the cumulative demand for the general region over the next 20 years, under a broad range of water conditions. This information is typically found in the current UWMP for the project area. SB 610 requires the identification of the public water supplier for a project. The City of Fresno has been identified in the WSA as the public water supplier to the West Area Specific Plan.
3. 15-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
In addition, SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA if a project meets the definition of a “Project” under Water Code Section 10912 (a). The code defines a “Project” as meeting any of the following criteria:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A hotel or motel, or both, with more than 500 rooms;
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park, planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects identified in Section 10912(a); or
• A project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units or greater.
Alternately, if a public water system has less than 5,000 service connections, the definition of a “Project” includes any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of service connections for the public water system. Thus, the City has prepared a WSA as required by these criteria under SB 610. The WSA is included in this EIR as Appendix E of this EIR.
A WSA must include analysis of the estimated water demands and proposed water sources for a new project. More specifically, the WSA must address whether existing supplies of domestic water available to the development are adequate to serve the project, and will continue to be adequate over the next 20 years during normal, dry, and multiple- dry years, taking into account the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. (Wat. Code, § 10910, subds. (c)(3), (c)(4).)
If the public water system concludes that existing supplies will be sufficient for all such demands, including the demand created by a proposed project, the public water system must demonstrate the availability of such water by providing the following as part of a WSA:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
(C) Federal, State, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
(Id., subd. (d)(2).)
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-19
3.15 UTILITIES
If the WSA concludes that existing supplies will not be sufficient, the WSA must include a strategy for acquiring “additional supplies.” (Wat. Code, § 10911, subd. (a).) Under such a scenario, the WSA should include information concerning the following:
(1) The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies.
(2) All federal, State, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies. (3) Based on the considerations set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city and county. . . expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies.
(Ibid.)
A finding of insufficiency in a WSA does not require a city or county to deny or downsize a proposed development project. In preparing the environmental document for a project requiring a WSA, the city or county lead agency may include its own evaluation of the information contained in the WSA. (Wat. Code, § 10911, subd. (c).) At the time of project approval, the lead agency must then “determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.” (Ibid.) Even if, after the lead agency’s own evaluation, it determines that there are not sufficient water supplies for the project, there is nothing to prevent the agency from approving the project, so long as the agency “include[s] that determination in its findings for the project.” ( Ibid.; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15155, subd. (e).)
In 2016, the Legislature amended SB 610 to require WSAs for projects anticipating groundwater usage to address whether any groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to SGMA, and to include information from any such plan. (See Wat.
Code, § 10910, subd. (f)(2)(C)(ii).)
The Water Code also specifically references unadjudicated basins:
(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment . . . (C) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin d esignated as high- or medium- priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information regarding the following. . . . (ii) If a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan or has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan.
3. 15-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
SENATE BILL (SB) 221
SB 221 (Business and Professional Code Section 11010 and Government Code Section 65867.5, Section 66455.3, and 66473.7) amended State law to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties.1 SB 221 establishes the relationship between a project WSA and the tentative and final subdivision map approvals under the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to California Government Code 66473.7(b), the public water system must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply prior to the approval of a new subdivision. 2 SB 221 prohibits a local planning agency from approving a final subdivision map for a residential subdivision of more than 500 units unless the water supplier has issued a written verification that a sufficient water supply is available for the project, or the local agency finds that alternate water supplies are, or will be, available prior to the completion of the project. This outcome can be accomplished by imposing a tentative subdivision map condition precluding the approval of final subdivision map abs ent the required showing of water availability.
Nor may a local agency approve a development agreement for a project that will result in more than 500 residential units without the agreement expressly providing that required tentative maps will be subject to these water availability requirements.
A “sufficient water supply” under SB 221 is the total water supplies available to the water provider during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years within a 20 -year projection that will meet the projected demand of the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses.3 The water provider’s verification must be based on substantial evidence such as water supply contracts, capital outlay programs, and regulatory permits and approvals regarding the water provider’s right to and capability of delivering the project supply.
THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
In California, there are two statutory schemes dealing with groundwater management. The first is the Groundwater Management Act, first introduced in 1992 as Assembly Bill (AB) 3030 and since modified by Senate Bill (SB) 1938 in 2002, and AB 359 in 2011. Th e second is the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) (SGMA), enacted in 2014.
The intent of the SGMA is to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and to provide a methodology for developing voluntary groundwater management plans. The Act enables, but does not require, water agencies to develop and implement groundwater management plans (GWMPs) to manage the groundwater resources in the jurisdiction of the participating parties.
The SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as the “management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon 1 California Business and Professions Code, Section 11010 and California Government Code, Section 66473.4. 2 California Government Code, Section 66473.7(b).
3 California Government Code, Section 66473.7(a)(2).
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-21
3.15 UTILITIES
without causing undesirable results.” The legislation defines “undesirable results” to be any of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply;
• Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage; • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality; • Significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and
• Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
The legislation provides for financial and enforcement tools to carry out effective local sustainable groundwater management through formation of groundwater sustainability agencies consisting of local public agencies, water companies regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, and mutual water companies. The legislation requires that groundwater sustainability agencies within high- and medium priority basins under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program subject to critical conditions of overdraft prepare and submit groundwater sustainability plans for the basin by January 31, 2020, and requires groundwater sustainability agencies in all other groundwater basins designated as high - or medium priority basins to prepare and submit a groundwater sustainability plan by January 31, 2022. Following State approval, the basin would thereafter be managed under the groundwater sustainability plan. The legislation does not require adjudicated basins to develop groundwater sustainability plans, but they are required to report their water use.
The key intended outcomes and benefits of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act are numerous, and include:
• Advancement in understanding and knowledge of the State’s groundwater basins and their issues and challenges;
• Establishment of effective local governance to protect and manage groundwater basins; • Management of regional water resources for regional self-sufficiency and drought resilience;
• Sustainable management of groundwater basins through the actions of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, utilizing State assistance and intervention only when necessary; • All groundwater basins in California are operated to maintain adequate protection to support the beneficial uses for the resource;
• Surface water and groundwater are managed as “a Single Resource” to sustain their interconnectivity, provide dry season base flow to interconnected streams, and support and promote long-term aquatic ecosystem health and vitality; • A statewide framework for local groundwater management planning, including development of sustainable groundwater management best management practices and plans;
• Development of comprehensive and uniform water budgets, groundwater models, and engineering tools for effective management of groundwater basins;
3. 15-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
• Improved coordination between land use and groundwater planning; and • Enforcement actions as needed by the SWRCB to achieve region-by -region sustainable groundwater management in accordance with the 2014 legislation.
As ultimately approved, groundwater sustainability plans must include, among other things, (i) a “general discussion of historical and projected water demands and supplies,” (ii) “[m]easurable objectives, as well as interim milestones in increments of five years, to achieve the sustainability goal in the basin within 20 years of the implementation of the plan, and (iii) a “description of how the plan helps meet each objective and how each objective is intended to achieve the sustainability goal for the basi n for long -term beneficial uses of groundwater.” (Wat. Code, § 10727.2, subds. (a)(3), (b)(1), and (b)(2).)
To assist in attaining the above outcomes, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) will provide groundwater sustainability agencies with the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage their water resources. The benefits of these outcomes include:
• A reliable, safe and sustainable water supply to protect communities, farms, and the environment, and support a stable and growing economy; and • Elimination of long -term groundwater overdraft, an increase in groundwater storage, avoidance or minimization of subsidence, enhancement of water flows in stream systems, and prevention of future groundwater quality degradation.
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 the GSP and submitted it to the California DWR on January 28, 2020, ahead of the January 31, 2020 mandate.
Local
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to water supply for the proposed Specific Plan:
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 3.15-23
3.15 UTILITIES
Policy PU-8-a: Forecast Need. Use available and innovative tools, such as computerized flow modeling to determine system capacity, as necessary to forecast demand on water production and distribution systems by urban development, and to determine appropriate facility needs.
Policy PU-8-b: Potable Water Supply and Cost Recovery. Prepare for provision of increased potable water capacity (including surface water treatment capacity) in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development consistent with the General Plan. Accommodate increase in water demand from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law, and recognizing the differences in terms of quantity, quality and reliability of the various types of water in the City’s portfolio.
Policy PU-8-c: Conditions of Approval. Set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary potable water production and supply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy.
Policy PU-8-d: CIP Update. Continue to evaluate Capital Improvement Programs and update them, as appropriate, to meet the demands of both existing and planned development consistent with the General Plan.
Policy PU-8-e: Repairs. Continue to evaluate existing water production and distribution systems and plan for necessary repair or enhancement of damaged or antiquated facilities.
Policy PU-8-f: Water Quality. Continue to evaluate and implement measures determined to be appropriate and consistent with water system policies, including prioritizing the use of groundwater, installing wellhead treatment facilities, constructing above-ground storage and surface water treatment facilities, and enhancing transmission grid mains to promote adequate water quality and quantity.
Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long-range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – WATER SUPPLY
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
3. 15-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, th e construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects . (Significant and Unavoidable)
The provision of public services and the construction of onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements will be required to accommodate future development consistent with the Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan would likely require extension of offsite water infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area for water service. All offsite water piping improvements would be in or adjacent to existing roadways, thereby limiting new environmental impacts.
More than 15 percent (42 wells out of 270) of the City’s wells were constructed prior to 1960 (over 60 years ago) and almost 40 percent (98 of 270) were constructed prior to 1970 (over 50 years ago).
According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, it has been recommended that the wells be replaced after 45 to 50 years; thus, about 40 percent of the City’s wells are overdue for r eplacement. Also, mechanical and electrical well component upgrades are required about every 20 to 25 years. Therefore, it is anticipated that significant well installations, replacements, and upgrades may be needed to these systems in the near future to maintain existing groundwater supply capacity and meet increased water demands.
One of the greatest challenges facing the City’s water distribution system is conveying water from areas of high-water production to areas of high-water demand. The water production and distribution system historically has been a distributed system whereby groundwater wells would be constructed on an as-needed basis in the area where the water was needed. This distributed water system does not require large diameter transmission mains to convey water from one portion of the city to another.
Physical impacts from future construction of the water infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1 - 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).
CONCLUSION
The construction of the new water facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the water system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other c ases there are significant and unav oidable impacts. The future water infrastructure would fall within the range of Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-25
3.15 UTILITIES
environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.
It is noted, however, that future development of water infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2 -1 and Impact 3.2 -2), air quality (Impacts 3.3 -1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13 -3 through 3.13 -5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.15-4: The proposed Specific Plan would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Plan Area and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (Less than Significant)
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
The projected water demand for future buildout of the proposed Specific Plan is based on the calculations described in the Water Supply Assessment (the “Water Supply Assessment” or “WSA”) developed by West Yost Associates for the proposed Specific Plan.
The total water demand for the proposed Project at buildout is projected to be approximately 29,419 AFY. The proposed Project is projected to use 2,448 AFY more than the water demand projected using General Plan land uses for the Plan Area.
Table 3.15-7 summarizes the projected availability of the City’s existing and planned future potable water supplies and the City’s projected water demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years through 2045. As shown in Table 3.15-7, demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2025 and 2045.
The WSA completed for the West Area Specific Plan demonstrates that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045, under all hydrologic conditions.
As described in the WSA, the City’s 2020 UWMP addressed the sufficiency of the City’s groundwater supplies, in conjunction with the City’s other existing and additional water supplies, to meet the City’s existing and planned future uses. Based on the information provided above and that included in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City’s groundwater supply, together with the City’s other existing and additional planned future water supplies, is sufficient to meet the water demands of the proposed Specific Plan, in addition to the City’s existing and planned future uses.
3. 15-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
TABLE 3.15-7: FRESNO SUMMARY OF WATER DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY DURING HYDROLOGIC
NORMAL, SINGLE DRY, AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS, MGD
HYDROLOGIC CONDITION 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
NORMAL YEAR
Available Water Supply(a) 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330 Total Water Demand(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 129,826 128,384 124,300 120,124 115,883 Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
SINGLE DRY YEAR
Available Water Supply(c) 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582 Total Water Demand(d) 164,092 176,132 184,174 192,228 200,287 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 25,760 19,260 16,688 14,024 11,295 Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
Multiple
Dry
Year 1
Available Water Supply(e) 273,725 279,265 284,735 290,125 295,455 Total Water Demand(d) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 74,521 66,509 62,425 58,249 54,008 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 2
Available Water Supply(e) 274,626 280,166 285,636 291,026 296,356 Total Water Demand(d) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 75,422 67,410 63,326 59,150 54,909 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 3
Available Water Supply(e) 217,568 223,108 228,578 233,968 239,298 Total Water Demand(d) 190,267 193,637 197,736 201,753 205,708 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,590 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 4
Available Water Supply(e) 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582 Total Water Demand(d) 162,551 165,920 170,020 174,036 177,992 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 27,301 29,472 30,842 32,216 33,590 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 5
Available Water Supply 314,840 320,380 325,850 331,240 336,570 Total Water Demand 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 115,636 107,624 103,540 99,364 95,123 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
NOTES:
(A) FROM TABLE 7-1 OF THE WSA.
(B) DATA FOR 2040 FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-3. (C) FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2. (D) FROM TABLE 5-3 OF THE WSA [TABLE 3.15-4 OF THIS SECTION]. (E) DATA FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2.
SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2024.
CONCLUSION
Water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045 under all hydrologic conditions. Therefore, overall, buildout of the Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-27
3.15 UTILITIES
3.15.3 STORMWATER
EXISTING SETTING
Storm Drain System
The FMFCD has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the city, as well as a large area beyond the city’s boundaries. The city’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by FID and then conveyed away from the municipal area.
Regionally, the city is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' ( USACE) Redbank- Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200 -year storm event. Major facilities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.
Locally, the District’s 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, 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 District has planned for streets or other conveyance facilities to move the excess runoff to the basins.
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.
3. 15-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Floodplain Mapping
Flood Hazards in the city are described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s January 20, 2016 Flood Insurance Study but are largely based on hydraulic modeling performed in
UTILITIES 3.15
1981. 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 contro l and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years.
Climate change is likely to increase the volume, frequency, and intensity of events in the future in the Central Valley.
REGULATORY SETTING – STORMWATER
The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations related to stormwater that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
Federal
CLEAN WATER ACT
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the water quality of all discharges into waters of the United States including wetlands, perennial and intermittent stream channels. Section 401, Title 33, Section 1341 (also known as Section 401) of the CWA sets forth water quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” Section 404, Title 33, Section 1344 (also known as Section 404) of the CWA in part authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to:
• Set requirements and standards pertaining to such discharges: subparagraph (e); • Issue permits “for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites”: subparagraph (a);
• Specify the disposal sites for such permits: subparagraph (b); • Deny or restrict the use of specified disposal sites if “the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies and fishery areas”: subparagraph (c);
• Specify type of and conditions for non-prohibited discharges: subparagraph (f); • Provide for individual State or interstate compact administration of general permit programs: subparagraphs (g), (h), and (j);
• Withdraw approval of such State or interstate permit programs: subparagraph (i); • Ensure public availability of permits and permit applications: subparagraph (o); • Exempt certain Federal or State projects from regulation under this Section: subparagraph (r); and,
• Determine conditions and penalties for violation of permit conditions or limitations:
subparagraph (s).
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-29
3.15 UTILITIES
• Section 401 certification is required prior to final issuance of Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The California State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCBs enforce State of California statutes that are equivalent to or more stringent than the Federal statutes. RWQCBs are responsible for establishing water quality standards and objectives that protect the beneficial uses of various waters. In the city of Fresno, the Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface and groundwater from both point and non-point sources of pollution. Water quality objectives for a ll of the water bodies within the city were established by the Central Valley RWQCB and are listed in the Basin Plan.
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 Section 1342 and Sections 1341-1346).
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 or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. To expedite the permit issuance process, 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 and construction activities in the Central Coast Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB. The SWRCB adopted general permits for Phase II Regulated Small MS4s and Small Construction Activity. On March 10, 2003, Operators of Phase II Regulated Small MS4s and Small Construction Activity were required to obtain permit coverage.
The Central Valley RWQCB issued a region-wide MS4 Permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040) covering the entire Central Valley RWQCB Region, and covering storm drainage systems in cities as small as 10,000 population, in June 2016. Permittees must develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) including the following elements:
• Illegal Connection and Illicit Discharge Elimination Program
3. 15-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
• Construction Storm Water Runoff Control Program
• Industrial/Commercial Storm Water Runoff Control Program • Municipal Operations Storm Water Runoff Control Program (Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping)
• Public Involvement and Participation Program
• Planning and Land Development/Post Construction Storm Water Management Program • Priority development projects, identified below, are required to incorporate stormwater mitigation measures:
o Single-family hillside residences.
o Residential subdivisions of ten or more units.
o 100,000-square-foot industrial/commercial development. o Automotive repair shops.
o Restaurants.
o Parking lots with 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or more parking spaces. o Redevelopment projects that are within one of above categories and that add or create at least 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface. • Stormwater management strategies include:
o Site Design Measures: Emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale stormwater controls to mimic natural drainage.
o Source Control Measures: Intended to keep pollutants from mixing with runoff, and thus minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants off -site and into storm drains. Source control measures include standards for design and operation of outdoor areas where substances that could contaminate stormwater are used, such as fueling areas, loading areas, material storage areas, and work areas. o Treatment Control Measures: remove pollutants from site runoff; measures include bioretention planters, vegetated swales, and infiltration trenches and basins. o Low Impact Development (LID) Measures: emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small- scale stormwater controls to mimic natural drainage. LID measures include stream setbacks and buffers, soil amendments, tree planting and preservation, rooftop and impervious area disconnection, porous pavement, eco roofs, bioretention planters, and rain barrels or cisterns.
• Monitoring Program.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Fresno County 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 in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-31
3.15 UTILITIES
Communities are occasionally audited by the Department of Water Resources to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.
State
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
The Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) major responsibilities include preparing and updating the California Water Plan to guide development and management of the State's water resources, planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the S tate Water Resources Development System, protecting and restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, regulating dams, providing flood protection, assisting in emergency management to safeguard life and property, educating the public, and serving local water needs by providing technical assistance. In addition, the DWR cooperates with local agencies on water resources investigations; supports watershed and river restoration programs; encourages water conservation; explores conjunctive use of ground and surface water; facilitates voluntary water transfers; and, when needed, operates a State drought water bank.
CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
California’s primary s tatute governing water quality and water p ollution 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 State Water Resource Control Board (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 RWQCBs 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 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:
3. 15-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
(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 S tate 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.
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 th e 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 beneficial 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 of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.
Local
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to stormwater and drainage for the proposed Specific Plan:
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-33
3.15 UTILITIES
Objective POSS-3: Ensure that park and recreational facilities make the most efficient use of land; that they are designed and managed to provide for the entire Fresno community; and that they represent positive examples of design and energy conservation.
Policy POSS-3-i: Joint Use with Drainage Facilities. Continue to seek joint use agreements for use of FMFCD stormwater drainage facilities.
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.
Objective PU -7: Promote reduction in wastewater flows and develop facilities for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and biosolids for management and distribution of treated wastewater.
Policy POSS-7-b: Reduce Stormwater Leakage. Reduce storm water infiltration into the sewer collection system, where feasible, through a program of replacing old and deteriorated sewer collection pipeline; eliminating existing stormwater sewer cut-ins to the sanitary sewer system; and avoiding any new sewer cut-ins except when required to protect health and safety.
Objective NS-3: Minimize the risks to property, life, and the environment due t o 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
3. 15-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
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-h: Runoff Controls. Implement grading regulations and related development policies that protect area residents from flooding caused by urban runoff produced from events that exceed the capacity of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan system of facilities. Place all structures and/or flood-proofing in a manner that does not cause floodwaters to be diverted onto adjacent property, increase flood hazards to other property, or otherwise adversely affect other property.
Policy NS-3-i: New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project.
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 of the City’s Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq.) by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to the storm drain system.
Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, Article 6 Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance establish methods of reducing flood losses by: restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-35
3.15 UTILITIES
safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards or flood heights or velocities; requiring that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood water or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; and controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – STORM WATER
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, th e construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Stormwater represents a water supply opportunity that the City is currently leveraging with its extensive recharge basin system. Infiltration of captured stormwater allows groundwater to be recharged, improves overall water quality, and reduces the need for additional other water supplies.
Since the system is designed to handle approximately a two -year event within the underground drainage system, a significant amount of drainage is conveyed in the streets or through “major storm breakover” conveyances to detention/retention flood basins. This tends to result in shallow flooding over significant areas during larger events, but coupled with large regional flood control projects, the system can handle up to a 200-year, 30-day event.
Installation of storm drainage infrastructure would occur during the construction phases of individual future projects within the Plan Area. There is significant storm drainage infrastructure remaining to be constructed to serve the Plan Area. About 32 miles of additional drainage pipelines is anticipated to be constructed to meet buildout needs.
Physical impacts from future construction of the storm drainage infrastructure within the Plan A rea is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1 - 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).
3. 15-36 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
CONCLUSION
The construction of the new on-site stormwater drainage facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area , has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the stormwater system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future storm drainage infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.
It is noted, however, that future development of storm drainage infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13 -3 through 3.13 -5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-37
3.15 UTILITIES
3.15.4 SOLID WASTE
EXISTING SETTING
Fresno diverts a majority of its solid waste away from landfills and into recycling and composting programs. Recycling of construction and demolition debris and materials is required for any City - issued building, relocation or demolition permitted project that generates at least eight cubic yards of material by volume, and all waste must be hauled to a City-approved facility.
The Solid Waste Division of the City of Fresno provides curbside collection of residential bulky goods through operation cleanup. The Solid Waste Division also collects through a three-cart system solid waste, recycling, green waste, as well as waste oil and waste oil filters weekly.
Currently, the City of Fresno has granted franchises for non-exclusive roll off services to 24 roll off companies for bins which were 10 cubic yards or greater. The City also granted exclusive franchise agreements for the collection of commercial solid waste, recyclables and green waste to two franchises. Allied Waste Services (formally Republic) is responsible for all commercial services north of Ashlan Avenue. Mid Valley has all commercial locations south of Ashlan. Both haulers are responsible for Commer cial, Multifamily, and Industrial up to 8 cubic yards, which fall into City of Fresno jurisdiction. Both city and (non-exclusive) / exclusive franchise haulers provide and maintain containers; respond to customer complaints/concerns and provide roll-off and compactor services to residential, multi -family and commercial customers respective to their agreements. Garbage disposed of in the city of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station (CARTS).
Once trash has been off-loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted and non-recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill (i.e. American Avenue Disposal Site, Site Solid Waste Information System [SWIS] Number 10-AA-0009) located approximately six miles southwest of Kerman. American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operations in 1992 for both public and commercial solid waste haulers. The American Avenue Landfill is a sanitary landfill, meaning that it is a disposal site for non-hazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day.
The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031.
The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.
One other active disposal site is located in Fresno County. The City of Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10-AA-0004) has a maximum permitted capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,000 tons per day.
Green waste hauled by the residential solid waste operations is delivered to one of two locations.
Earthwise/Green Valley Recycling located at 2365 North Avenue and West Coast Waste at 30777 Golden State Frontage Road are within a quarter mile of one another in southwest Fresno.
3. 15-38 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
Commercial green waste and organics delivered to Elm Avenue Recycling by Mid Valley are then transferred to the Kerman facility and composted with organic compost, which is then used by organic farms in the region. Commercial green waste and organics being delivered by Allied Waste are taken to Rice Road Transfer Station, which are then trans-loaded into trucks, which are delivered to Kochergen Farms for composting and land application.
Recycling collected by residential is delivered to both CARTS and Elm Ave. Both facilities have Material Recovery Facilities (MRF’s) which sort through the co-mingled recycling stream to sort the materials. Commercial franchises deliver recycling to Elm Avenue only. The City’s diversion rate has declined over the last decade from 74 percent to 63 percent. It is anticipated that the County will complete the relocation of their Environmental Compliance Center (HHW) facility, which is currently housed at the American Avenue landfill to the new location at the corner of West Avenue and West Dan Ronquillo Drive in 2022. The new County location will alleviate the need for the twice a year drop off events, opting for a closer location open every weekend to the public.
REGULATORY SETTING – SOLID WASTE
The following is an overview of the State and local regulations related to solid waste that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
State
AB 939: CALIFORNIA’S INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1989 California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) set a requirement for cities and counties to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling and composting. In order to achieve this goal, AB 939 requires that each City and County prepare and submit a Source Reduction and Recycling Element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.
AB 939 also established requirements for cities and counties to develop and implement plans for the safe management of household hazardous wastes. In order to achieve this goal, AB 939 requires that each city and county prepare and submit a Household Hazardous Waste Element.
AB 341 (75 PERCENT SOLID WASTE DIVERSION)
In 2011, the Legislature implemented a new approach to the management of solid waste. AB 341 (Chesbro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) required that CalRecycle oversee mandatory commercial recycling and established a new statewide goal of 75 percent recycling through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. This paradigm adds to the policies in AB 939 in several significant ways. First, AB 341 established a statewide policy goal, rather than a jurisdictional mandate. This places the onus for achieving the goal on the State rather than on the cities and counties that are directly responsible for waste disposal and recycling. Under the law, individual jurisdictions are not required to meet the new policy goal.
Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-39
3.15 UTILITIES
AB 341 requires CalRecycle to issue a report to the Legislature that includes strategies and recommendations that would enable the State to divert 75 percent of the solid waste generated in the State from disposal by January 1, 2020, requires businesses that meet specified thresholds in the bill to arrange for recycling services by January 1, 2012, and also streamlines various regulatory processes.
SB 1374 (CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS DIVERSION) Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374), Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements, requires that jurisdictions summarize their progress realized in diverting construction and demolition waste from the waste stream in their annual AB 939 report s. SB 1374 required the CIWMB to adopt a model construction and demolition ordinance for voluntary implementation by local jurisdictions.
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN) CALGreen requires the diversion of at least 50 percent of the construction waste generated during most new construction projects (CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408) and some additions and alterations to nonresidential building projects.
Local
3. 15-40 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to solid waste for the proposed Specific Plan:
Objective PU-9: Provide adequate solid waste facilities and services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.
Policy PU-9-a: New Techniques. Continue to collaborate with affected stakeholders and partners to identify and support programs and new techniques of solid waste disposal, such as recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, and waste separation, to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities.
Policy PU-9-b: Compliance with State Law. Continue to pursue programs to maintain conformance with the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 or a s otherwise required by law and mandated diversion goals.
Objective RC-11: Strive to reduce the solid w aste going to landfills to zero by 2035 .
Policy RC-11-a: Waste Reduction Strategies. Maintain current targets for recycling and re- use of all types of waste material in the city and enhance waste and wastewater management practices to reduce natural resource consumption, including the following measures:
UTILITIES 3.15
• Continue to require recyclable material collection and storage areas in all residential development.
• Establish recycling collection and storage area standards for commercial and industrial facilities to size the recycling areas according to the anticipated types and amounts of recyclable material generated.
• Provide educational materials to residents on how and what to recycle and how to dispose of hazardous waste.
• Provide recycling canisters and collection in public areas where trash cans are also provided.
• Institute a program to evaluate major waste generators and identify recycling opportunities for their facilities and operations.
• Continue to partner with the California Integrated Waste Management Board on waste diversion and recycling programs and the CalMax (California Materials Exchange) program.
• Evaluate the feasibility of a residential, restaurant, and institutional food waste segregation and recycling program, to reduce the amount of organic material sent to landfill and minimize the emissions generated by decomposing organic material. • Evaluate the feasibility of “carbon footprinting” for the City’s wastewater treatment facilities, biomass and composting operations, solid waste collection and recycling programs.
• Expand yard waste collection to divert compostable waste from landfills. • Study the feasibility and cost-benefit analysis of a municipal composting program to collect and compost food and yard waste, including institutional food and yard waste, using the resulting compost matter for City park and median maintenance.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – SOLID WASTE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals ; and/or
• Comply with federal, state , and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-41
3.15 UTILITIES
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-6: The proposed Specific Plan would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Plan Area’s solid waste disposal needs, and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant) As noted previously, the American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day. Additionally, the City of Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10-AA-0004) has a maximum permitted capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,000 tons per day.
New residential, commercial, mixed use, and industrial land uses in the Specific Plan Area would increase the amount of solid waste generated by residents and businesses. The increase in growth and development as a result of the implementation of the Specific Plan could result in an increase of solid waste to transfer stations and landfills and could contribute to an increased demand for solid waste services throughout the Plan Area.
Table 3.15-8 shows the estimated solid waste generation for maximum buildout of the Plan Area using the solid waste generation rates provided by CalRecycle. As shown in the table, buildout of the Specific Plan could generate up to approximately 911,485.63 pounds of solid waste per day (or approximately 455.74 tons per day).
TABLE 3.15-8: ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION
LAND USE
SOLID WASTE
GENERATION RATE
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
ESTIMATED SOLID
WASTE (LBS/DAY)
Single-Family 10 lbs/unit/day 36,717 units 367,170.00 Multi-Family 4 lbs/unit/day 46,413 units 185,652.00 Commercial3 5 lbs/1,000sf/day 21617028.27 SF 129,702.17 Office4 6 lbs/1,000sf/day 4,572,212.13 SF 27,433.27 Mixed Use5 5 lbs/1,000 sf/day 31,448,352.12 SF 188,690.11 Industrial6 5 lbs/1,000 sf/day 2,139,678.63 SF 12,838.07 TOTAL 911,485.63
NOTES: 1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE LOW, MEDIUM LOW, AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
2 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE MEDIUM HIGH, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HIGH RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AS WELL AS ALL MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. 3 COMMERCIAL USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, RECREATION COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, AND BUSINESS PARK EMPLOYMENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. 4 OFFICE USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE OFFICE LAND USE DESIGNATION. 5 MIXED USE USES WERE ASSUMED F OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CORRIDOR/CENTER, AND REGIONAL MIXED-USE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
6 INDUSTRIAL USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT LAND USE DESIGNATION.
SOURCES: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2024; CALRECYCLE 2024 (HTTPS://WWW2.CALRECYCLE.CA.GOV/WASTECHARACTERIZATION/ GENERAL/RATES).
3.15-42 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
UTILITIES 3.15
Based on the estimated closure dates of the American Avenue Landfill in 2031 and the Clovis Landfill in 2047, development under the Specific Plan would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity.
It is noted that AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills, and the City is currently achieving a 71 percent diversion rate (based on 2009 data) which is anticipated to increase due to a Fresno City Council resolution that commits the City to the goal of a Zero Waste goal by 2025. This analysis assumes a worst-case scenario and does not factor in the diversion rate which is already occurring.
CONCLUSION
The Specific Plan would be required to comply with applicable State and local requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. The addition of the volume of solid waste associated with future buildout of the Specific Plan Area, approximately 455.74 tons per day at total buildout, would increase the total to the American Avenue Landfill and the Clovis Landfill; however, this increase would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. This is a less than significant impact.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-43
3.15 UTILITIES
This page left intentionally blank.
3.15-44 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-1
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluate a project's effect in relationship to broader changes occurring, or that are foreseeable to occur, in the surrounding environment. Accordingly, this chapter presents a discussion of CEQA- mandated analysis for cumulative impacts, significant irreversible effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan.
4.1 CUMULATIVE SETTING AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with the Specific Plan. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” “Cumulatively considerable,” as defined in section 15065(a)(3), means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (as defined by Section 15130). As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. A cumulative impact occurs from:
…the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
In addition, Section 15130(b) identifies that the following three elements are necessary for an adequate cumulative analysis:
1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or,
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program.
Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
2) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and 3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.
Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.
CUMULATIVE SETTING
Under CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts should focus on the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis covers the entire Fresno General Plan Planning Area, which includes the city limits and the Sphere of Influence.
The analysis of cumulative effects considered the cumulative projected General Plan buildout throughout the city, as described in the Fresno General Plan.
The Fresno General Plan was approved in December 2014 and assumes two levels of development, including the “General Plan Horizon” and “General Plan Buildout”. The General Plan Horizon will occur in the year 2035 and assumes that vacant and underutilized land available for development in the City’s Sphere of Influence will not be developed by the year 2035. Therefore, the General Plan Buildout is anticipated to occur past the horizon year of 2035 and analyzes the complete development under the General Plan, including the Sphere of Influence.
Table 4.0-1, below, shows the residential development potential under the General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout development scenarios, as described within the City of Fresno General Plan. As shown, approximately 191,000 dwelling units currently exist in the General Plan Planning Area. Under the General Plan Horizon scenario, the total residential capacity would be 267,000 dwelling units. Under the General Plan Buildout scenario, the total residential capacity would be 336,000 dwelling units.
TABLE 4.0-1: RESIDENTIAL GROWTH PROJECTIONS UNDER FRESNO GENERAL PLAN1
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS GENERAL PLAN HORIZON GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT Existing2 191,000 191,000
Additional Capacity 76,000 145,000
Total Capacity 267,000 336,000
NOTES: 1. CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON AUGUST 9, 2012 LAND USE DIAGRAM DRAFT FIGURE 2 OF THE INITIATION DRAFT
2. EXISTING DWELLING UNIT COUNT IS BASED ON THE 2010 CENSUS FOR DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS (APPROXIMATELY 171,000 DWELLING UNITS ) ADDED TO THE FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS INFORMAL AERIAL PHOTO AND CENSUS TRACT STUDY ESTIMATE OF 2010 POPULATION OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE AREA LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS AND INSIDE THE CITY’S SOI BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATELY 20,000 DWELLING UNITS).
SOURCE: FRESNO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 1-2, DECEMBER 2014.
4.0-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Table 4.0-2, below, presents the anticipated population under the General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout development scenarios. As shown, approximately 545,000 people currently reside in the General Plan Planning Area. The General Plan Horizon is anticipated to accommodate a population of 226,000 new residents by 2035, resulting in a total population of 771,000. The General Plan Buildout anticipates an additional 425,000 new residents over the existing population by an unspecified date within the Sphere of Influence, resulting in a total population of 970,000.
TABLE 4.0-2: POPULATION PROJECTIONS UNDER FRESNO GENERAL PLAN1
POPULATION GENERAL PLAN HORIZON GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
Existing2 545,000 545,000
Additional Estimated 226,000 425,000
Total 771,000 970,000
NOTES: 1. CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON AUGUST 9, 2012 LAND USE DIAGRAM DRAFT FIGURE 2 OF THE INITIATION DRAFT
2. EXISTING POPULATION INCLUDES THE ENTIRE SOI AREA POPULATION FROM THE 2010 CENSUS DATA.
SOURCE: FRESNO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 1-5, DECEMBER 2014.
The amount of new non -residential development identified within the City of Fresno General Plan for the General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout are presented below in Table 4.0 -3. Under the General Plan Horizon scenario, an estimated 55, 019,275 square feet of non -residential use s could result by 2035, while nearly 104,000,000 square feet of non-residential capacity above current levels (approximately 49,000,000 square feet more than the 2035 horizon) is anticipated under General Plan Buildout.
TABLE 4.0-3: NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER FRESNO GENERAL PLAN1 TYPE
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA ABOVE CURRENT LEVELS IN SQUARE FEET
GENERAL PLAN HORIZON GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
Retail2 10,925,293 20,613,762
Office3 18,334,371 34,593,153
Industrial and Business Parks4 25,759,611 48,603,040
Total 55,019,275 103,809,955
NOTES: 1. CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON AUGUST 9, 2012 LAND USE DIAGRAM DRAFT FIGURE 2 OF THE INITIATION DRAFT
2. SUM OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA PLUS 50 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL CMX FLOOR AREA, 80 PERCENT NON-RESIDENTIAL NMX FLOOR AREA,
87.5 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL RMX FLOOR AREA, AND 10 PERCENT OF BP/RBP FLOOR AREA.
3. SUM OF OFFICE FLOOR AREA PLUS 50 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL CMX FLOOR AREA, 20 PERCENT NON-RESIDENTIAL NMX FLOOR AREA, 12.5 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL RMX FLOOR AREA, AND 60 PERCENT OF BP/RBP FLOOR AREA.
4. SUM OF LIGHT AND HEAVY INDUSTRY LAND USE FLOOR AREA PLUS 30 PERCENT OF BP/RBP FLOOR AREA.
SOURCE: FRESNO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 1-6, DECEMBER 2014.
According to the Fresno General Plan, the City estimates that there would be 0.4 8 jobs per new resident at the General Plan Horizon Year of 2035. Therefore, at the General Plan Horizon, the Planning Area could accommodate approximately 108,000 new jobs above current levels, consisting of 50,000 new retail jobs, 32,500 new office jobs, and 25,500 new other jobs. With respect to General Plan Buildout after 2035, the Fresno General Plan estimates that there would be 0.45 new jobs per resident. Therefore, at General Plan Buildout, the Planning Area could accommodate approximately 189,500 new jobs above current levels, consisting of 87,700 new retail jobs, 57,000 new office jobs, and 44,700 new other jobs.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-3
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
Cumulative settings are identified under each cumulative impact analysis. Cumulative settings vary because the area that the impact may affect is different. For example, noise impacts generally only impact the local surrounding area because noise travel s a relatively short distance while air quality impacts affect the whole air basin as wind currents control air flow and are not generally affected by natural or manmade barriers which would affect noise.
Method of Analysis
Although the environmental effects of an individual project may not be significant when that project is considered separately, the combined effects of several projects may be significant when considered collectively. State CEQA Guidelines 15130 requires a reasonable analysis of a project's cumulative impacts, which are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." The cumulative impact that results from several closely related projects is: the change in the environment which results from the incremental im pact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines 15355[b]). Cumulative impact analysis may be less detailed than the analysis of the project's individual effects (State CEQA Guidelines 15130[b]).
There are two approaches to identifying cumulative projects and the associated impacts. The list approach identifies individual projects known to be occurring or proposed in the surrounding area in order to identify potential cumulative impacts. The projection approach identifies potential cumulative impacts through the use of a summary of projections found in adopted local, regional or statewide plans (e.g., General Plans) or related planning or environmental documents as sometimes supplemented by additional information such as a regional modeling program. This EIR uses the projection approach for the cumulative analysis and considers the development anticipated to occur upon General Plan buildout in the area in addition to the pending and proposed projects in the area.
Project Assumptions
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan’s contribution to environmental impacts under cumulative conditions is based on full buildout of the Plan Area. See Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a complete description of the Specific Plan.
Cumulative Impacts
Some c umulative impacts for issue areas are not quantifiable and are therefore discussed qualitatively as they pertain to development patterns in the surrounding region. Exceptions to this are topics like traffic and utilities, which may be quantified by estimating future traffic patterns, demand f or specific utilities, etc. and determining the combined effects that may result. The potential cumulative impacts associated with the Specific Plan are summarized below.
4. 0-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
The cumulative setting for aesthetics is the Fresno Planning Area, as defined in the City of Fresno General Plan.
Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation will contribute to the c umulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region. (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
U
nder cumulative conditions, buildout of the Fresno General Plan would result in changes to the visual character of the Fresno General Plan Planning Area and result in impacts to localized views as new development occurs within the city and the General Plan Planning Area.
As described in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, no part of Plan Area is designated as a scenic vista by the City of Fresno General Plan, nor does the Plan Area contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify it for designation as a scenic vista. Furthermore, there are no designated or eligible State Scenic Highways within or in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area and no highways in Fresno County are listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would change the visual character of the Specific Plan Area by facilitating the development of urban uses within an area largely comprised of undeveloped sites. Regional growth has and will continue to result in a cumulative aesthetic effect by converting undeveloped land into developed and occupied areas and increasing overall levels of nighttime lighting. Cumulative development entails grading/landform alteratio n, the development of structures, and the installation of roadways and other infrastructure that has altered and will continue to permanently alter the region's existing visual character. As described in Section 3.1, compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s development regulations would reduce visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the proposed Plan would permanently convert undeveloped rural, agricultural, and open space areas to urbanized uses.
According to the General Plan, buildout of the General Plan would result in the permanent alteration of the visual character of the City of Fresno’s General Plan Planning Area from a more rural setting to a setting that is characterized by suburban or urban uses (i.e., streets, residences, and community commercial shopping centers). In addition, buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts. Consequently, even with implementation of the policies and implementation programs identified in the City’s General Plan, as well as adopted City regulations to enhance the city’s current community character and preserve open space, development of the General Plan area was determined in the General Plan to result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to aesthetics. Although the proposed project would comply with all applicable standards and regulations, impacts related to a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, degradation of the existing visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding area, and creation of new sources of light or glare would still occur. The proposed Specific Plan’s Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-5
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
incremental contribution t owards cumulative aesthetic impacts would b e cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The cumulative setting for agricultural resources includes the Fresno G eneral Plan Planning area, as defined in the City of Fresno General Plan, in combination with portions of the San Joaquin Valley area, including Fresno County.
Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and u ses. (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Cumulative development anticipated in the city and county of Fresno, including growth projected by adopted general plans and those being updated, will result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, including important farmlands, significant farmlands, land under Williamson Act contracts, and other farmlands.
As described in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, there are no forest lands or land designated or zoned as forest land within the Plan Area or surrounding area; therefore, cumulative development would not contribute to the conversion of some forest lands or timber lands. However, there are approximately 285.65 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 509.39 acres of Unique Farmland, and 1,562.82 acres of Farmland of Local Importance within the proposed Specific Plan Area.
Additionally, under the proposed Specific Plan, the approximately 120 acres of Williamson Act Contract land are proposed for Low Density, Medium Low Density, and Medium Density Residential development where agricultural uses are no longer a permitted use. Consequently, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in revisions to the zoning ordinance resulting in a significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural uses because non-agricultural uses, such as low, medium low density, and medium density residential would be allowed on the existing Contract land.
Agricultural land is a limited resource and the cumulative loss of this land is considered significant.
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would require the future annexation and development of land into the city . If future annexation and development would involve the loss of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would be required.
While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2 -2 would reduce the above -identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a less- than-significant level due to the fact that active agricultural land would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Therefore, impacts on Williamson Act contracts, and important or significant farmlands and forest resources remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
AIR QUALITY
The cumulative setting for this analysis is the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Tulare, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus.
4. 0-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Impact 4. 3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality . (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable)
In accordance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD’s) methodology, any project that produces a significant project -level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include new development and general growth within the Plan Area. The greatest source of emissions within the SJVAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SJVAB); SJVAPCD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional emissions thresholds. No significant cumulative impacts were identified with regard to carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots.
Construction
The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( AAQS) and nonattainment for respirable particulate matter (PM10) under the California AAQS. Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. As shown in Table 3.3 -7 in Section 3.3 , construction emissions associated with the proposed Plan would exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional construction emissions thresholds for CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) , reactive organic compounds (ROG) , PM 10, and PM 2.5. Thus, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.
Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SJVAPCD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cu mulative impact. As discussed, SJVAPCD Rules 9510 and 9410 would c ontribute to reducing emissions of NOx and p articulate matter associated with future individual projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan and may reduce impacts for these individual development projects to a less than significant level. In addition, the planned improvements, and goals and policies under the proposed Specific Plan, would generally support a more sustainable development pattern for the Plan Area. Creation of more complete neighborhoods in addition to improving the public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle networks and infrastructure would contribute to the overall reduction in v ehicle trips and VMT, which would reduce mobile-source emissions. However, as shown in Table 3.3-9, operation of future projects at buildout would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 at buildout. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan’s air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.
Conclusion
The mitigation measures provided within the air quality discussion (refer to Section 3.3) have been designed to be consistent with the guidance as promulgated by the SJVAPCD, where applicable. As Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-7
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
is currently proposed, the Specific Plan is expected to be built out under a staged approach, and all mitigation would be applicable to each stage. However, even with the application of mitigation measures, operational and constructions emissions levels for the aforementioned criteria pollutants would remain above the defined thresholds of significance. Exceedance of the threshold within an area designated as nonattainment would be a cumulatively considerable impact. As such, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a cumulatively considerable contribution and a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the region’s air quality.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cumulative context for a cumulative analysis can be defined by region, by political subdivision, or by the geography.
Impact 4. 4: Specific Plan implementation would not contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources including habitats and special status species . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
This cumulative analysis utilizes the “Bioregion” as its cumulative setting. The Plan Area is located in the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which has a wide variety of habitats and vegetation, including vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah, among many other habitats. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the appropriate cumulative context because environmental impacts related to biological resources are best addressed in the context of geographic areas defined by natural features rather than by political or administrative boundaries.1
Agricultural land is scattered throughout the Plan Area, but mainly in the southern, western, and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Irrigation ditches are also located throughout the Plan Area near these active agricultural lands. D eveloped uses are mainly in the northern, eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Plan Area. Undeveloped vacant land previously used for agricultural uses is also scattered throughout the Plan Area.
There remains a potential that special status species could occupy the Plan Area from time to time.
Mitigation measures were developed to avoid, minimize, and compensate for direct and indirect effects to biological resources, including special status species and their habitats. It has been found in this EIR that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the project would not, directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to d rop 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 o r regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
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
4.0-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
1 U.S.G.S. Bioregions of the Pacific U.S. Available at: <https://www.usgs.gov/centers/werc/science/bioregions- pacific-us?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects>.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
agricultural areas of the Plan Area are likely 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. 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 distu rbance 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. It has been found in this EIR that the project would not have substantial adverse effects, directly or indirectly, on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters.
Wildlife movement includes migration (i.e., usually movement one way per season), inter - population movement (i.e., long-term dispersal and genetic flow), and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement within an animal's territory). While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities, such as foraging or escape from predators, they a lso provide connection between outlying populations and the main populations, permitting an increase in gene flow among populations. These habitat linkages can extend for miles and occur on a large scale throughout the greater region. Habitat linkages faci litate movement between populations located in discrete locales and populations located within larger habitat areas.
Impacts from development, such as habitat fragmentation and/or isolation, and the creation of impassable barriers can cause a significant impact to wildlife corridors. Depending on the organism and its needs, movement corridors can either be continuous or discontinuous patches of suitable habitat. Preserving expanses of open space that are connected may enable species utilizing these areas as foraging or breeding habitat to persist.
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.” Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact and less than cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
The cumulative context for a cumulative analysis can be defined by region, by political subdivision or by the geography, where sufficient inventory data is available to define it. The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes all of the Fresno County, which includes the entire City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-9
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Impact 4.5: Specific Plan implementation would not contribute to the cumulative loss of cultural and tribal resources . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative development anticipated in Fresno and the greater Fresno County area, including growth projected by adopted general plans, may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archaeological, paleontological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Resources, 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 r esources. In addition, due to the size of the proposed Specific Plan Area, buildout of the proposed plan could contribute to cumulative impacts related to the regional loss of cultural resources if previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction and proper techniques are not employed.
Future projects in Fresno would be required to comply with General Plan Objectives HCR-1, HCR-2, and HCR-3, as well as Policies HCR -1c, HCR-2a, HCR-2b, HCR-2f, and HCR-3c, which require the City to identify, designate and preserve sites and structures of historical, archaeological, and cultural significance. General Plan Policies HCR-2c and 2g would require future development to evaluate the project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), for the potential historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications. Furthermore, mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would require project applicants for future projects with intact buildings more than 45 years to provide a historic resource technical study and evaluate cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) discovered during construction activities. Any significant discoveries during construction would be required to be preserved in place or mitigated through relocation or documentation; thus, the project is not anticipated to considerably contribute to a significant reduction in cultural resources.
The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources. The proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact and less than cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
The cumulative setting area for geology, soils and seismicity includes the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area.
Impact 4. 6: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on geologic and soils characteristics . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed Specific Plan may result in risks associated with geology and soils. For example, there is an ongoing possibility that a fault located anywhere in the state (or region) could rupture and cause
4. 0-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
seismic ground shaking. Additionally, grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Other geologic risks such as liquefaction, landsliding, lateral spreading, and soil expansion are also geologic risks that are present.
As discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts related to this environmental topic. While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will reduce the risk to people in the region. Furthermore, mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would require project applicants for future pro jects to obtain a site -specific Geotechnical Evaluation to implement site- specific recommendations and submit an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 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.
Consequently, the proposed Specific Plan would generally not be affected by, nor would it affect, other development approved by the City of Fresno. As a result, the proposed General Plan’s incremental contribution to cumulative geologic and soil impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE A ND ENERGY
As the California Supreme Court has emphasized, all CEQA analyses of the environmental effects of greenhouse gas ( 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 significant 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 themselves, 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.
Impact 4.7: Cumulative impact on climate change from increased project -related greenhouse gas emissions . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable )
I
n 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 th ese legislative and executive goals, the California Air Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-11
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Resources Board (CARB) has developed regional GHG emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sectors (the largest single 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. 7-1 in Section 3.7 , 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 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.
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 and walkable communities, which were incorporated into the design of the proposed project and 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 emissions. 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 cumulatively considerable impact to GHGs.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The cumulative context for the analysis of cumulative hazards and human health impacts is all of Fresno County, which includes the entire Fresno General Plan Planning Area.
Impact 4. 8: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The Specific Plan, in conjunction with cumulative development in the region, would include areas designated for a variety of urban, agricultural, and open space uses as defined by the applicable General Plan. Cumulative development would include continued operation of, or development of, new facilities as allowed under each land use designation.
4. 0-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Hazardous Materials Use, Generation, Transport, and Disposal New
development could increase the use of hazardous materials within the region, resulting in potential health and safety effects related to hazardous materials use. Potential impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials associated with new and future development would primarily be confined to commercial and industrial areas and would not involve the use of hazardous substances in large quantities or be particularly hazardous. Facilities that store, use or handle hazardous materials above reportabl e 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.
Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
In
cidents (such as accidental release of hazardous materials) , if any, would typically be site specific and would involve accidental spills or inadvertent releases. Associated health and safety risks would generally be limited to those individuals using the materials or to persons in the immediate vicinity of the materials and would not combine with similar effects elsewhere (i.e., construction workers).
Hazard-related impacts tend to be site-specific and Project-specific. The Plan Area is not associated with any existing hazardous materials spills; however, there are numerous areas throughout Fresno County where hazardous conditions are present. In addition, Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8- 10 address potential risk of hazards due to existing hazards located on the project site.
School Sites
A
s provided under Impact 3.8-1, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 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 hazard ous waste to comply with a HMBP and to register with the CUPA, as appropriate. 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. Mor eover, 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 ac utely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with one-quarter of an existing school.
Emergency Response
A
s provided under Impact 3.8 -5, future construction activities within the Plan Area could affect access along nearby roadways during construction. However, access would remain open and accessible at all times. 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 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-13
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
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 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. Therefore, roadways within the Plan Area would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Moreover, where applicable, the proposed project would also be required to comply with the Fresno County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Wildfire/Wildland Fires
As provided under Impact 3.8 -6, the proposed project is not located in or near any SRAs or lands classified as VHFHSZs. 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 s teep 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 pave d 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 Fir e Code Section as established by the City of Fresno Fire Department), as well as all applicable City Municipal Code requirements.
Conclusion
Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant increased risks of hazards in the cumulative setting, nor would it result in any significant off -site or indirect impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the risk of o n-site hazards associated with future development activities. With implementation of these mitigation measures, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts rel ated to hazards and hazardous materials would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The cumulative context for the analysis of cumulative stormwater runoff impacts is best addressed on a regional/watershed basis (geography), as such an area captures flows occurring both upstream and downstream of the project site. Because water resources are highly interconnected, the cumulative setting is based on Fresno County, which is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region.
4. 0-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Impact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
C
onstruction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed Specific Plan has the potential to result in construction-related water quality impacts, impacts to groundwater recharge, and cause flooding, erosion, or siltation from the alteration of drainage patterns.
Stormwater Runoff
Imp
lementation of the Specific Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the Plan Area, which, without intervention, could increase peak stormwater runoff rates and volumes on and downstream of the Plan Area. The entire Plan Area is within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s urban flood control system consisting of 165 drainage areas, each 1 to 2 square miles in area. Operation of projects developed under the proposed Specific Plan could generate the same categories of pollutants as construction activities . Additionally, d ue to future development and infrastructure projects, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the 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 contributed to bank erosion.
In order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations due to increased peak stormwater runoff , 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 FMFCD requires future development projects to be designed in conformance to the FMFCD’s Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan to ensure storm drainage facilities are adequately designed and t hat the storm drain system has adequate storage capacity for additional stormwater runoff generated by the Specific Plan. 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. The 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 . Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the various development sites within the overall Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains and FMFCD facilities. Additionally, future development of the proposed Specific Plan would minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces by runoff entering ditches and storm drains designed in conformance to FMFCD standards.
Design and construction of flood control improvements to the satisfaction of the FMFCD would ensure there is adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated from the buildout of the Specific Plan. Future development within the Plan Area, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts associated with stormwater runoff.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-15
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Water Quality
As discussed in Impacts 3.1 and 3.9-2, grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. 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 these developed areas include the use of various automotive petroleum products (i.e. oil, grease, and fuel), common household hazardous materials, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and sediment. Within urban areas, these pollutants are generally called nonpoint s ource 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.
Future development of the Specific Plan Area would r equire development and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will include BMPs to regulate stormwater quality for the Specific Plan Area. In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, compliance with existing regulatory requirements require preparation of a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region, has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and 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 the use of 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 and the City of Fresno and are an existing regulatory requirement.
While there are no assurances that other projects in the County would incorporate the same degree or methods of treatment as the proposed Specific Plan, each project in the city that would discharge stormwater runoff would be required to comply with NPDES discharge permits from the RWQCB, which adjusts requirements on a case-by-case basis to avoid significant degradation of water quality.
Therefore, while a greater quantity of urban runoff may result from future development projects in the Plan Area because of an increase in impervious surfaces, the associated surface water quality impacts associated with the increased runoff in the Plan Area would be expected to be less -than- significant because adherence to existing NPDES discharge permit requirements and other regulatory mechanisms which regulate stormwater runoff.
Compliance with City and FMFCD water quality protection regulations, approval from the RWQCB, and implementation of project -specific SWPPPs would ensure that the Specific Plan minimizes impacts to surface water quality. The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that
4. 0-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
mitigation measures would control storm water quality. The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with water quality.
Groundwater Supplies/Recharge
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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. Future development, including water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins, would be designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering storm drains and other FMFCD facilities.
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 FMFCDs Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific P lan 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 m uch 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.
The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that mitigation measures require maintaining water quality standards and preserving the infiltration of rainwater within the aquifer.
The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with groundwater supply/recharge.
Flooding
Future development projects in the area could result in additional discharges of stormwater during storm events. When combined, these future development projects could, in theory, lead to an incremental increase in peak stormwater runoff, and potential incremental increases in downstream flood elevations. However, in order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations, the FMFCD has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the city, as well as a large area beyond the city’s boundaries.
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- Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-17
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every five years.
The Plan Area includes an extensive system of on-site stormwater collection, treatment and retention facilities to accommodate the increased stormwater f lows that originate in the Plan Area.
Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains.
As discussed in Impact 3.9 -6, the Plan Area is approximately 105 miles from the coast and is not adjacent to any lakes; thus, the Plan Area is not at risk for tsunami or seiche events. Additionally, as shown on Figure 3.9-3, 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 a nnual 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.
No other parts of the Specific Plan Area are designated as flood prone, and there are no impacts to regulatory floodways or Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A or AE) as defined by FEMA. Provided future storm drain system and detention/retention facilities that would be installed as part of future development are adequately sized and properly installed and maintained, flooding will not be induced by the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the Specific Plan is not at risk o f the 1-percent annual chance flood.
The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given t hat existing City and FMFCD regulations require d esigns that ensure structures are outside the base flood elevation and that storm water flows are maintained to prevent downstream flooding. The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with flooding.
Conclusion
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed General Plan has the potential to result in construction -related water quality impacts, impacts to groundwater recharge, and cause flooding, erosion , or siltation from the alteration of drainage patterns.
While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the existing General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will substantially reduce the impacts. Additionally, future projects under the Specific Plan would be required to design storm drain facilities to the satisfaction of the FMFCD to ensure each project provides adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and Federal agencies and their permit and monitoring requirements, as discussed in Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and with implementation of the policies and actions
4. 0-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
included within the General Plan, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. As a result, the General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
LAND USE
The cumulative setting for land use is the Fresno General Plan Planning Area, as defined in the City of Fresno General Plan.
Impact 4.1 0: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on communities and local land uses . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cu
mulative land use impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and consistency with adopted plans and regulations, are typically site and project-specific. The land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in -fill locations within existing urbanized areas as well as new growth within the Plan Area, but would not create physical division within existing communities. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of existing neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development within the cumulative analysis area. The proposed Specific Plan does not include any new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. Instead, the Specific Plan would plan for extension of existing roadways and infrastructure, as well as new future roadways and infrastructure, in order to serve future development of the Plan Area. These new roadways would link existing unincorporated areas of the County with the City of Fresno.
Overall, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Fresno General Plan. Other projects in the cumulative context would undergo a General Plan consistency review, similar to the proposed Specific Plan, on a project -by-project basis to demonstrate their consistency with the applicable land use document. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative land use and population impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
NOISE
The cumulative context for noise impacts associated with proposed Specific Plan consists of the existing and future noise sources that could affect the project or surrounding uses.
Impact 4.1 1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative exposure of existing and future noise -sensitive land uses or to increased n oise resulting from cumulative development . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable )
No
ise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. The total construction noise impact of the proposed Specific Plan would not be a substantial increase to the existing future noise environment.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-19
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
As discussed in Impact 3.11-1 in Section 3.11, Noise, some of the existing noise sensitive receptors located along the Specific Plan Area roadways are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the City of Fresno 65 decibel (dB) day/night average level (L DN) exterior noise level standard for residential uses, as shown in Table 3.11 -10. Based upon General Plan Policy NS-1j, a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan Update (or in this case the modeled increase in traffic noise levels due to the project). The contribution to traffic noise increases resulting from future development of the proposed Specific Plan is predicted to be between 0 dBA and 13.0 dBA LDN. The following roadway segments would exceed the substantial increase criteria described in Policy NS-1j and Table 3.11-10:
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shaw Avenue are expected to range between 69 to 82 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 4 to 10 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Ashlan Avenue are expected to range between 63 and 74 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 and 13 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between 65 to 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 to 7 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Clinton Avenue are expected to range between 61 and 79 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 to 11 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Grantland Avenue are expected to range between 67 and 7 6 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 2 to 11dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Bryan Avenue are expected to range between 64 to 72 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 8 to 11 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Hayes Avenue are expected to range between 64 to 72 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 9 to 12 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Polk Avenue are expected to range between 71 to 75 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 6 to 9 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Cornelia Avenue are expected t o range between 66 to 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 2 to 5 dBA CNEL.
Of the 90 roadway segments analyzed, 58 segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, with noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL.
4. 0-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
For these reasons, future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement mitigation measures that are specifically intended to ensure compliance with the City of Fresno noise standards and minimize the impact associated with the substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1 would require the implementation of performance standards based on project -specific acoustical analysis for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to significant exterior community noise levels from transportation, which may include noise walls and/or berms, or setbacks.
With implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 3.11, the proposed Specific Plan’s incremental contribution towards cumulative noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The cumulative setting for population and housing includes Fresno County. This area was chosen because it represents the area that is reasonably expected to be affected by population and housing changes generated by the proposed project.
Impact 4.1 2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on population growth and displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) A
s described in Section 3.12, the proposed Specific Plan accommodates future growth in the Plan Area, including new businesses and new residential uses. Infrastructure and services would need to be extended to accommodate future growth. At full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses . This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 246,061 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new reside nt; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately 110,727 jobs.
Based on the growth projected to occur in the Plan Area, the proposed Specific Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets.
Future development of the Plan Area consistent with the proposed land use map could result in displacement of existing housing. Much of the future development would be located on areas that are vacant, contain agricultural land, or contain rural residential uses. Redevelopment of currently developed parcels could also occur. However, the amount of housing displacement associated with buildout of the Plan Area would be vastly outweighed by the amount of housing created under the proposed Specific Plan land use map. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-21
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth.
The proposed project does not change the intent, intensities, or densities of land uses identified within the General Plan; instead, the Specific Plan land use map rearranges and relocates the city land use designations for the Plan Area. Therefore, development of the Specific Plan Area will not induce growth in the Specific Plan Area, adjacent undeveloped parcels, or within the city of Fresno that has not already been accounted for in the General Plan.
The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts. The proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with population and housing. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts to population and housing.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The cumulative setting would include all areas covered in the service areas of the City of Fresno Police Department, Fresno Fire Department ( FFD), City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services ( PARCS) Department, the Central Unified School District (CUSD) , and the Fresno County Public Library System.
Impact 4.1 3: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services. (Cumulatively Considerable and S ignificant and Unavoidable) This geographic area was chosen because these service providers would be required to serve the Plan Area as well as the entire service area. Therefore, future development within the Plan Area along with past, present, and probably future projects within the service area, has the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan.
Under cumulative conditions future local and regional growth will result in increased demand for schools, police protection, fire protection, schools, parks/recreation, and library services. The City and its associated service providers must continue to evaluate the levels of service desired and the funding sources available to meet increases in demand.
Under cumulative conditions, future development of the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan land use map may result i n the construction of public facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. The impact fees developed and reviewed by the City will recover future development’s proportionate share of City-related capital asset costs.
Fees, as applied only to new development, represent future development’s proportionate share of public services and facilities capital costs.
It is also important to note that, in addressing public service demand issues under CEQA, the appropriate focus is on the environmental effects of whatever steps might be necessary to achieve or maintain adequate service. For example, if proposed new development would create an
4. 0-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
increased demand for law enforcement or fire protection services, an EIR should inquire as to whether new or expanded physical facilities may be required in order to provide such service. The “impacts” addressed under CEQA are the physical effects of provi ding service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“[t]he need for additional fire protection services is no t an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”]; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1031– 1034 [school overcrowding attributable to new development is not an environmental effect subject to CEQA, though the physical effects of new facility construction to serve new students would be]; and CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”].)
Moreover, it is critical to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities.
According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation B oard w ould i ncrease the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction.
Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.
The construction and operation of future public facilities required to serve cumulative development (including the Plan Area) could potentially cause significant impacts. Cumulative development including additional parks and schools within the city and service area would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that have been identified within this EIR related to: aesthetics and visual resources (Section 3.1), agricultural resources (Section 3.2), air quality (Section 3.3), noise (Section 3.11), and public services and recreation (Section 3.13 ). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, cumulative impacts related to the construction of public facilities needed to meet future demand are considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The cumulative setting for this analysis including the City of Fresno SOI and some nearby areas of unincorporated County.
Impact 4.1 4: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network. (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable)
The year 203 5 is the horizon year for cumulative condition impact analyses. Based on observed volumes in the existing condition, Kittelson & Associates used travel behavior forecasting software Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-23
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
to estimate and distribute future vehicle traffic onto the roadway network in order to test how the proposed project would impact the transportation network.
Consistency with General Plan
As described in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes a number of guiding principles related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel consistent with the General Plan policies, which detail how the circulation system will be improved to meet the need of all users.
Since the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from fut ure development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution would be considered less than significant.
Consistency with CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3
As shown in Table 3.14-2 (as contained within Section 3.1 4: Transportation and Circulation), the projected VMT per capita in the Plan Area would be lower than existing conditions and lower than the impact threshold. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita would be 6.0 VMT or 39% lower than the countywide average . The decrease in residential VMT is the result of the increased retail and employment opportunities within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in shorter trips or possible use of non-auto modes. The City of Fresno Draft VMT Guidelines state specific plans would have an impact if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the specific plan area for the horizon year increases compared to the existing VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the region (Fresno County). The VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is 9.4, while VMT per employee is
27.3, which is 9% higher than the existing countywide conditions. Under existing conditions in Fresno County, the VMT per capita is 15.4, while the VMT per employee is 25.1. Because the VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita for existing conditions in Fresno County, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to VMT for residential uses would be considered less than significant.
However, because VMT per employee would be 2.2 VMT or 9% higher than the existing countywide conditions, this cumulative VMT per employee impact is potentially significant. Mitigation measures in Section 3.14 for the VMT impacts of employment uses in the Specific Plan Area would be focused on reducing the number and/or lengths of vehicle trips by employees. The feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation measures is either insufficient or unknown at this time. The Project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these policies would achieve VMT reductions to meet the VMT per employee thresholds. Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, cumulative impacts related to VMT per employee are considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.
4. 0-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Hazardous Geometric Designs or Incompatible Uses
The p
roposed Specific Plan would result in a relocation of density in the Plan Area to central corridors compared to what would develop under the City’s General Plan where density is more distributed throughout the Plan Area ; however, the Specific Plan does not propose to change the types (i.e., residential, commercial, office, etc.) of land uses in the Plan Area. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in some changes to the city’s circulation network, but would not increase hazards or incompatible uses due to design features. All future roadway system improvements associated with development and redevelopment activities under the Specific Plan would be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards, some of which have also been incorporated into the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.
With implementation of General Plan Policy MT-2-e, Policy MT-2-I, and application of the conditions of approval at the time of review of land development projects, the Specific Plan would be designed to ensure that no hazardous circulation conditions are created as a result of implementation of the Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution would be considered less than significant.
Conclusion
A
s described in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand; however, as discussed in Impact 3.14 -2, the VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area is lower than existing conditions due to the increased retail and employment opportunities within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in shorter trips or possible use of non -auto modes. However, as noted previously, VMT per employee would be 2.2 VMT or 9% higher than the existing countywide conditions and t he feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation measures is either insufficient or unknown at this time. The Project cannot demonstrate definitively that implementation of these policies would achieve VMT reductions to meet the VMT per employee thresholds. As such, t he proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would be expected to cause one significant cumulative impact related to VMT per employee. As a result, this is considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.
UTILITIES
The cumulative setting for the various utilities (wastewater, water, stormwater and solid waste) are described below.
Impact 4.1 5: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on utilities . (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) U
nder the proposed Specific Plan buildout conditions, the City of Fresno would see an increased demand for wastewater service, water service, solid waste disposal services, and stormwater infrastructure needs.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-25
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Wastewater
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding wastewater is the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area and the City of Clovis because the City of Fresno acts as the Regional Sewerage Agency and is responsible for operating the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater R eclamation Facility. The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities that serve the Fresno metropolitan area: the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility ( RWRF) and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF).
The City’s wastewater collection system has roughly 26,000 manholes, 18 lift stations, about 12 miles of 1 force mains, and about 1,600 miles of gravity sewer pipes, ranging in size from 4 inches to 84 inches in diameter, and ranging in age from new to mor e than 100 years old. . Generally, the collection system flows from northeast to southwest across the entire city. In the Plan Area , wastewater generally flows from the north to the south. Clovis has four connections to the City’s collection system. Each of these connections have flow meters that measure the flow from the Clovis sewer system into the City’s sewer system. The Plan Area is currently served by over 86 miles of sewer pipelines, and Pump Station Number 15.
As discussed in Section 15.1, Wastewater Se rvice, buildout of the Specific Plan does not trigger a need to expand the Regional Facility. Given the capacity of 92 MGD, the average annual flow of approximately 56 MGD, and the 11. 4 MGD generated by the buildout of the Specific Plan Area (including existing demand and future demand), there is sufficient plant capacity. Additionally, t he Specific Plan wastewater collection system will include future construction of sewer improvements and replacements of existing lines, some of which are now over 75 years old. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to wastewater service is less than significant.
Water
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding water supply is the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area and the groundwater basins from which the Plan Area derives water. The existing incorporated area of the city of Fresno encompasses approximately 115 square miles (2020 UWMP).
The City’s General Plan includes the area outside of the city limits that the city expects to annex and urbanize in the future, also known as the SOI. With a few exceptions, the City’s water service area is coterminous with the city limits. As future developments within the SOI, but outside the city limits, are approved, they will be annexed into the city and served by the City water system.
The City’s water system consists of about 1,860 miles of distribution and transmission mains, 2 60 municipal groundwater wells, three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 MGD, five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system, and three booster pump facilities. As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the city has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 AF of water.
The provision of public services and the construction of onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements will be required to accommodate future development consistent with the Specific
4. 0-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Plan land use map. The Specific Plan would likely require extension of offsite water infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area for water service . All offsite water piping improvements would be in or adjacent to existing roadways, thereby limiting new environmental impacts. Additionally, future development in the Plan Area would be required to pay the applicable water system connection fees and pay the applicable water usage rates. As discussed in Impact 3.15-3, the proposed Specific Plan would not require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, resulting in a significant environmental impact. The water infrastructure would be sized to meet the demand of future projects within the Plan Area.
The total water demand for the proposed Project at buildout is projected to be approximately 29,419 AFY. The proposed Project is projected to use 2,448 AFY more than the water demand projected using General Plan land uses for the Plan Area. Table 3.15-7 summarizes the projected availability of the City’s existing and planned future potable water supplies and the City’s projected water demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years through 2045. The WSA completed for the Specific Plan demonstrates that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045, under all hydrologic conditions. Additionally, the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the proposed Plan Area analyzed under the General Plan were higher than the water demand projections for the Specific Plan; thus, the General Plan assumed greater water demand than what would occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to water service is less than significant.
Stormwater
The s
tudy area for cumulative impacts regarding storm water drainage is the Fresno -Clovis Metropolitan Area because the FMFCD includes an area of approximately 400 square miles and covers almost the entire portion of the Fresno -Clovis Metropolitan Area. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded stormwater drainage facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Specific Plan does not propose development nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities. Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project-level in association with subsequent development projects.
Installation of storm drainage infrastructure would occur during the construction phases of individual future projects within the Plan Area. There is significant storm drainage infrastructure remaining to be constructed to serve the Plan Area. About 32 miles of additional drainage pipelines is anticipated to be constructed to meet buildout needs. As future development and infrastructure projects within the Specific Plan Area are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the Specific Plan, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations.
The proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to the stormwater and flood control system would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-27
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Solid Waste
Shortage of waste disposal capacity can have significant impacts on adjacent areas. If refuse is exported to adjacent areas with existing spare capacity, significant impacts due to increased travel distances can result in additional transportation related impacts.
As described under Impact 3.15-6, the addition of solid waste associated with future buildout of the Specific Plan Area, would result in greater solid waste needing to be disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill and the Clovis Landfill. H owever, this increase of up to approximately 911,485.63 pounds of solid waste per day (or approximately 455.74 tons per day) would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. In addition, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. The City is currently achieving a 71 percent diversion rate based on 2009 data, which is anticipated to increase due to the Fresno City Council adopted resolution committing the City to a Zero Waste goal by 2025. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s c umulative contribution to solid waste is less than significant.
Conclusion
As described above, the proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts. The City has adequate landfill capacity to accept the solid waste and wastewater service capacity to treat wastewater flows generated from buildout of the Specific Plan. Additionally, the Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed Plan Area shows that adequate water supplies exist to serve Specific Plan buildout.
As a result, this is considered less than cumulatively considerable impact.
4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS
INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action, directing:
Discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
4. 0-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, growth inducement is any growth that exceeds planned growth of an area and results in new development that would not have taken place without implementation of the project. A project can have direct and/or indirect growth inducement potential. Direct growth inducement would result if a project, for example, involved construction of new housing. A project would have indirect growth inducement potential if it established substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a construction effort with substantial short -term employment opportunities that would indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors) . Similarly, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. A project providing an increased water supply in an area where water service historically limited growth could be considered growth-inducing.
The CEQA Guidelines further explain that the environmental effects of induced growth are considered indirect impacts of the proposed action. These indirect impacts or secondary effects of growth may result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Pot ential secondary effects of growth include increased demand on other community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of air and water quality, degradation or loss of plant and animal habitat, and conversion of agricultural and open space land to developed uses.
Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service.
The Specific Plan would result in the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities within the city of Fresno. As discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, at full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 246,061 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately 110,727 jobs. The Specific Plan would foster economic and population growth through the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities for a variety of income levels.
The Specific Plan currently includes primarily farmland and rural residential uses in the western area of the Plan Area. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, residential, mixed use commercial, commercial, employment, neighborhood park, community park, schools, and open space and public facility uses would be developed in the Specific Plan Area. Buildout of the Specific Plan would require the extension of off -site and on -site roadway, potable water, wastewater, and storm drainage Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-29
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area, which would result in the elimination of growth obstacles to serve future developments. However, as noted in Section 3.15, Utilities, wastewater generated by the proposed Specific Plan could be accommodated by the existing wastewater treatment facilities. Additionally, the City has adequate water supply to meet the water demand from buildout of the Specific Plan and the landfill that would serve the Specific Plan has adequate capacity to manage the solid waste generated as a result of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, mitigation measures set forth in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, as well as conformance with the Specific Plan, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations, would ensure that buildout of the Specific Plan would not generate or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the FMFCD’s stormwater drainage system.
Increases in population that would occur as a result of a proposed project may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation , of this EIR, increased demands for fire and police protection services attributable to the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts.
The future buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 60,269 additional students for the CUSD. Even though the project applicant will pay applicable school fees mandated by SB 50, t he proposed land use map includes an additional 10.0 acres of Elementary School land uses from what is shown in the existing Fresno General Plan land use map to support the additional students generated by development of the Specific Plan. Future buildout of the Specific Plan may include construction of a 68.55-acre church sites, 124.5 acres of ponding basins, and 22.84 acres of other public facility uses in the Plan Area, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Therefore , impacts related to constructing a school facility and other public facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant.
Given the historical and current population, housing, and employment trends, growth in the city, as well as the entire state, is inevitable. The primary factors that account for population growth are natural increase and net migration. The average annual birth rate for California is expected to be 20 births per 1,000 population. Additionally, California is expected to attract more than one third of the country’s immigrants. Other factors that affect growth include the cost of housing, the location of jobs, the economy, the climate, and transportation. While these factors would likely result in growth in Fresno during the planning period of the General Plan, growth will continue to occur based primarily on the demand of the housing market and demand for new commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses. As future development occurs under the proposed Specific Plan, new roads, utility infrastructure, and public services would be necessary to serve the development and this infrastructure would accommodate planned growth. Based on the growth projected to occur in the City’s General Plan Planning Area, the proposed Specific Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned. Cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth.
4. 0-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Further, growth within the Specific Plan Area has been anticipated by the City. The land within the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan has been planned for urban development within the Fresno General Plan, and the proposed Specific Plan would serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastruc ture, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The Specific Plan’s 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. This proposed land use mix within the Specific Plan assists in reducing a number of environmental impacts. For example, the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. In addition, the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the proposed Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan, resulting in less water demand associated with the Specific Plan land use map when compared to build out of the General Plan. Further, the Plan Area includes future development of a portion of the City’s SOI ; however, the Plan does not include extension of roadways or utility infrastructure beyond the Plan Area boundary and would not induce growth beyond the limits of the SOI.
In short, while the proposed Specific Plan’s increase in population growth would be slightly larger than what was assumed under the General Plan, the overall growth would not exceed regional growth projections. Thus, while the project would foster population and economic growth, such growth would be similar to what has been previously anticipated for the project region , and a less than-significant impact related to growth inducement would occur.
4.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) and Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a), requires that the EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Irreversible environmental effects are described as:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to previously remote area); • The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-31
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Determining whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Analysis
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 7,077 acres of land currently used primarily for rural residential and open/space agricultural uses into residential, mixed use commercial, commercial, employment, neighborhood park, community park, schools, and open space and public facility uses. Development of the Specific Plan would constitute a long- term commitment to these uses. It is unlikely that circumstances would arise that would justify the return of the land to its original condition as agricultural l and.
A variety of resources, including land, energy, water, construction materials, and human resources would be irretrievably committed for the initial construction, infrastructure installation and connection to existing utilities, and its continued maintenance. Construction of the Specific Plan would require the commitment of a variety of other non -renewable or slowly renewable natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals.
Additionally, a variety of resources would be committed to the ongoing operation and life of the Specific Plan . The introduction of new residential, commercial, employment/light industrial, and other uses to the site will result in an increase in area traffic over existing conditions. Fossil fuels are the principal source of energy and the Specific Plan would increase consumption of available supplies, including natural gas, gasoline and diesel. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, project operation and site maintenance and the transport of people and goods to and from the Plan Area.
Additionally, the proposed project is in part a response to a market need for housing. California is in the midst of a housing crisis, and the proposed project is consistent with California’s legislative findings about the current housing crisis. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5[a][1][A] [“California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the State's environmental and climate objectives.”].) Future development of the proposed land u se map could result in up to 54,953 DU at various densities and locations throughout the Plan Area. Buildout of the Plan Area would significantly increase and diversify the city’s available housing supply. Therefore, development of the Specific Plan would result in furtherance of the City’s Housing Element, and would assist the City in meeting the current and future housing need.
4. 0-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
4.4 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Chapters 3.1 through 3.1 5 and previously in this chapter (cumulative-level). The following environmental topics were found to have one or more impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics, Agricultural R esources, Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. Those topics are summarized below:
• Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to non- agricultural land uses.
• Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
• Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 3.3-2 : Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result i n a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b) – VMT per employee for non-residential uses.
• Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-33
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
• Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities , the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region.
• Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses.
• Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality
• Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.
• Impact 4.14: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network.
4. 0-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). Where a potential alternative was examined but not chosen as one of the range of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR briefly discuss the reasons the alternative was dismissed.
Alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR must be potentially feasible alternatives. However, not all possible alternatives need to be analyzed. An EIR must “set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned c hoice.” (CEQA Guidelines, Se ction 15126.6(f).) The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for a “range of reasonable alternatives” and, thus limit the number and type of alternatives that need to be evaluated in an EIR. An EIR need not include any action alternatives inconsistent with the lead agency’s fundamental underlying purpose in proposing a project. (In re Bay -Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1166.)
First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible. In the context of CEQA, “feasible” is defined as:
… capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines 15364)
The inclusion of an alternative in an EIR is not evidence that it is feasible as a matter of law, but rather reflects the judgment of lead agency staff that the alternative is potentially feasible. The final determination of feasibility will be made by the lead agency decision-making body through the adoption of CEQA Findings at the time of action on the Project. (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 see also CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15091(a)) (3) (findings requirement, where alternatives can be rejected as infeasible); 15126.6 ([an EIR] must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation”).) The following factors may be taken into consideration in the assessment of the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plan or regulatory limitations, jurisdictio nal boundaries, and the ability of the proponent to attain site control (Section 15126.6 (f) (1)).
Equally important to attaining the project objectives is the reduction of some or all significant impacts, particularly those that could not b e mitigated to a less -than-significant level. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Chapters
3.1 through 3.15 and in Chapter 4.0 (cumulative-level). The following environmental topics were found to have one or more impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation , Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. Those topics are summarized below:
• Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to non- agricultural land uses.
• Impact 3.2-2 : Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
• Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.3-3 : Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b) – VMT per employee for non-residential uses.
• Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region.
5.0-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
• Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses.
• Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality
• Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.
• Impact 4.14: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed project include future development of land for 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 C ommercial, Regional Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Neighborhood Mixed Use, 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, High School, and Fire Station uses, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements.
Quantifiable Objective
The quantifiable objective of the proposed project includes the future development of up to 83,129 dwelling units ( DU) (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses.
Specific Plan Guiding Principles
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan’s (“Specific Plan”) guiding principles are designed to form the direction of the Specific Plan, and how the Plan can best benefit the future of the Plan Area. The guiding principles incorporate input received from community members and formal recommendations of the Steering Committee. The guiding principles of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:
TRANSPORTATION
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecking exists. • Accommodate planned transit services in the West Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well -maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-3
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
• Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the West Area to other sections of the city and region.
PARKS AND TRAILS
• Create parks that are within existing a nd planned neighborhoods that are easily accessed by community members using pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit services, or motor vehicles, consistent with the City of Fresno’s Parks Master Plan. • Provide for the location of a flagship regional park in the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.
• Increase the tree canopy to improve air quality while enhancing neighborhood streetscapes.
AGRICULTURE
• Incorporate elements of agriculture in future parks by planting a mixture of native drought tolerant vegetation, shrubs, and trees that can serve to provide shade and enhance the streetscape.
• Encourage and provide land use opportunities for agritourism ventures to occur in the West Area.
• Encourage the development of harvest-producing community gardens.
RETAIL
• Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the West Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants (other than fast food), and boutiques.
• Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores. • Encourage the development of retail establishments along commercial corridors.
HOUSING
• Encourage a variety of housing types and styles.
• Encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options. • Reaffirm the City’s commitment and obligation to affirmatively furthering access to fair and affordable housing opportunities by strongly encouraging equitable and fair housing opportunities to be located in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.
5.0-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
CATALYTIC CORRIDORS
• Encourage the orderly and consistent development of civic, parkland, retail and commercial, mixed -use, and multi -family uses along West Shaw Avenue, West Ashlan Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, West Shields Avenue, West Clinton Avenue, and Brawley Avenue.
EDUCATION
• Attract much needed educational opportunities for the residents of the West Area, especially for post-secondary education, and access to programs for life-long learners.
PUBLIC SAFETY
• Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhoods that have sporadic access. • Work to promote Neighborhood Watch in all neighborhoods, and further assess the need for the location of emergency response facilities west of Highway 99.
These Specific Plan guiding principles functionally represent project objectives as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15124, subdivision (b).
5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
One alternative, the Additional Annexation Alternative, was considered as an alternative to the proposed Specific Plan. Under the Additional Annexation Alternative, the land uses within the Plan Area would be changed as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, but the area utilized for the development (i.e., the project footprint) would be increased to include the approximately 160-acre area adjacent to the southwestern corner of the Plan Area. The 160-acre area is bound by Shields Avenue on the north, Grantland Avenue on the east, Clinton Avenue on the south, and Garfield Avenue on t he west. T his area was recommended to be included in the Sphere of Influence expansion by a member of the Steering Committee. Under this alternative, the approximately 160-acre area would be designated Elementary Sc hool (12 acres), Low Density (48 acres), Medium Low Density (90 acres) and Community (10 acres) by the proposed City land use map.1 This additional annexation area would allow for additional development within the Plan Area. The additional annexation area could accommodate an additional 708 residential units (including 168 Low Density units and 540 Medium Low Density units) and an additional 435,600 SF of commercial uses. When compared to the Specific Plan, this Alternative would have equal impact on Aesthetic and Visual Resources and Land Use, but would have gr eater impact or an increased potential for greater impact under all other environmental categories.
Figure 5.0-1 illustrates the Additional Annexation Alternative.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-5