1 Note: The land use designations for this additional annexation area total 150 acres. The additional approximately 10 acres includes existing and/or planned roadway right-of-way.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Expansion of the SOI is not permitted per General Plan Policy LU-1-g. The Additional Annexation Alternative would be inconsistent with this General Plan Policy. As such, the Additional Annexation Alternative would not be a feasible alternative to the Specific Plan.
5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN TH IS EIR
Four alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on input from City staff, the public during the NOP review period, and technical analyses performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Specific Plan that is described in Chapter
2.0, Project Description.
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Community Parks Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.
NO PROJECT (E XISTING GENERAL PLAN ) ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) require consideration of a no project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan . The existing General Plan land use designations for the Plan Area could result in up to 82,646 dwelling units (DU) and up to 44,298,591 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses within the Plan Area. Comparatively, 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. As such, compared to the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would decrease the residential development potential by 483 DU and decrease the non-residential development potential by 15,478,680.15 SF. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.
Figure 5.0-2 illustrates the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative.
COMMUNITY PARKS ALTERNATIVE
Under the Community Parks Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide 59.48-acres of additional Community Parks within the Plan Area near the intersection of Shaw Avenue and Hayes Avenue, including an 18.36 -acre Community Park on the north side of Shaw Avenue and a 41.12-acre Community Park on the south side of Shaw Avenue. These Community Parks would include components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees, and would include public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry. The park area s would not be designated by
5.0-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
the City for dual land uses. The proposed land use for these park areas would be Open Space (Community Park).
Figure 5.0-3 illustrates the Community Parks Alternative.
LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue.
Figure 5.0-4 illustrates the Lower Density Alternative.
ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations to help t he City formulate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project for in clusion in this Draft EIR. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. No specific alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the NOP public review process.
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2) describes conditions under which consideration of alternative project location is appropriate. The key question to be considered is whether or not any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location and whether the proposed project, placed at an alternative location, is environmentally superior to the proposed project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in an EIR.
The City of Fresno considered alternative locations early in the Draft EIR preparation process. The City’s key considerations in identifying an alternative location were as follows:
• Is there an alternative location where significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened?
• Is there a site available within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics such that it would meet the basic project objectives? The City’s consideration of alternative locations for the project included a review of previous land use planning and environmental documents in Fresno, including the General Plan. The City found that there are no potential alternative locations that exist within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the basic project objectives.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-7
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact level of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in this EIR. Following the analysis of each alternative, Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of each alternative.
NO PROJECT (E XISTING GENERAL PLAN ) ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses, which would contribute to changes in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. Under this alternative, the existing uses would remain. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development within the Plan Area under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and the Fresno Municipal Code, which includes design standards in order to ensure quality and cohesive design of the Specific Plan Area. Compliance with the City’s development review process and consistency with the General Plan and the Fresno Zoning Ordinance would ensure that impacts are reduced to the greatest extent possible. This alternative would equally impact the visual and aesthetic character of the site area compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, this alternative would have equal impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding would still occur under this alternative.
Agricultural Resources
The City’s existing General Plan land use map would allow fewer housing units and less non- residential SF than the proposed Specific Plan. Because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be identical to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have equal impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative.
Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions would slightly
5.0-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
decrease. Mobile source ( largely from vehicles) emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. Buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 82,646 new residential units. Based on the estimate of approximately 2.96 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 214,879 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 83,129 new residential units, resulting in approximately 246,061 new residents. Therefore, under this alternative, less residential development would be allowed, resulting in a lesser increase in the number of residents, which would generate fewer daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in decreased levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have decreased impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative.
Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural us es to urban uses, which would eliminate any movement habitat through the Specific Plan Area and any upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors. Because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to biological resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground -disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.
Implementation of the mitigation me asures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources where they to be found.
Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses to urban uses. Because the same sites and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be eventually disturbed by future development under this alternative, impacts related to cultural and tribal resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-9
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Geology, S oils and Seismicity
The land use map for this alternative would allow fewer housing units and less population growth than the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan.
However, as discussed further below, the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative may decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Because more people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, fewer people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be slightly decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. Short -term construction GHG emissions are a one- time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , Climate Change and Energy, the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City ’s GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan.
As described previously, buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 82,646 new residential units. Based on the estimate of approximately 2.96 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 214,879 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 83,129 new residential units, resulting in approximately 246,061 new residents.
As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita for existing conditions in Fresno County. However, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per employee during the horizon year that is more than the VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 6.0 VMT or 39% lower, while VMT per employee is 2.2 VMT or 9% higher. 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. VMT per employee would exceed the impact thresholds for employment land uses despite the mixed-use nature of the Specific Plan, most likely because the high amount of potential non-r esidential uses would attract additional long trips from outside of Fresno County. Mitigation measures for the VMT impacts of employment
5.0-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
uses in the Specific Plan Area would be focused on reducing the number and/or lengths of vehicle trips by employees. However, VMT per employee would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.
Under this alternative, the amount of residential DU and non-residential SF would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan; therefore, because there would be fewer residents with fewer employment-centered uses under this alternative, VMT would decrease compared to the project. As such, the overall land use mix under this alternative would generally be seen to decrease per capita GHG emission levels. Therefore, impacts would be decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT per employee would likely be avoided under this alternative.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Large portions of the Plan Area are improved with existing residential, public facilities, commercial, mixed use, undeveloped rural land, and agricultural uses. These uses are spread throughout the entire Plan Area. Agricultural uses are primarily located in the western portion of the Plan Area. The developed uses are aggregated in the central and eastern portions of the Plan Area.
Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation.
Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.
Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice.
Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlori nated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro - diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro -diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development, and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-11
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is similar to the proposed Specific Plan in that both the Specific Plan and this alternative would result in future development of the entire Specific Plan Area with residential, commercial, mixed-use, and public uses. Because the land area to be developed would not change in comparison to the proposed Specific Plan, the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, or a release of hazardous materials would be similar with this Alternative. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in equal potential for such impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, 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 operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to sur face water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.
Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, future development allowed under the City’s existing General Plan would result in a similar amount of land covered with impervious surfaces compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, stormwater would flow into the City ’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would be required to develop per manent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.
As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, when the proposed Specific Plan is eventually developed, the on-site impervious area would increase, leading to faster runoff rates.
The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would provide a similar amount of impervious surface on -site as compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would also result in similar impacts related to rainfall infiltration and runoff during storm events as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
5.0-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these i mpacts are less than significant as a result of comp liance with local, state, and federal regulations, as well as compliance with Specific Plan policies. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, these impacts would be similar and dev elopment of this Alternative would be required to comply with the regulatory requirements and General Plan policies to reduce potential impacts, similar to the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Land Use
Unlike the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards, and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would allow fewer housing units and less population growth than the proposed Specific Plan. It is noted that this this alternative would not be consistent with General Plan Policy UF-13-a, which requires future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors by the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Area is located in the West Area; therefore, t he proposed Specific Plan will serve as an implementation tool to support the General Plans 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. For these reasons, this alternative would have slightly greater impacts related to land use as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on -site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. S ome existing noise-sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 6 5 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In s ome locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 6 5 dB L dn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.
Under this alternative, noise associated with vehicle trips is expected to slightly decrease due to the decrease in population a nd employment, while other on-site noise sources would likely be comparable to those generated by the proposed Specific Plan. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in a n decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483, resulting in approximately 1,429 fewer residents. Additionally, the decrease in non-residential development potential by 15,478,680.15 SF would result in fewer employees.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-13
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Therefore, this alternative would generate fewer daily vehicle trips and peak hour trips, which would generate decreased noise levels on area roadways when compared to the proposed project. Although this alternative would be subject to the mitigation measures identified for the project, due to the decrease in anticipated vehicle trips and associated noise, noise impacts would be decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Population and Housing
The City anticipates growth within the community over time, and has responded to the anticipated growth by establishing Development Areas in the General Plan, including the West Development Area, Southwest Development Area, and Southeast Development 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 infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation o f additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area . The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan . The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an ext ension of the existing community.
The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area . Compared to the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in a decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483 units, resulting in approximately 1,429 fewer residents. Currently, the city, and the state as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness. The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. In response to an increase in housing stock under this alternative, it would be anticipated that City would not need to look to other undeveloped areas of the region to supply housing stock to meet the regional demand and the State’s directive. This assumption is based entirely on the fact that California, and the city of Fresno, is having a housing shortage and an appropriate response to a shortage is to provide additional housing supply. Despite t he decrease in residential uses under this alternative compared to the Specific Plan , the overall land use m ix would still meet the minimum number of residential units and layout required for New Urbanism principals that are established in the General Plan for the Plan Area. Overall, because the population growth under this alternative would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Pl an, this alternative would have a reduced impact when compared to the proposed project.
Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the
5.0-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
construction of addition fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan inc orporates sites for new schools and parks.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that the Specific Plan project does not have adverse financial impacts on these agencies. The Specific Plan includes land for schools and parks to ensure the increased demand for these services is met within the Plan Area.
The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in a decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483 units, resulting in approximately 1,429 fewer residents.
Therefore, under this alternative, there would be a decreased demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Future development of schools and parks within the proposed Specific Plan was determined to 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), transportation and circulation (Impact 3.14 -3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15 -1 through 3.15 -3). These unavoidable impacts associated with construction of schools and parks under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would still occur. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Specific Plan , this alternative would have a decreased impact to public services and recreation.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita for existing conditions in Fresno County. However, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per employee during the horizon year that is more than the VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 6.0 VMT or 39% lower, while VMT per employee is 2.2 VMT or 9% higher. 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. VMT per employee would exceed the impact thresholds for employment land uses despite the mixed -use nature of the Specific Plan, most likely because the high amount of potential non -residential uses would attract additional long trips from outside of Fresno County. Mitigation measures for t he VMT impacts of e mployment uses in the Specific Plan Area would be focused on reducing the number and/or lengths of vehicle trips by employees. However, VMT per employee would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.
Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. As noted previously , the amount of residential dwelling units and non- residential SF would increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Residential densities would be reduced and the land use map under the existing General Plan would not provide the same Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-15
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
opportunity for employees to live close to jobs; therefore, because there would be fewer residents with fewer employment -centered uses under this alternative, VMT would decrease compared to the project. For these reasons, this alternative would have a decreased impact to transportation and circulation when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT per employee would still occur under this alternative.
Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. However, this Alternative anticipates a decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483 units, resulting in approximately 1,429 fewer residents when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the overall demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, and storm drainage would be decreased under this alternative . As discussed in Section 3.15 (Utilities), the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan.
In conclusion, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in increased impacts to water demand. However, it is anticipated that this alternative would decrease the amount of solid waste and wastewater generated at the site compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Overall, impacts under this alternative are expected to be slightly decreased.
Conclusion
Table 5.0 -1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in equal impacts in six areas and slightly more impacts in one area.
COMMUNITY PARKS ALTERNATIVE
Under the Community Parks Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide 59.48-acres of additional Community Parks within the Plan Area near the intersection of Shaw Avenue and Hayes Avenue, including an 18.36 -acre Community Park on the north side of Shaw Avenue and a 41.12 -acre Community Park on the south side of Shaw Avenue. These Community Parks would include components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees, and would include public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry. The park area s would not be designated by the City for dual land uses. The proposed land use for these park areas would be Open Space (Community Park).
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Community Parks Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would
5.0-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
provide two Community Parks within the Plan Area, which would be about 59.48 acres in size.
When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, assuming two community parks are constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor/Center Mixed Use development (i.e., the dual designations for the Community Park Area along Shaw Avenue and Hayes Avenue proposed by the Specific Plan).
Nevertheless, developing the entire Specific Plan Area would likely result in buildings with equal stories as the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development under the Community Parks Alternative would be subject to the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and policies of the Specific Plan, as well as the City’s General Plan policies and actions. This alternative would equally impact the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, this alternative wo uld have equal impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding would still occur under this alternative.
Agricultural Resources
The land use map for this alternative would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan , except 59.48 acres would be designated for the 59.48-acre s of Community Parks. Under this Alternative, because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be similar to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have equal impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan.
The significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative.
Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions are anticipated to slightly decrease. Mobile source (i.e., vehicle) emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, assuming two community parks are constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor /Center Mixed Use development. As such, the Community Parks Alternative is anticipated to result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan buildout due to the inclusion of 59.48-acres of community parks. Therefore, under this alternative, it is anticipated that slightly less people would be located in the Specific Plan Area generating less daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would produce lower levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefor e, this alternative would have slightly reduce d impacts Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-17
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative.
Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. Under the Community Parks Alternative, the Specific Plan’s development footprint would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan; therefore, an equivalent amount of habitat would be removed as the proposed Specific Plan, and a similar level of ground disturbing activities would occur as compared w ith the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, potential impacts to biological resources would be equal under the Community Parks Alternative.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground -disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.
Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources wee they to be found.
The Community Parks Alternative would result in a similar level of ground disturbing activities and would have a similar potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Community Parks Alternative would result in equal potential for impacts to cultural resources.
Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The land u se map for this alternative would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 59.48 acres would be designated for 59.48-acres of Community Parks. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor/Center Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan. However, as discussed above, it is anticipated that the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative may slightly decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Because fewer people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the Community Parks Alternative, fewer people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be slightly decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
5.0-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during c onstruction and operation. Short -term construction GHG emissions are a one- time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
Under the Community Parks Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan, except 59.48 acres would be designated for Community Parks. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor/Center Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non- residential SF, resulting in a slight decrease in p opulation growth. This would r educe Plan A rea operational GHG emissions by an approximately equivalent amount when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts related to operational-GHG emissions would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. With respect to mobile -GHG emissions, because the overall land use mix is generally the same as the proposed Specific Plan, it is assumed that it would create generally the same opportunities for non-motorized transportation options (such as walking or cycling) assisting with reducing mobile-related GHG emissions. Overall, because fewer people would likely result in the Specific Plan Area under this alternative, the mobile greenhouse gas emissions would slightly decrease when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the greenhouse gas emissions impact would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Large portions of the Plan Area are improved with existing residential, public facilities, commercial, mixed use, undeveloped rural land, and agricultural uses. These uses are spread throughout the entire Plan Area. Agricultural uses are primarily located in the western portion of the Plan Area. The developed uses are aggregated in the central and eastern portions of the Plan Area.
Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation.
Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of historic, existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-19
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.
Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice.
Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlori nated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as MCPP, Dinoseb, chlordane, DDT, and DDE. Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section
3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development, and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations.
Under the Community Parks Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 59.48 acres would have a Community Park land use designation for the two community parks. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Urban N eighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor /Center Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with s tate and federal regulations would be required. Given that this alternative would likely result in a slight reduction of residential and non-residential development and that all of the sites maintain their underlying land use designations, it is expected that the Community Parks Alternative would generally have an equal impact to this topic relative to the proposed Specific Plan.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, 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 operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to sur face water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally,
5.0-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.
Under the Community Parks Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide two Community Parks within the Plan Area, which would be 59.48 acres in size .
Approximately the same area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed with the aforementioned uses in the future. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor /Center Mixed Use development. The amount of land covered with impervious surfaces would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the inclusion of community parks in lieu of urban development.
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, stormwater from the future buildings would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the Community Parks Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage a nd treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.
As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Under this alternative , these impacts would be similar as the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the Community Parks Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Land Use
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the Community Parks Alternative would require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. This alternative would provide generally the same housing and employment opportunities for the city. However, this alternative would include
59.48-acres of Community Parks to allow for t he development of two community parks, which would slightly reduce the overall housing and employment opportunities. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, upon approval of the General Plan amendment, this alternative would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and other land use regulations, and therefore, would have similar land use impacts as the proposed Specific Plan.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-21
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on -site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. Some existing noise -sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 65 dB L dn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In s ome locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 65 dB L dn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.
Under the Community Parks Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide two Community Parks within the Plan Area, which would be a 59.48 total acres in size.
The remainder of the Plan Area would be developed with the same land uses as the proposed Specific Plan. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non -residential SF. The slight decrease in residential and non -residential development would result in a slight decrease in noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction under this alternative; however, the decrease is anticipated to be negligible since the land designated for t he future community parks would generate trips and generate on-site noise associated with the community park use. Overall, despite this slight reduction in urban development under this alternative, it is expected that some noise levels associated with traffic u nder this Alternative would still generate a potentially significant impact similar to the proposed Specific Plan. The same mitigation measures required for the proposed Specific Plan would be required for this alternative. As such, this alternative is expected to have an equal impact relative to the proposed Specific Plan.
Population and Housing
The City anticipates growth within the community over time, and has responded to the anticipated growth by establishing Development Areas in the General Plan, including the West Development Area, Southwest Development Area, and Southeast Development 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 infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation o f additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area . The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an ext ension of the existing community.
The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. Under the Community Parks Alternative, future development in the
5.0-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan’s land use map. However, this alternative would provide two Community Parks within the Plan Area, which would total 59.48 acres in size. This would result in a slight decrease in the overall number of housing units and non -residential SF, which would cause a slight decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. Currently, the city, and the state as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness. The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. While buildout under this alternative might result in a slight decrease of housing stock, it is anticipated that this decrease would be negligible and the overall buildout of the Specific Plan under this alternative would be generally comparable to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to population and housing would be generally similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of additional fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan incorporates sites for new schools and parks.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that the Specific Plan project does not have adverse financial impacts on these agencies. The Specific Plan includes land for schools and parks to ensure the increased demand for these services is met within the Plan Area.
Under the Community Parks Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 59.48 acres would have be designated for Community Park uses for the proposed community parks. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF in the Specific Plan area , which would result in a slightly reduced population when compared to the proposed Specific Plan . Therefore, under this alternative, it is expected that there would be a slight decrease in demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and other public facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The park demand would also be less under this alternative because the amount of parkland provided would increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
It should be noted that the future development of a parks and open space within the proposed Specific Plan was determined to 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), transportation and circulation (Impact 3.14 -3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15 -3). The proposed land use map for this alternative includes 59.48 acres for the development of two community parks. While the development of an additional park facility would contribute to this significant and u navoidable impact, it is anticipated that this Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-23
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
alternative would result in generally similar impacts relative to park and open space facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. However, the slight decrease in demand for fire, police, schools, and other public facilities due to the slight decrease in population and jobs under this alternative would have a slightly reduced impact to public services under this alternative.
Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita for existing conditions in Fresno County. However, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per employee during the horizon year that is more than the VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 6.0 VMT or 39% lower, while VMT per employee is 2.2 VMT or 9% higher. 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. VMT per employee would exceed the impact thresholds for employment land uses despite the mixed -use nature of the Specific Plan, most likely because the high amount of potential non-residential uses would attract additional long trips from outside of Fresno County. Mitigation measures for t he VMT impacts of e mployment uses in the Specific Plan Area would be focused on reducing the number and/or lengths of vehicle trips by employees. However, VMT per employee would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for al ternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.
Under the Community Parks Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 59.48 acres would have a Community Park land use designation for the proposed community parks. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor /Center Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non -residential SF in the Specific Plan area , which would result in a slightly reduced population and number of jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The slightly reduced population and jobs under this alternative may slightly decrease the average daily vehicle trips. However, since the overall land use mix is generally the same as the proposed Specific Plan, it is anticipated that impacts to transportation and circulation would generally be the same under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT per employee would still occur under this alternative.
Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the Community Parks Alternative, the land use map would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 59.48 acres would have a Community Park land use designation for the proposed community parks. The community parks would include the planting of drought -resistant vegetation and trees to assist
5.0-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
in reducing overall water demand associated with landscaping. This 59.48-acre designation would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF in the Specific Plan Area, which would result i n a slight reduction of population and jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed community parks would generate less wastewater, potable water, and solid waste demand than the underlying land uses. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the overall demand for wastewater, potable water, solid waste, and storm drainage u nder this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed Specific Plan.
Therefore, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts to utilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the Community Parks Alternative w ould result in reduced or slightly reduced impacts in five areas and equal impacts in 10 areas.
LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in reduced light and glare impacts due to less development introduced into the Plan Area.
Additionally, buildout of the Specific Plan under this alternative would result in less degradation of the visual character and quality of the site due to the preservation of land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development under this alternative would be subject to the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and policies of the Specific Plan, as well as the City’s General Plan policies and actions.
Overall, despite this reduction in urban development under this alternative, it is expected that overall buildout of the Plan Area would still generate a significant and unavoidable impact related to visual quality and l ight and glare due to the conversion of farmland and o pen space into urban development; however, this alternative would result in less impacts to the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site when compared to the proposed Specific Plan due to the preservation of rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-25
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Agricultural Resources
The land use map for this alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Because fewer agricultural areas would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would b e reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative, though to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.
Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. The land use map for the Lower Density Alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a reduced development footprint. Construction related impacts would be reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be reduced, which would reduce the duration of construction. Additionally, under this alternative, mobile source emissions are anticipated to also decrease. Mobile source emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. The Lower Density Alternative would result in the development of lower densities throughout the Plan Area decreasing the number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would result in a reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Speci fic Plan.
Therefore, under this alternative, it is anticipated that less people would be located on the Specific Plan Area generating less daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would produce lower levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have reduced impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative, though to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.
Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. The Lower Density Alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Therefore, under this alternative, the Specific Plan’s development footprint would be less than the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in less habitat removal and reduced ground disturbing activities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, there would be less potential for impacts to biological resources under this alternative as compared with the proposed Specific Plan.
The reduced development footprint would result in less ground disturbing activities and habitat removal, resulting in the preservation of more movement habitat and upland habitat adjacent to
5.0-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
the movement corridors along the southern and western boundaries of the Specific Plan Area.
When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, the overall impacts to biological resources would be reduced under this alternative due to the preservation of the existing site conditions along the southern a nd western boundaries of the Specific Plan Area , resulting in less habitat loss and ground disturbing activities.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground -disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.
Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources where they to be found.
The Lower Density Alternative would result in a reduced level of ground disturbing activities and would have less potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Lower Density Alternative would result in less potential for impacts to cultural resources.
Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area, which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk fr om geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan. However, as discussed above, it is anticipated that the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative would be less when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Because fewer people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the Lower Density Alternative, fewer people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Therefore, this impact would be slightly decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during c onstruction and operation. Short -term construction GHG emissions are a one- time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-27
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a lower development footprint . This would reduce Plan Area operational GHG emissions by an approximately equivalent amount when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to greenhouse gases under this alternative are expected to be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Large portions of the Plan Area are improved with existing residential, public facilities, commercial, mixed use, undeveloped rural land, and agricultural uses. These uses are spread throughout the entire Plan Area. Agricultural uses are primarily located in the western portion of the Plan Area. The developed uses are aggregated in the central and eastern portions of the Plan Area.
Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation.
Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos cont aining materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.
Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice.
Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlori nated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as MCPP, Dinoseb, chlordane, DDT, and DDE. Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section
3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development, and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced
5.0-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations.
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area, which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative h ealth eff ects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. Given that this alternative would result in lower densities throughout the Plan Area and a lower development footprint resulting a reduction of total residential and non-residential development, it is expected that the Lower Density Alternative would have a reduced impact relative to this topic.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, 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 operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in an overall lower development footprint. This would result in less impervious surfaces introduced into the Plan Area, which would allow for increased rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge, especially at the western and southern boundaries of the Plan Area that would be preserved under this alternative.
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, stormwater from the future buildings would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-29
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
development projects allowed under the Lower Density Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative . Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.
As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Under this alternative, these impacts would be similar as the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under the Lower Density Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan due to the lower densities developed throughout the Plan Area.
Land Use
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the Lower Density Alternative would require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards and with the Zoning Code. The analy sis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. This alternative would provide for decreased housing and employment opportunities for the city. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, upon approval of the General Plan amendment, this alternative would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and other land use regulations, and therefore, would have similar land use impacts as the proposed Specific Plan.
Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on -site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. Some existing noise -sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 65 dB L dn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In s ome locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 65 dB L dn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area, which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The decrease in residential and non -residential development would result in a decrease in noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction under this
5.0-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
alternative. As such, this alternative is expected to have a reduced impact relative to the proposed Specific Plan.
Population and Housing
The City anticipates growth within the community over time, and has responded to the anticipated growth by establishing Development Areas in the General Plan, including the West Development Area, Southwest Development Area, and Southeast Development 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 infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation o f additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area . The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an ext ension of the existing community.
The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area . Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non - residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative.
The Plan Area was planned for population and housing growth under the City’s General Plan. This alternative would not provide for the same population, housing and employment growth as anticipated by the General Plan or proposed by the Specific Plan. Neither the proposed Specific Plan nor the Lower Density Alternative would exceed the growth projections anticipated by the General Plan. Substantial unplanned growth under both this alternative and the proposed Specific Plan would not occur . Both the proposed S pecific Plan and the Lower Density Alternative would not displace substantial amounts of housing. Overall, this alternative would have a similar impact when compared to the proposed project. It is noted that this alternative would not provide the amount of housing, or diversity of housing options, to the extent that the proposed Specific Plan would.
Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of addition fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-31
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan inc orporates sites for new schools and parks.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that the Specific Plan project does not have adverse financial impacts on these agencies. The Specific Plan includes land for schools and parks to ensure the increased demand for these services is met within the Plan Area.
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. Therefore, the demand for police, fire and other public services would be reduced. This alternative would still result in development of public facilities (i.e. schools and parks) and would be required to pay the appropriate public safety impact fees. Overa ll, this alternative would have a reduced impact to public services when compared to the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable impact related to public services and recreation would still occur under this alternative.
Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita for existing conditions in Fresno County. However, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per employee during the horizon year that is more than the VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 6.0 VMT or 39% lower, while VMT per employee is 2.2 VMT or 9% higher. 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. VMT per employee would exceed the impact thresholds for employment land uses despite the mixed -use na ture of the Specific Plan, most likely because the high amount of potential non -residential uses would attract additional long trips from outside of Fresno County. Mitigation measures for t he VMT impacts of e mployment uses in the Specific Plan Area would be focused on reducing the number and/or lengths of vehicle trips by employees. However, VMT per employee would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.
The Lower Density Alternative w ould result in lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area . This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non- residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. The reduced population and jobs under this alternative are expected to decrease the average daily vehicle tr ips. Therefore, transportation and circulation impacts are
5.0-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
expected to be slightly less under this alternative. The significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT per employee would still occur under this alternative.
Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a smaller development foo tprint. This would also result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative.
It is anticipated that the overall demand for wastewater, potable water, solid waste, and storm drainage would be less than the proposed Specific Plan due to the smaller development footprint, lower developed density throughout the Plan Area, and the reduced population under this alternative. Therefo re, t his alternative would have slightly reduced impacts to utilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.
Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the Lower Density Alternative would result in reduced or slightly reduced impacts in 13 areas and equal impacts in two areas.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative wi th the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.
Table 5.0-1 presents a comparison of the alternative project impacts with those of the Specific Plan. As shown in the table, the Lower Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it results in the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. The Lower Density Alternative would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to 13 of the 15 environmental issues. This is mostly due to the preservation of the existing farmland and rural residential areas along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, and the decrease in development associated with the reduced densities. It is noted that none of the project alternatives would fully eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the proposed Specific Plan; however, the significant and unavoidable impacts that would result under the proposed Specific Plan would occur to a lesser extent under the Lower Density Alternative. The Community Parks Alternative is the next best a lternative as it would Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-33
TABLE 5.0-1: COMPARISON O F ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS TO TH E PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
NO PROJECT (EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN)
ALTERNATIVE
COMMUNITY PARKS
ALTERNATIVE
LOWER DENSITY
ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Equal Equal Less
Agricultural Resources Equal Equal Less
Air Quality Less Slightly Less Less
Biological Resources Equal Equal Less
Cultural and Tribal Resources Equal Equal Less
Geology, Soils and Seismicity Slightly Less Slightly Less Slightly Less Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, and Energy Less Slightly Less Slightly Less Hazards and Hazardous Materials Equal Equal Less
Hydrology and Water Quality Equal Equal Less
Land Use Slightly More Equal Equal
Noise Less Equal Less
Population and Housing Less Equal Equal
Public Services and Recreation Less Slightly Less Less Transportation and Circulation Less Equal Slightly Less Utilities Slightly Less Slightly Less Slightly Less
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
decrease or slightly decrease impacts to five of the 15 environmental issues. It should be noted that none of alternatives meet all of the project objectives, as described in Section 5.5 below.
5.5 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT AND
ALTERNATIVES TO SATISFY PROJECT OBJECTIVES
This section examines how each of the alternatives selected for more detailed analysis meets the project objectives.
The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not fully satisfy the project objectives because this alternative would not fully implement the community’s refined vision f or the future growth, development, and conservation of open space and resources within the Specific Plan in a manner consistent with the quality of life desired by residents and businesses . An 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations to the draft land use map and guiding principles based on input received from community members . 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 infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The No Project (Existing General P lan) Alternative would not be consistent with the revisions to the core goals provided in the General Plan for the West Area, which calls for the development of the West Shaw Avenue Town Center and Catalytic Corridors in the West Area. While the No Project Alternative would generally meet the project objectives and specific plan guiding principles, it would not be as effective as the proposed Specific Plan.
The Community Parks Alternative would meet the primary project objectives and would satisfy the policy guidance outlined in the City’s General Plan for West Area; however, it would not meet the quantifiable objective 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
5.0-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
category) and 59,777,271 SF of non-residential uses in the Plan Area. Therefore, the Community Parks Alternative would satisfy the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue. The land use mix under the Lower Density Alternative would not encourage a variety of housing styles and types and would not encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi -generational houses and other elder housing options.
Instead, this alternative would encourage the development of lower density single-family homes and ranch style homes. As such, this alternative would cause an overall reduction in housing stock in the Plan Area. Therefore, this alternative would satisfy the project objectives related to housing to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan . Additionally, although this alternative would encourage development of retail along commercial corridors, the amount of retail and job- generating uses would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the retail - related project objectives.
The Lower Density Alternative would accommodate and improve roadways and transit in the area, and would provide a complete roadway network. This alternative would achieve all of the transportation related objectives. This alternative would also result in creation of parks and trails in the Plan Area, and would incorporate elements of agriculture and agri- tourism ventures.
Overall, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the project objectives.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-35
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This page left intentionally blank.
5.0-36 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan I -
~----~
i L---··-··-··· • ··-··-, !_ ____ , I
--J • I
---
,.. ....
-
l .. _:
Cl
'Vv --- - -- -- --- --
I r• ·-•• J I
j_ ____ _
r-··-11 _j'L_ ___ _
I I i i •
r-. ·-··-··-· i
:
r-··
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
E/M/H
E
PB
PB
PB
PB
NPNP NP
NP
P
OS
NP
NP
NP
NPNP
NP
NP
NP
NP
OS
CH
EE
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
CH
CH
FS
NP
NP
CH
PB
PB
CH
FS
CH
P
PB
PB
NP
PB
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
P
P
P
P
P
P
CP
CP
P
P CP
PP
CP
P
OS
OS
CH
CH
CH
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
99 99
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
COMMER
CIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
EMPLO
YMENT
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
PUBLIC FA
CILITIES
Public Facilities
OPEN SPA
CE
Open Space
DUAL USE
Proposed Dual Use Basin
Church (CH) -- Fire Station (FS) -- Special School (SS) El
ementary School (E) -- High School (H)
Elementary/Middle/High School (E/M/H)
Community Park (CP) -- Neighborhood Park (NP)
Po
nding Basin (PB) -- Open Space (OS) -- Park (P)
0 ½¼
Miles
Additional Annexation
Alterna
tive
FIGURE 5.0-1.
CITY OF FRESNO
WES
T AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: June 19, 2024.
(Residential Medium Low and Open Space)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This page left intentionally blank.
5.0-38 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan i
-
i =-- ■--■-■■- · i
·-·· i - ■ r r-
'1.- ■■- . -··-··-"
··-··-: i·-··-:
=• ,.. ....
- -
l .. _:
1:1
- -- --- -- -- -- -- -
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
E/M/H
PB
PB
PB
PB
NP
NPNP NP
PP P OS
NP
NP
NP
NPNP
NP
NP
NP
NP
OS
FS
FS
CH
EE
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
NP
NP
CH
PB
PB
CP
CP
CP
PB
NP
99 99
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
RE
SIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
CO
MMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
EM
PLOYMENT
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
PU
BLIC FACILITIES
Public Facilities
OP
EN SPACE
Open Space
0 ½¼
Miles
No Project Alternative
FIGURE 5.0-2.
CITY OF FRESNO
WES
T AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: June 19, 2024.
Church (CH) -- Fire Station (FS) -- Special School (SS) El
ementary School (E) -- High School (H)
Elementary/Middle/High School (E/M/H)
Community Park (CP) -- Neighborhood Park (NP)
Po
nding Basin (PB) -- Open Space (OS) -- Park (P)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This page left intentionally blank.
5.0-40 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan I -
~----~
i L---··-··-··· • ··-··-, !_ ____ , I
- -J - I
--
---..
-
L .. _:
Cl --
---- -- ---
- --
I r• ·-.• J I
j_ ____ _ r-. ·-··-··-· i
: r-··-11 _j'L_ ___ _
I I i i •
r-··
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
E/M/H
E
PB
PB
PB
PB
NPNP NP
NP
P
OS
NP
NP
NP
NPNP
NP
NP
NP
NP
OS
CH
EE
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
CH
CH
FS
NP
NP
CH
PB
PB
CH
FS
CH
P
PB
PB
NP
PB
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
CP
P
OS
CH
CH
CH
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
CP
CP
CP
99 99
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
EMPLOYMENT
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
PUBLIC FACILITIE
S
Public Facilities
OPEN SPACE
Open Space
Church (CH) -- Fire Station (FS) -- Special School (SS) Ele
mentary School (E) -- High School (H)
Elementary/Middle/High School (E/M/H)
Community Park (CP) -- Neighborhood Park (NP)
Ponding Basin (PB) -- Open Space (OS) -- Park (P)
0 ½¼
Miles
Community Parks Alternative
FIGURE 5.0-3.
CITY OF FRESNO
WEST ARE
A NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: June 19, 2024.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This page left intentionally blank.
5.0-42 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ,-_-. ,.. ....
l .. _:
Cl
-----
/
r-··
i i ___ _
= , .. .,,__ r-
•• J • : :
• ·----··- I ···-··- : .----·- r-··-11 _j_= ___ _ - • L .. _.,_,,_,, • • I ! i . . • ··-··-, !_ ____ , I
- -- -- -- ---- -
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
PB
PB
P
OS
CH
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
FS
NP
NP
PB
PB
NP
PB
P
P
P
P PP
P
CH
99 99
L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
RE
SIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
C
OMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
EMPL
OYMENT
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
PUBLIC F
ACILITIES
Public Facilities
OPEN SP
ACE
Open Space
Church (CH) -- Fire Station (FS) -- Special School (SS) E
lementary School (E) -- High School (H)
Elementary/Middle/High School (E/M/H)
Community Park (CP) -- Neighborhood Park (NP)
P
onding Basin (PB) -- Open Space (OS) -- Park (P)
0 ½¼
Miles
Lower Density Alternative
FIGURE 5.0-4.
CITY OF FRESNO
WE
ST AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: June 19, 2024.
L O W E R D E N S I T Y
A
L T E R N A T I V E S
Areas to be changed under Alternative
Agriculture/Rural Residential
Rural Residential
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Retail
Office
Mixed-Use
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This page left intentionally blank.
5.0-44 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 6.0
REPORT PREPARERS
City of Fresno
Long Range Planning Division, with the contribution and review of Citywide staff.
De Novo Planning Group
Steve McMurtry ........................................................................ Principal Planner/Project Manager Elise Laws ...................................................................................................................Senior Planner Josh Smith ...................................................................................................................Senior Planner Jeff Setterlund .......................................................................................................Associate Planner
REPORT CONTRIBUTORS
West Yost Associates
James Connell, P.E. ................................................................................................. Project Manager Elizabeth Drayer......................................................................................................... QA/QC Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Aaron Elias ................................................................................................................Senior Engineer MD Acoustics, LLC
Mike Dickerson, INCE........................................................................................................... Principal Roma Stromberg............................................................................................. Acoustical Consultant Cogstone
Holly Duke.................................................................................................................... Archaeologist Sherri Gust ....................................................................................................... Principal Investigator Shannon Lopez................................................................................................. Principal Investigator Kim Scott .......................................................................................................... Principal Investigator Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 6.0-1
6.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
This page left intentionally blank.
6.0-
2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
REFERENCES 7.0
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018. 2018 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. January 1, 2018.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate. April.
San Francisco, CA. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning -and- research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.
C. Donald Ahrens . 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. Air Toxics Hotspot Program.
Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wp -
content/uploads/2016/08/CAPCOA%20Prioritization%20Guidelines%20- %20August%202016%20FINAL.pdf.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. Appendix A, Calculation Details for CalEEMod. November 8, 2017.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. Background Material: Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition - Chapter 4 Regional Trends and Forecasts. Page last reviewed on February 7, 2014. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/chap413.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. EMFAC2017 Web Database. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018b. Area Designations Maps/State and National. This page last reviewed December 28, 2018. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019b. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019c. Carbon Monoxide and Health. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/co/co.htm.
California Air R esources Board (CARB). 2019d. What is Carbon Monoxide? Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health.
Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 7.0-1
7.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019e. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/databases.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020b. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.
Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state -and-federal-area- designations.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020c. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data.
Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Status Report.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmlands Map.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2014 -2016. Table A-24: Fresno County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion.
California Department of Finance. 2019 Population and Housing Estimates (E-5 Reports).
California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection. 2019. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire -prevention-planning-engineering/wildland- hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2019. Envirostor Data Management System.
Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno%2C+ca.
California Department of Transportation. 2019. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways.
Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.
California Energy Commission. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Abstract, pg. 5.
California Energy Commission. 2018. Energy Almanac. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. December 2010. Available:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/ California Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
7.0-
2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan
REFERENCES 7.0
California Geological Survey. 2002, December. Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces. Available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/Pages/index.aspx.
California Geological Survey, 2019. Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo, accessed September 3, 2019.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2021. Natural Gas and California. Accessed on April 13, 2021.
Available at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/.
California State Water Resources Board. 2019. GeoTracker. Accessed on September 10, 2019.
Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available at:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/datatools/reports/divdisprtsum.
CalRecycle. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx and http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.
Central Unified School District. Central Unified School District 2021 Facilities Master Plan.
City of Fresno. Adopted December 18, 2014. City of Fresno General Plan.
City of Fresno. Adopted July 22, 2014. Master Environmental Impact Report.
City of Fresno. Adopted September 2015. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update.
City of Fresno. Adopted April 13, 2017. Housing Element 2015-2023.
City of Fresno. Draft Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element. July 2024.
City of Fresno. Effective May 2, 2024. Municipal Code of Ordinances.
City of Fresno. Adopted May 2019. Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12 Impact fees, historic resources, and other miscellaneous topics, Article 4.5 Urban Growth Management Ordinance.
City of Fresno. Adopted May 2019. Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15 City Wide Development Code, Article 20 General Site regulations, Section 15 -2015 Outdoor Illumination Ordinance.
City of Fresno. Adopted May 2019. Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15 City Wide Development Code, Article 3.5 Tree Preservation.
Cogstone. October 2019. Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project.
County of Fresno. 2000. 2000 Fresno County General Plan Background Report. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 7.0-3
7.0 REFERENCES
County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743.
County of Fresno. 2024. 2024 Fresno County , California Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/Resources/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
County of Fresno. 20 24. Fresno County General Plan Policy Document General Plan Review .
Available at: https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/Departments/Public -Works-and- Planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-planning/development-services-division/planning- and-land-use/general-plan-maps.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 8, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement (2016-2018).
Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Fresno Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2018-2042. Available: https://www.fresnocog.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/2018-RTP-Cover-Intro-table-of-contents-etc.Final-Draft.pdf.
Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. 2017 Fresno County Crop Report.
Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. 2022 Fresno County Crop Report.
Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission. 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 2018. Available at: https://www.fresnocog.org/wp - content/uploads/2019/01/fresno-draft-ALUCP-12-04-17c.pdf.
Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission. July 13, 2016. City of Fresno Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available at:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.
Kittelson & Associates. October 29 , 2024. Technical Memorandum RE: CEQA Impacts and Mitigations.
Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update.
Accessed on September 3, 2019.
LSA Associates. 2020. City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. March 2020.
MD Acoustics. October 4, 2024. West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 2015. NASA:
Background Ozone is a Major Issue in U.S. West. Available:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4723.
National Resource Conservation Council (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. Map date: August 2, 2019.
7.0-
4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan
REFERENCES 7.0
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2014. NRDC Fact Sheet: California Snowpack and the Drought. April 2014. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca- snowpack-and- drought-FS.pdf.
Personal communication with Casey Lauderdale, City of Fresno, June 12, 2024.
Personal communication with Cody Charette, Data Analyst for the Fresno Fire Department, April 23, 2020.
Personal communication with Brian Pierce, Police Lieutenant for the Fresno Police Department, July 12, 2024.
San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impact. Available: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm.
San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone -Plan-2016/Adopted- Plan.pdf.
San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. Available: http://valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm -plan-adopted/2018- Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.valleyair.org/general_info/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20bein g%20done%20to%20improve%20ai r%20quality%20in%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley.
The Fresno Bee. Does Fresno’s new high school favor rich families on the north side? Here’s the map.
Published November 11, 2020.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Accessed: August 2, 2019. Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020a. Analysis and Projections. Short - term Energy Outlook. Release date: September 9, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php.
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020b. California State Energy Profile.
Last updated January 16, 2020. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020c. Independent Statistics and Analysis. Frequently Asked Questions. Last updated September 4, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6.
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 7.0-5
7.0 REFERENCES
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/co -pollution/basic- information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoor-air-pollution#Effects.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations – EPA.
Available: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=91.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. TRI Explorer. 2017 TRI Factsheet:
City – Fresno, CA. Data Source: 2017 Updated Dataset (released April 2019). Available at:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet?&pstate=CA&pcity=fresno&pyear= 2017&pParent=TRI&pDataSet=TRIQ1.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Registering Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Accessed on September 10, 2019. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/registering-transformers-containing-polychlorinated-biphenyls- pcbs.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). Accessed on September 10, 2019. Available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Superfund: National Priorities List (NPL). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019a. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.
Available: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019b. Health Effects of Ozone In the General Population. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ozone -pollution-and-your-patients- health/health-effects-ozone-general-population.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019c. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM). Available: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health -and- environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019d. Basic Information About Lead Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/basic-information -about-lead- air-pollution#how.
United States Geologic Survey. 2019. Known Faults. Accessed August 2, 2019.
West Yost Associates. January 2022. City of Fresno West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan Utility Background Summary.
West Yost Associates. March 2024. West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment.
7.0-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan