Exhibit H - Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) — Fresno City Council, October 16, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

Exhibit H
West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
(2025)
■
■■
■■
■

RECIRCULATED

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
MARCH 2025

Prepared for:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8003

Prepared by:

De N ovo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e Nov o P la n n i n g Gr ou p
A L a nd Us e P l a nni ng , D e si g n, a nd E nv i r o nm e n t a l F i r m For assistance with any accessibility features of this document, please contact the Planning Department at (559) 621-8277

RECIRCULATED

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
MARCH 2025
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8003
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Chapters Page Numbers
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1.0-1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1.0-1

1.2 Project Background and Reasons for EIR Recirculation.......................................... 1.0-2

1.3 Summary of Changes .............................................................................................. 1.0-3

1.4 Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR ............................................................... 1.0-3

1.5 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................... 1.0-4

1.6 Type of EIR .............................................................................................................. 1.0-5

1.7 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ......................................................................... 1.0-8

1.8 Environmental Review Process............................................................................... 1.0-9

1.9 Organization and Scope ........................................................................................ 1.0-11

1.10 Significance Criteria (“Thresholds”) .................................................................... 1.0-13

1.11 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ............................................ 1.0-14

1.12 Areas of Controversy .......................................................................................... 1.0-14

2.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2.0-1

2.1 Project Location and Setting................................................................................... 2.0-1

2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................. 2.0-3

2.3 Project Goals and Objectives ................................................................................ 2.0-12

2.4 Uses of the EIR and Required Agency Approvals.................................................. 2.0-14

3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources.......................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................... 3.1-4

3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 3.1-9

3.2 Agricultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................... 3.2-7

3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.2-10

3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3.3-1

3.3.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................. 3.3-12

3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.3-31 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-1

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 3.4-1

3.4.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................. 3.4-19

3.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.4-27

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources .............................................................................................. 3.5-1

3.5.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 3.5-9

3.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.5-16

3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismicity ............................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 3.6-9

3.6.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.6-14

3.7 Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy ................................................................ 3.7-1

3.7.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 3.7-8

3.7.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.7-26

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 3.8-9

3.8.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.8-20

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 3.9-1

3.9.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 3.9-9

3.9.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 3.9-16

3.10 Land Use...... ..................................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 3.10-3

3.10.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.10-13

3.11 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 3.11-1

3.11.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 3.11-12

3.11.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.11-18

3.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 3.12-3

3.12.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.12-10 TOC-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

3.13 Public Services and Recreation ........................................................................................ 3.13-1

3.13.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 3.13-14

3.13.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.13-27

3.14 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.14.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.14-1

3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 3.14-6

3.14.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.14-15

3.15 Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 3.15-1

3.15.1 Wastewater Services ....................................................................................... 3.15-1

3.15.2 Water Supplies ............................................................................................... 3.15-12

3.15.3 Stormwater .................................................................................................... 3.15-28

3.15.4 Solid Waste .................................................................................................... 3.15-38

4.0 Other CEQA-Required Topics ............................................................................................... 4.0-1

4.1 Cumulative Setting and Impact Analysis ................................................................. 4.0-1

4.2 Growth-Inducing Effects ....................................................................................... 4.0-28

4.3 Significant Irreversible Effects .............................................................................. 4.0-31

4.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 4.0-32

5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .................................................................................. 5.0-1

5.1 CEQA Requirements ................................................................................................ 5.0-1

5.2 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed .................................................................. 5.0-5

5.3 Alternatives Considered in this EIR ......................................................................... 5.0-6

5.4 Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................... 5.0-8

5.5 Comparative Evaluation of the Project and Alternatives to Satisfy Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 5.0-34

6.0 Report Preparers and Contributors ..................................................................................... 6.0-1

7.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 7.0-1 Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-3

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables Page Numbers
5BTable ES-1: Comparison of Alternative Impacts to the Proposed Specific Plan ......................... ES-6 Table ES-2: West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... ES-7 Table 2.0-1: Parcel Acreages by Land Use Classification for General Plan and Proposed Specific Plan ............................................................................................................ 2.0-8 Table 2.0-2: Maximum Development Potential within West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan – Existing General Plan ................................................................................................ 2.0-9 Table 2.0-3: Maximum Development Potential within West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan – Proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ............................................... 2.0-10 Table 3.2-1: Soil Capability Classification ................................................................................... 3.2-2 Table 3.2-2: Storie Index Rating System .................................................................................... 3.2-2 Table 3.2-3: On-Site Soil Capability Classifications and Storie Index Rating .............................. 3.2-6 Table 3.3-1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................. 3.3-9 Table 3.3-2: State and National Attainment Status in Fresno County ..................................... 3.3-10 Table 3.3-3: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary (Fresno-Sierra Skypark #2) - Ozone ................................................................................................................... 3.3-11 Table 3.3-4: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary (Fresno-Garland) - PM10 .......... 3.3-11 Table 3.3-5: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary (Fresno-Garland) - PM2.5 ......... 3.3-11 Table 3.3-6: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Significance Thresholds .......... 3.3-32 Table 3.3-7: Land Use Assumptions for CalEEMod .................................................................. 3.3-33 Table 3.3-8: Construction Project Generated Emissions (Maximum tons per year) ............... 3.3-38 Table 3.3-9: Operational Project Generated Emissions (tons per year) .................................. 3.3-42 Table 3.3-10: BenMAP-Estimated Annual Mean Ozone Health Effects of the Project Emissions Across the San Joaquin Valley Model Domain ....................................................... 3.3-44 6B
Table 3.4-1: CWHR Land Cover Types ....................................................................................... 3.4-4 Table 3.4-2: USDA Soil Series Information ................................................................................ 3.4-7 Table 3.4-3: Special-Status Plant Species Which May Occur in Specific Plan Area .................. 3.4-11 Table 3.4-4: Special-Status Wildlife and Fish Species Which May Occur in Specific Plan Area ....................................................................................................................... 3.4-13 Table 3.5-1: Previous Studies within the Plan Area .................................................................. 3.5-7 Table 3.6-1: Plan Area Soils ....................................................................................................... 3.6-2 Table 3.6-2: Fault Activity Rating .............................................................................................. 3.6-4 Table 3.6-3: Richter Magnitude Scale for Earthquakes ............................................................ 3.6-5 Table 3.6-4: Minera Resource Classification System ................................................................ 3.6-8 Table 3.7-1: PG&E and the State of California Power Mix in 2022 ........................................... 3.7-7 Table 3.7-2: Summary of Statewide GHG Reduction Strategies that Apply to the Project ..... 3.7-28 Table 3.7-3: Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated Average MT CO2e/year) .................. 3.7-37 Table 3.7-4: Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated Metric Tons/Year)............................. 3.7-38 T
OC-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Table 3.7-5: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan ................................................ 3.7-39 Table 3.7-6: Project Consistency with the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS ................................ 3.7-40 Table 3.7-7: On-road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase 3.7-47 Table 3.8-1: Plan Area Soils ....................................................................................................... 3.8-2 Table 3.8-2: GeoTracker Known Hazardous Material Release Sites within the Plan Area ....... 3.8-7 Table 3.9-1: State of California Watershed Hierarchy Naming Convention ............................. 3.9-2 Table 3.9-2: USGS Watershed Hierarchy Naming Convention ................................................. 3.9-3 Table 3.9-3: Plan Area Well Capacity ........................................................................................ 3.9-6 Table 3.10-1: General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis ....................................................... 3.10-16 Table 3.11-1: Typical Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 3.11-3 Table 3.11-2: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary ...................................................... 3.11-5 Table 3.11-3: Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary ....................................................... 3.11-6 Table 3.11-4: Existing Exterior Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA, CNEL) ............................ 3.11-6 Table 3.11-5: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources ................................................. 3.11-13 Table 3.11-6: Stationary Noise Source Standards ................................................................. 3.11-14 Table 3.11-7: Ambient Noise ................................................................................................ 3.11-17 Table 3.11-8: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure ..................................................... 3.11-19 Table 3.11-9: Groundborne Vibration Criteria ...................................................................... 3.11-19 Table 3.11-10: Change in Noise Along Roadways Due to the Proposed Specific Plan (dBA, CNEL) .................................................................................................................... 3.11-20 Table 3.11-11: Typical Construction Noise Levels................................................................ . 3.11-29 Table 3.11-12: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................... 3.11-31 Table 3.11-13: Typical Stationary Noise Levels ..................................................................... 3.11-33 Table 3.12-1: Population Growth – Fresno ............................................................................. 3.12-1 Table 3.12-2: Housing Unit Growth – Fresno.......................................................................... 3.12-2 Table 3.13-1: City of Fresno Crime Statistics (2016-2018) ...................................................... 3.13-2 Table 3.13-2: FFD Response Times Within City Boundaries (2019) ........................................ 3.13-3 Table 3.13-3: Central Unified School District: School Inventory and 2020/2021 Enrollment and Classroom Capacity ................................................................................................ 3.13-5 Table 3.13-4: City of Fresno Parks and Recreation Facilities .................................................. 3.13-7 Table 3.14-1: Bus Routes Serving Plan Area ............................................................................ 3.14-5 Table 3.14-2: VMT Per Capita – Existing and Horizon Year Conditions ................................ 3.14-18 Table 3.14-3: VMT Per Employee – Existing and Horizon Year Conditions .......................... 3.14-19 Table 3.15-1: Wastewater Generation .................................................................................... 3.15-9 Table 3.15-2: Historical Water Demand ................................................................................ 3.15-13 Table 3.15-3: Projected Future Water Demand at 2045 ....................................................... 3.15-13 Table 3.15-4: Projected Future Dry Year Total Water Demand, af/yr ................................... 3.15-14 Table 3.15-5: City of Fresno Historical Groundwater Production ......................................... 3.15-17 Table 3.15-6: City of Fresno Projected Future Groundwater Production in Normal and Dry Years ..................................................................................................................... 3.15-17 Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-5

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3.15-7: Fresno Summary of Water Demand Versus Supply During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years, MGD ............................................................ 3.15-27 Table 3.15-8: Estimated Solid Waste Generation .................................................................. 3.15-42 Table 4.0-1: Residential Growth Projections Under Fresno General Plan ................................. 4.0-2 Table 4.0-2: Population Projections Under Fresno General Plan .............................................. 4.0-3 Table 4.0-3: Non-Residential Development Under Fresno General Plan .................................. 4.0-3 Table 5.0-1: Comparison of the Alternative Impacts to the Proposed Specific Plan of the West Area ........................................................................................................................ 5.0-34 Figures Page Numbers
Figure 2.0-1: Regional Location Map ....................................................................................... 2.0-17 Figure 2.0-2: Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 2.0-19 Figure 2.0-3: Aerial View of Project ......................................................................................... 2.0-21 Figure 2.0-4: Existing General Plan .......................................................................................... 2.0-23 Figure 2.0-5: Existing Zoning Designations .............................................................................. 2.0-25 Fig
ure 2.0-6: Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses and Dual Designations.................................. 2.0-27 Figure 2.0-7: Changes to Proposed Specific Plan 2019-2023 ................................................... 2.0-29 Figure 3.2-1: Farmland Classifications ..................................................................................... 3.2-17 Figure 3.2-2: Williamson Act Lands .......................................................................................... 3.2-19 Figure 3.4-1: Land Cover Types ................................................................................................ 3.4-47 Figure 3.4-2: California Natural Diversity Database 12-Quad Search ...................................... 3.4-49 Figure 3.6-1: Soil Types ............................................................................................................ 3.6-21 Figure 3.6-2: Known Faults ...................................................................................................... 3.6-23 Figure 3.9-1: Watersheds ......................................................................................................... 3.9-29 Figure 3.9-2: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Facilities and Basins ...................... 3.9-31 Figure 3.9-3: FEMA Flood Zone Map ....................................................................................... 3.9-33 Figure 3.11-1: Noise Measurement Location Map ................................................................ 3.11-37 Figure 3.11-2: Existing Roadway Noise Level Contours (CNEL) ............................................. 3.11-39 Figure 3.11-3: Union Pacific Railroad Noise Level Contours (CNEL) ...................................... 3.11-41 Figure 3.11-4: Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Noise Contours (CNEL) ............................. 3.11-43 Figure 3.13-1: Public Facilities ................................................................................................ 3.13-37 Figure 3.14-1: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Routes ............................................................ 3.14-25 Figure 3.14-2: Existing and Proposed Sidewalks .................................................................... 3.14-27 Figure 3.14-3: Existing Transit Service ................................................................................... 3.14-29 Figure 3.14-4: Existing a nd Planned Truck Routes ................................................................. 3.14-31 Figure 5.0-1: Additional Annexation Alternative ..................................................................... 5.0-37 Figure 5.0-2: No Project Alternative ........................................................................................ 5.0-39 Figure 5.0-3: Community Parks Alt ernative ............................................................................. 5.0-41 Figure 5.0-4: Lower Density Alternative .................................................................................. 5.0-43 TO
C-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and NOP Comments
Appendix B: Criteria Air Pollutant, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Results Appendix C: Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment Appendix D: Utility Background Summary
Appendix E: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix F: Noise Impact Study
Appendix G: Technical Memorandum – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations (VMT)

Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-7

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

This page left intentionally blank.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES

INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) has determined that a program-level environmental impact report (EIR) is required for the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (herein the “Specific Plan”) Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the project. The program-level approach is appropriate for the proposed project because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the Specific Plan and associa ted full buildout scenario.

Subsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. A program- level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the Specific Plan. This EIR will also function as a “first tier” EIR, as explained below.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically;
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

The program-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plan.

The EIR examines all phases of the project including planning, construction and operation. The program-level approach is appropriate for the Specific Plan because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of development plan; however, not all aspects of the future development are known at this stage in the planning process. Individual development projects within the Plan Area t hat require further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

According to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental do cuments (EIRs, mitigated negative declarations, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelin es Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).

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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.

Here, the City anticipates preparing a written c hecklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Plan Area submit applications for site -specific approvals (i.e. small -lot tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve, in part, as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures . It would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. are there new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). In some cases, a site-specific application (i.e. commerc ial use) may have specific issues associated with the project, or business, that this program EIR could not anticipate given the information that was available at the time. In those situations, the detailed site-specific information from that application could have site-specific effects not wholly anticipated in this EIR and would require some additional environmental review. (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first -tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second - and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
(A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or (B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

Here, as noted above, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist(s) or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. have all significant environmental impacts identified been “adequately addressed” in the program EIR). Thus, if a new analysis is required for these site-specific actions, it would focus on impacts that cannot be “avoided or mitigated” by mitigation measures that either (i) were adopted in connection with the Specific Plan or (ii) were formulated based on information in this EIR.

In additi on, for purely residential projects consistent with the Specific Plan, the City intends to preserve its ability to treat such projects as exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457. Subdivision (a) of that statute provides that “[any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an [EIR] has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of [CEQA].” The statutes go on to say, moreover, that “if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental [SEIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [SEIR] is certified, the exemption … applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.” (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15182.)
When purely residential projects are proposed, the City will consider whether they qualify for this exemption or whether the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR must be updated through a supplement to this EIR or a subsequent EIR as required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a brief summary and overview of the proposed project. Chapter 2.0 of this EIR includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including maps and graphics. The reader is referred to Chapter 2.0 for a more complete and thorough description of the components of the proposed project.

Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-3

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area.

The proposed Specific Plan r efines the General Plan’s land u se vision for the Plan Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the Plan Area. See Table 2.0 -1 for a summary of the existing and proposed land uses within the city limits, growth area, and Plan Area.

See Figure 2.0-6 for the proposed General Plan land use designations.

The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would pre-zone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.

The Specific Plan l and use plan w ould allow for the future development of up t o 83,129 dwelling units (DU) (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49 , and 59,777,271.15 s
,355 DU in the residential category and
33,436 DU in the mixed use category) quare feet (SF) of non-residential uses.

The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools, fire stations, and places of worship. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would allow for approximately 338.95 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

Refer to Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a more complete description of the project details.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
This Draft EIR addresses environmental impacts associated with the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan that are known to the City of Fresno, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR discusses potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology, soils and seismicity (including mineral resources), greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy, hazards and hazardous materials (including wildfire), hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities.

The City received thirteen written comments on the NOP for the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Draft EIR. Two comments were also received during the Scoping Meeting. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. The comments covered the following aspects of the proposed Specific Plan, each of which is considered a public concern:

ES-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
• Conversion of undeveloped land to urban use
• Light, glare, and skyglow
• Traffic congestion from automobiles and large trucks, ensuring safe routes to schools, and provision of alternative transportation infrastructure
• Annexation of county properties into the city
• Parkland, trail, and ball field impacts
• Need for aesthetics improvements, including tree planting • Air quality and pollution concerns, including dust from construction and agricultural uses, and air pollution along Highway 99
• Project impact on regional stormwater, drainage, and flood control

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would reduce or avoid any of the significant impacts of the project, and which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Specific Plan:
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Additional Annexation Alternative;
• Community Parks Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.

Alternatives are described in detail in Section 5.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. A comparative analysis of the proposed project and each of the project alternatives is provided in Table ES-1. 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 alternative as it would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to five of the 15 environmental issues.

TABLE ES-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS TO THE 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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The environmental impacts of the proposed project, the impact level of significance prior to mitigation, the proposed mitigation measures and/or adopted policies and standard measures that are already in place to mitigate an impact, and the impact level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table ES-2.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
TABLE ES-2: WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AESTHETICS
Impact 3.1-1: Specific Plan implementation LS None required. would not result in substantial adverse
effects on scenic vistas.
--
Impact 3.1-2: Project implementation LS None required. would not substantially damage scenic
resources within a State Scenic Highway.
--
Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation PS None feasible. SU would result in substantial adverse effects
or degradation of visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings.

Impact 3.1-4: Specific Plan implementation PS Mitigation Measure 3.1 -1: In order to reduce the potential for glare from buildings and structures LS has the potential to result in light and glare within the project area, the submitted plan(s) for all future projects in the Plan Area shall show that the impacts. use of reflective building materials that have the potential to result in glare that would be visible from sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project sites shall be prohibited. The City of Fresno Planning and Development Department shall ensure that the approved project uses appropriate building materials with low reflectivity to minimize potential glare nuisance to off-site receptors. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: A lighting plan for all future projects in the Plan Area subject to Section 15- 2508 and Section 15-2015 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall be prepared prior to the approval of the entitlement application for each project site. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the lighting systems and other exterior lighting throughout the project area have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with Section 15 -2508. – Lighting and Glare and Section 15 -2015 – Outdoor Lighting and Illumination of the City of Fresno CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Municipal Code. Use of LED lighting or other proven energy efficient lighting shall be required for facilities to be dedicated to the City of Fresno for maintenance.

In addition to complying with the above City of Fresno Municipal Code requirements, the lighting plan shall comply with the following design requirements, as applicable:
• Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences. • Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.
• Lighting systems for nonresidential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover ligh t onto adjacent properties will occur.
• Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets which have an av erage light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.

These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation
would convert Important Farmlands to non-
agricultural land uses.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to initiation of grading activities, project proponents shall compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland within the Plan Area by preserving an equivalent type and quality of land at a 1:1 ratio through recordation of a conservation easement, or other recorded instrument such as a covenant or deed that restricts the preserved land in perpetuity to agricultural uses.

SU
The acreage and type of land used to compensate for the loss of farmland shall be determined using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
quality, a given product’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands.

In the alternative, if the City adopts a Farmland Preservation Program pursuant to Fresno General Plan Policy RC -9-c, project proponents may compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland by complying with the adopted Farmland Preservation Program.

The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each phase of the project during improvement plan review.

Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation
would conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract.

PS None feasible. SU
Impact 3.2-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not conflict with existing zoning, or
cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or
timberland zoned Timberland Production or
LS None required. --
result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use.

LS None required. --

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation
would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant(s) shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star - certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

SU
Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation
during project construction would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in
nonattainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading or building permits (whichever occurs first), the property owner(s)/developer(s) for individual projects within the Plan Area shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used in the Plan Area for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non- exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans , or in a separate document and shall include a statement on how they are utilizing the cleanest (e.g. higher engine tier) equipment , as feasible. The construction equipment list shall state the make and model of all the equipment.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – Wes t Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
• Use of diesel oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate traps on diesel equipment, as feasible.
• Maintain equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications. • Restrict idling of equipment and trucks to a maximum of 5 minutes (per California Air Resources Board [CARB] regulation).
• Phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas and times of exposure. • Avoid excavation and grading during wet weather.
• Limit on-site construction routes and stabilize construction entrance(s). • Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely necessary. • Sweep up spilled dry materials (e.g., cement, mortar, or dirt track -out) immediately. Never attempt to wash them away with water. Use only minimal water for dust control. • Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a temporary roof or secured plastic sheeting or tarp.

Mitigation Measure 3.3 -4: In order to reduce ROG emissions from construction activities, prior to issuance of a building permit for individual projects within the Plan Area that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non -exempt projects), the property owner/developer shall require the construction contractor provide a note on the construction plans indicating that:
• All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (ROG) content lower than required under Rule 4601 (i.e., super compliant paints). • All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high- volume, low -pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.

The construction contractor may also use precoated/natural colored building materials.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.

All on-site unpaved roads and off -site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking.

When materials are transported off -site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.

All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation PS Mitigation Measure 3.3 -6: Prior to future discretionary project approval within the Plan Area, SU during project operation would expose development project applicants for individual projects within the Plan Area shall prepare and submit to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a techni cal assessment concentrations or result in a cumulatively evaluating potential project operation-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in
nonattainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard.
conformance with SJVAPCD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation- related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD- adopted thresholds of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities to below the applicable SJVAPCD -adopted thresholds of significance, as feasible.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with CARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulation s [CCR] Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240 -volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on building roofs to generate solar energy. • Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping.
• Maximize the installation of either solar panels or trees, or combination thereof, in parking lots.
• Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street-sweepers with HEPA filters. • Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel -powered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City Planning and Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the Applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T -BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to below the applicable Air District thresholds for TACs, as feasible. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter;
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or • Install solar panels, zero -emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Developers of individual projects that shall locate sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to below the applicable thresholds for TACs, as feasible must be identified and approved by the City.

Impact 3.3-4: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors)
PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: The project applicant(s) shall require developers of individual projects within the Specific Plan Area with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD, to LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – Wes t Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
affecting a substantial number of people. prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the SJVAPCD. The City’s Planning and Development Department shall verify that all odor control measures have been incorporated into the project design specifications prior to issuing a permit to operate.

Impact 3.3-5: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 through Mitigation Measure 3.3-9 LS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: Specific Plan implementation
could directly or indirectly have a
substantial adverse effect through habitat
modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self -sustaining
levels, substantially eliminate a community,
or substantially reduce the number of, or
restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or
threatened species, including those
considered candidate, sensitive, or special
status in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4 -3: Prior to any ground disturbance in areas which may support suitable breeding or nesting habitat for burrowing owl, a preconstruction survey of the parcel(s) to be developed shall be completed for burrowing owl in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500 -foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no earlier than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrows are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary.

If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non -disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg- laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged.

During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season.

The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double -crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tri colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for active nests of black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project d isturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) in a given area.
• If any active nests, or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, nest location, nest stage, and specific construction activities to be performed while the nest is active. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. If buffers are adjusted, monitoring will be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young.

No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Prior to any ground disturbance related to construction activities, a biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas which may support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The survey shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS, 1999).

Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted not earlier than 30 days from commencing ground disturbance. On the parcel wh ere activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written result of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. Concurrence by the USFWS is not required prior to initiation of construction activities. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the following measure shall be implemented.

If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for 3 days by a CDFW/USFWS -approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. If a natal or pupping den is found, the USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied, it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den m ay have to be excavated when, in the judgement of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities).

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-8: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for indications of American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur in a given area.
• If any active habitat areas, or behaviors indicating that active habitat is present, are observed, appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including but not limited to buffer areas,

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – W est Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
shall be required. The avoidance and mitigation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist and implemented by the project proponent(s).

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

Impact 3.4-2: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to have substantial
adverse effect on federally - or state -
protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology would be required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site.

The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area.

Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.

LS
Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Impact 3.4-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not have substantial adverse effects
on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.4 -12: A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community with potential to occur in the Specifi c Plan Area, compensatory habitat-based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off-site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in-kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat- based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
USFWS) on a case-by-case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.

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

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

Impact 3.4-4: Specific Plan implementation
would not interfere substantially with the
movement of native fish or wildlife species
or with established wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.

LS None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – W est Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.4-5: Specific Plan implementation
would not conflict with an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.4-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources.

LS None required. --

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5-1: Specific Plan implementation
may cause a substantial adverse change to
a significant historical or archaeological
resource, as d efined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural
resource, as defined in Public Resources
Code §21074.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: The City shall require project applicants for future projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation recommendations shall be included as part of the technical study. All work shall be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. The historic resource technical study shall be submitted to the City for review prior to any site disturbance within the vicinity of the building(s).

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

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

Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan implementation
may disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
PS Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: If human remains are found during ground disturbance activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified archeological monitor and the coroner of Fresno County shall be LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
cemeteries. contacted as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, w ith appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Impact 3.6-1: Specific Plan implementation
would not directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects
involving strong seismic ground shaking or
seismic related ground failure.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan construction and
implementation has the potential to result
in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.6 -1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009 -0009-DWQ amended by 2010 -0014-DWQ & 2012-0006- DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with B est Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include:
covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run -on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final sele ction of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

Impact 3.6-3: Specific Plan implementation PS Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to earthmoving activities associated with future development activities LS has the potential to be located on a geologic within the Plan Area, a certified geotechnical engineer, or equivalent, shall be retained to perform a unit or soil that is unstable, or that would final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design- level as required b y the requirements of the become unstable as a result of Specific Plan California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 related to expansive soils and implementation, and potentially result in other soil conditions. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with the standards and landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, requirements outlined in California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter liquefaction or collapse. 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation shall include design recom mendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures, including threats from liquefaction or lateral spreading. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation.

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

PS Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 LS
Impact 3. 6-5: Project implementation has
the potential to directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological resource.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: If any paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find.

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

LS
Impact 3.6-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not have the potential to result in the
LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State, or in
the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY
Impact 3.7-1: Specific Plan implementation
would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the
environment or conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.7-2: Specific Plan implementation
would not result in the inefficient, wasteful,
or unnecessary use of energy resources.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.7-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not generate a cumulative impact on
climate change from increased project -
related greenhouse gas emissions.

LS/LCC None required. --

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.8-1: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to create a significant
hazard through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials or
PS Mitigation Measure 3.8 -1: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
through the reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch.

6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from Fresno County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Fresno County Environmental Health Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.8 -3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site A ssessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-4: In the event that the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of a significant impact to the subject site from hazardous materials.

The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection a nd laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-5: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-6: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, proper ty owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk -based cleanup standards.

Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-8: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – W est Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP.

Mitigation Measure 3.8 -9: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), LBP, mercury, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal of friable ACM, and non -friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-10: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening L evels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.

Impact 3.8-2: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one- quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.8-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not result in impacts from being
included on a list of hazardous materials
LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
sites compiled pursuant
Code Section 65962.5.
to Government
Impact 3.8-4: Specific Plan implementation
would not result in safety hazards for
people residing or working in the Plan Area
as a result of public airport or public use
airport.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.8-5: Specific Plan implementation
would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.8-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not have the potential to expose
people or structures to a risk of loss, injury
or death from wildland fires, or result in any
other wildfire impact.

LS None required. --

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.9 -1: The Specific Plan would not
violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements during
construction.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.9 -2: The Specific Plan would not
violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements during operation.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.9 -3: The Specific Plan would not
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
LS None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – W est Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of
the basin.

Impact 3.9 -4: The Specific Plan would not
alter the existing drainage pattern in a
manner which would result in substantial
LS None required. --
erosion or siltation on - or off -site,
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite, or create or
contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of exist ing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff.

Impact 3.9 -5: The Specific Plan would not
release pollutants due to Plan Area
inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche.

LS None required. --
Impact 3. 9-6: The Specific Plan would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.

LS None required. --

LAND USE
Impact 3.10 -1: The proposed Specific Plan
would not physically divide an established
community.

LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.10 -2: The proposed Specific Plan
would not cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

LS None required. --
NOISE
Impact 3.11-1: Specific Plan implementation
could potentially substantially increase
mobile noise levels at existing and proposed
receptors.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1: Future project proponent(s) for development projects in the Plan Area which involve residential or other noise sensitive uses shall implement performance standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels from transportation sources above 65 dB Ldn or CNEL, as shown on Exhibit G: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Noise Contours of the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study prepared by MD Acoustics (dated June 2024, Appendix F of the Recirculated Draft EIR), or as identified by a project -specific acoustical analysis based on the target acceptable noise levels set in Table 9 -2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).

LS
If future exterior noise levels are expected to exceed the applicable standards presented in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11 -5 of this EIR), the mitigation measure presented below shall be implemented, as applicable. A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard. • Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.

The aforementioned measure is not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.11-2: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase noise
levels associated with construction and
demolition activities.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.11 -2: The project proponent(s) and/or construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, that buildout of the Specific Plan complies with the following:
• Truck traffic associated with project construction shall be limited to within the permitted construction hours, as listed in the City’s Municipal Code above. • Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps shall be located at least 300 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible.
• Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. The use of manufacturer certified mufflers would generally reduce the construction equipment noise by 8 to 10 dBA. • Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. • Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

LS
Impact 3.11-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase noise
vibration association with construction
activities.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: For future projects which would require the use of pile drivers within 200 feet of existing buildings or vibratory rollers within 50 feet of existing buildings, an additional site - and project-specific analysis shall be conducted by a noise and vibration specialist prior to project approval.

The analysis shall evaluate potential ground-borne vibration impacts to existing structures and sensitive receptors, and shall also recommend additional mitigation measures, as necessary. The recommendations of the site - and project- specific analysis shall be implemented by the project proponent(s), to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.

LS
Impact 3.11-4: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase stationary
noise at sensitive receptors.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.11-4: In order to reduce the potential for stationary noise impacts, development projects in the Plan Area shall implement the following measures:
• Avoid the placement of new noise producing uses in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses; • Apply noise level performance standards provided in Table 9 -2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR) to proposed new noise producing uses; and • Require new noise -sensitive uses in near proximity to noise -producing facilities include mitigation measures that would ensure compliance with noise performance standards in Table 9-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.11-5: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase ambient
interior noise at future sensitive receptors.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.11 -5: Prior to approval, site - and project-specific noise analyses development projects under the proposed Specific Plan shall be completed and submitted to the City in order to fine- tune and finalize noise reduction features. The site-specific noise analyses must demonstrate the interior noise level will not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise limit.

A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard, which includes:
• Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
• Utilize façades with substantial weight and insulation. • Install sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends. • Install mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

The aforementioned measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

LS
Impact 3.11-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
airport or aircraft noise.

LS None required. --

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 3.12 -1: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not induce unplanned
substantial population growth.

LS None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.12 -2: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not displace substantial
numbers of people or existing housing.

LS None required. --

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.13 -1: The proposed Specific Plan
may require the construction of fire
department facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical environmental
impacts.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.13 -2: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in, or have the potential to
require the construction of police
department facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical environmental
impacts.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.13 -3: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in , or have the potential to
require the construction of school facilities
which may cause substantial adverse
physical environmental impacts.

PS None feasible. SU
Impact 3.13 -4: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in , or have the potential to
require the construction of park facilities
which may cause substantial adverse
physical environmental impacts.

PS None feasible. SU
Impact 3.13 -5: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in , or have the potential to
require the construction of other public
PS None feasible. SU

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
facilities which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental impacts.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.14-1: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.14 -2: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not conflict with or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section
15064.3, subdivision (b) – VMT per capita
for residential uses.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.14 -3: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not conflict with or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section
15064.3, subdivision (b) – VMT per
employee for non-residential uses.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.14-1: Large employers (greater than 100 employees) within the Plan Area shall implement feasible Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in order to decrease daily commute vehicle trips by 9% compared to standard trip generation. Specific potential TDM strategies include, but are not limited to, the following:

SU
• Implement subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees. Employment developments should be accessible within 1 mile of high- quality transit service, 0.5 mile of local or less frequent transit service, or along a designated shuttle providing l ast-mile connections. This is consistent with the West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan (WANSP) which recommends large employers (having 100 or more employees) consider providing subsidized transit passes for employees. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T -9 esti mates that implementing subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees could reduce VMT generated by employee vehicles accessing the sites by up to 5.5 percent.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-36 Recirculated Draft EIR – We st Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
•
•
•
•
Provide bicycle facilities at land uses that would generate more than 500 daily person trips.

Facilities may include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T -10 estimates that provision of end -of-trip bicycle facilities can reduce commute VMT by up to 4.4 percent depending on the existing propensity for commuters t o use bicycles.

Price workplace parking to increase the cost of parking on site. Characteristics of workplace pricing may include:
o Explicitly charging for employee parking
o Validating parking for only invited guests
o Implement above market rate onsite parking
o Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances.

Alternative modes of transportation that are convenient and have competitive travel times should be available such as transit services near the project site, shuttle service, or a complete active transportation network serving the site and the surrounding community. In addition, employers should educate employees about alternative modes of transportation. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T -12 estimates by pricing workplace parking, VMT from employees commuting to the project site can be reduced to up to 20 percent. VMT reductions may not be combined with Measure T-14, Implement Employee Cash Out to avoid double counting.

Implement employee parking cash-out to encourage employees to choose alternative modes of transportation. This measure requires employers to provide employees with the option of forgoing subsidized or free parking for a cash payment equivalent to or greater than the cost of the parking space. To prevent spill- over parking and use of single occupancy vehicles, residential parking must be available, and public on- street parking must be at market rate.

The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-13 estimates that implementing employee cash-out could reduce employee commute VMT by up to 12 percent. VMT reductions may not be combined with Measure T-13, Price Workplace Parking, to avoid double counting.

Provide a well- connected street network, particularly for non -motorized connections.

Characteristics of street network connectivity include short block lengths, numerous three and four-way intersections, and minimal dead- ends (cul -de-sacs). Street connectiv ity helps to facilitate shorter vehicle trips and greater numbers of walk and bike trips and thus a reduction

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
in VMT. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T -17 uses increased vehicle intersection density as a proxy for street connectivity improvements. The CAPCOA Handbook estimates that VMT can be reduced up to 30 percent if a development provides a street grid that has much greater density (up to about three times) of streets and street intersections than the average American street grid density of 36 street intersections per square mile. • Improve and enhance pedestrian networks to improve pedestrian access. This can be achieved by expanding the sidewalk coverage which may include but not be limited to building new sidewalks or improving degraded or substandard sidewalks. Pedestrian networks should be contiguous and link externally with existing and planned pedestrian facilities. Characteristics of an enhanced pedestrian networks include high- visibility crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other pedestrian signals, mid-block crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, speed tables, bulb-outs, curb ramps, signage, pavement markings, pedestrian-only connections and districts, landscaping, and other improvements to pedestrian safety. Walls, landscaping buffers, slopes, and unprotected crossings should be minimized.

This mitigation measure is consistent with the WANSP policy number IPR 1.4 and IPR 1.5.

Policy number IPR 1.4 states that providing a connected, safe, and pleasant pedestrian experience can be achieved by requiring the installation of curbs, curb ramps, gutters, streetlights, sidewalks, and street trees on both sides of the street and adjacent to new developments. Policy number IPR 1.5 encourages the installation of pedestrian enhancing amenities to include sidewalks with the width of at least five to seven feet to allow for pedestrians to walk together or apart at a comfortable distance, benches shade greenery, and prominent gathering places. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T - 18 Provide Pedestrian
Network Improvement can reduce VMT in the project site by up to 6.4 percent.

The TDM Plan shall be submitted to the City for review prior to approval of improvement plans, and the effectiveness of the TDM Plan shall be evaluated, monitored, and revised, if determined necessary by the City. The TDM Plan shall include the TDM strategies that will be implemented during the lifetime of the proposed Project and shall outline the anticipated effectiveness of the strategies. The anticipated effectiveness of the TDM Plan may be monitored through annual surveys to determine employee travel

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-38 Recirculated Draft EIR – W est Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
mode split and travel distance for home-based work trips, and/or the implementation of technology to determine the amount of traffic generated by and home-based work miles traveled by employees, which shall be determined in coordination with the City. The frequency and duration of the anticipated effectiveness would depend on the ultimate strategy determined in coordination with the City.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-2: The City of Fresno shall expand local transit networks by modifying, adding, or extending existing transit services to enhance the service within the Specific Plan Area. This can be achieved by reducing the average wait time by increasing the service frequency, or by extending services to cover new areas and times. This mit igation measure is consistent with WANSP Policy IPR 1.8, which states that expanding transit services into the Fresno West Area as development occurs helps improve access, movement, and safety for all transportation modes in the West Area. This can be also achieved by exploring the transit connectivity options near business districts to create a West Area- Downtown Connecter Route. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-25 estimates that an improved transit network can reduce VMT produced in the project site by up to 4.6 percent.

Impact 3.14 -4: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not substantially
increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).

LS None required. --
Impact 3.14 -5: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not result in inadequate
emergency access.

LS None required. --

UTILITIES
Impact 3.15 -1: The proposed Specific Plan
would not require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded
wastewater facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
PS None feasible. SU

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
environmental effects.

Impact 3.15-2: The proposed Specific Plan
would not result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Plan Area that it
does not have adequate capacity to serve
the Specific Plan’s projected demand in
addition to the pro vider’s existing
commitments.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.15 -3: The proposed Specific Plan
would not require or result in construction
of new or expanded water facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
PS None feasible. SU
cause significant environmental effects.

Impact 3.15 -4: The proposed Specific Plan
would not have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the Plan Area and
reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.15 -5: The proposed Specific Plan
would not require or result in the
construction of new or expanded
stormwater drainage facilities , the
construction of which could cause
PS None feasible. SU
significant environmental effects.

Impact 3.15 -6: The proposed Specific Plan
would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
Plan Area’s solid waste disposal needs, and
would comply with federal, State, and local
LS None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-40 Recirculated Draft EIR – W est Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
statutes
waste.
and regulations related to solid

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation
will contribute to the cumulative
degradation of the existing visual character
of the region.

CC/SU None feasible. CC/SU
Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to the cumulative impact on
agricultural land and uses.

CC/SU None feasible. CC/SU
Impact 4. 3: Specific Plan implementation
would contribute to cumulative impacts on
the region's air quality.

CC/SU None feasible. CC/SU
Impact 4. 4: Specific Plan implementation
would not contribute to the cumulative loss
of biological resources including habitats
and special status species.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.5: Specific Plan implementation
would not contribute to the cumulative loss
of cultural and tribal resources.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4. 6: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
geologic and soils characteristics.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.7: Cumulative impact on climate
change from increased project-related
greenhouse gas emissions.

LS/LCC None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 4. 8: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related to
hydrology and water quality.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.1 0: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
communities and local land uses.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.1 1: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to the cumulative exposure
of existing and future noise- sensitive land
uses or to increased noise resulting from
cumulative development.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.1 2: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
population growth and displace substantial
numbers of people or existing housing.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.1 3: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
public services.

CC/SU None feasible. CC/SU
Impact 4.1 4: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts to
the regional transportation network.

CC/SU None feasible. CC/SU
Impact 4.1 5: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
utilities.

LS/LCC None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-42 Recirculated Draft EIR – W est Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

INTRODUCTION 1.0
This section summarizes the purpose of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan or proposed Project). The following discussion addresses the environmental procedures that are to be followed according to State law; the intended uses of the Recirculated Draft EIR; the contents of the Recirculated Draft EIR; the procedures for submittal of public and agenc y comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR; and the requirements for responding to comments on the original Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of programs and p rojects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects or programs. Where there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164[a]). An EIR is an informational document that will inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.

CEQA requires that a draft EIR be prepared and circulated for public review. Following the close of the public review period, the lead agency prepares a final EIR, which includes the comments received during the review period (either verbatim or in summary ), and responses to the significant environmental issues raised in those comments. Prior to taking action on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify the EIR and make certain findings.

A lead agency is required to recirculate a draft EIR, prior to certification, when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after the public review period begins (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). New information is deemed significant if it reveals the following:
• A new significant environmental impact resulting from either the project itself or a new proposed mitigation measure;
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt it; or • The Draft EIR was so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory that it precluded meaningful public review and comment.

In addition, a lead agency may choose to recirculate an EIR if additional studies or analysis are conducted for a project before a specific action is taken by local decision makers to approve a project. Recirculation may be limited to those chapters or portions of the EIR that have been modified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(c).)
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REASONS FOR EIR RECIRCULATION Notice of Preparation
The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on June 28, 2019 to responsible and trustee agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Glacier Point Middle School Cafeteria in Fresno to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agen cies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of this EIR.

Draft EIR
The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on February 10, 2022 inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2019069117) and the County Clerk, and was published in a local newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from February 10, 2022 through March 28, 2022.

The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification and analysis of project impacts, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts.

REASONS FOR EIR RECIRCULATION
The City received nine written comments on the Draft EIR. Some of the comments included text clarifications and corrections, and requested changes to a mitigation measure proposed to address impacts to Important Farmlands. Additionally, City of Fresno staff initiated several changes to the Project Description and identified clarifications and/or corrections needed to the proposed Land Use Map. The Land Use Map and allowed land use densities were updated to have no net loss of housing capacity compared with the current General Plan housing capacity for the Plan Area. The complete summary of changes to the Project Description is included in Section 1.3.

In response to the comments, and due to the Project Description changes, City staff determined that the Draft EIR be revised to address the land use modifications and revised environmental analysis associated with the increase in residential development potential.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5, the City is recirculating this entire revised Draft EIR, with associated appendices, to provide the public and agencies with ample opportunity to review and comment on the updated analysis and new project information.

Procedures for commenting on this revised analysis are detailed below.

1.0-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

INTRODUCTION 1.0

1.3 SUMMARY OF CHANGES
All sections of the original Draft EIR have been revised and are included in this Recirculated Draft EIR. Given the extent of the revisions made to the original Draft EIR, the City has elected to recirculate the entire document in order to provide the public and interested agencies with ample opportunity to review the updated and expanded analysis, including additional technical data related to circulation and vehicle miles travelled (VMT), air quality modeling, water demand estimations, an d traffic noise modeling.

As noted previously , City of Fresno staff initiated several changes to the Project Description and identified clarifications and/or corrections needed t o the proposed Land Use Map. The Land Use Map and allowed land use densities were updated to have no net loss of housing capacity compared with the current General Plan housing capacity for the Plan Area . The Specific Plan analyzed in the original (2022) Draft EIR allowed for the future development of up to 54,953 dwelling units ( DU) (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 square feet (SF) of non -residential uses. The Specific Plan analyzed in this (2024) Recirculated Draft EIR allows 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 SF of non-residential uses.

The original (2022) Land Use Map did not have dual designations assigned erroneously; the dual designations have been a ssigned under the proposed ( 2024) Land Use Map. Future development would be allowed under the dual designation, and the dual designation would represent the capacity of the property. For instance, if a property has a dual designation of park-allowing uses, and the City cannot purchase it, the land owner is allowed to build under the dual designation instead (i.e., residential, commercial, etc.). The development projections provided assume the more intensive land use would be developed if a parcel has a dual designation.

Additionally, t o accommodate the residential capacity needed, in Fall 2022, City staff removed maximum density limits for Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMX), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Regional Mixed Use (RMX), and Commercial Regional (CR) land uses. In order to provide a practical maximum density, the development potential calculations use the following densities:
• NMX: 64 DU/AC;
• CMX: 75 DU/AC;
• RMX: 90 DU/AC; and
• CR: 80 DU/AC.

Further, since the original (2022) Draft EIR was published, Fire Station 18 in the Plan Area has opened on Shaw Avenue and is included in the updated Land Use Map.

1.4 COMMENTS ON TH E RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR
In accordance with Section 15088.5(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, “When an EIR is substantially revised and the entire document is recirculated, the lead agency may require reviewers to submit new comments and, in such cases, need not respond to those comments received during the earlier Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-3

1.0 INTRODUCTION
circulation period. The lead agency shall advise reviewers, either in the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, that although part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not require a written response in the final EIR, and that new comments must be submitted for the revised EIR. The lead agency need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the recirculated revised EIR.”
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Draft EIR was originally circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period between February 10, 2022 through March 28, 2022. The of Fresno, acting as the lead agency for the project, formally requires that reviewers of the Recirculated Draft EIR submit new comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR included herein. The Final EIR, which will be prepared after the public review period for the Recirculated Draft EIR, will include responses to comments received o nly on this Recirculated Draft EIR. While comments submitted on the original Draft EIR shall be part of the project’s administrative record, per C EQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f) (1), the City will not respond to comments received on the original Draft EIR during the earlier circulation period. This section summarizes the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan “project” or “proposed project.” The following discussion addresses the environmental procedures that are to be followed according to State law, the intended uses of the EIR, the project’s relationship to the City’s General Plan, the EIR scope and organization, and a summary of the agency and public comments received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

1.5 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
The City of Fresno, as lead agency, determined that the proposed Specific Plan is a "project" within the definition of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report prior to approving any project, which may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

This Recirculated Draft EIR has been prepared according to CEQA requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan. A copy of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is located on the City’s website, at https://www.fresno.gov/westareaplan. This Recirculated Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3).

An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development. CEQA further requires public agencies to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and

1. 0-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

INTRODUCTION 1.0
social factors in making a decision to approve a development project with significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

The City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Specific Plan Project. The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and socia l benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This EIR will be used by the City to determine whether to approve, modify, or deny the proposed project and associated approvals in light of the project’s environmental effects. The EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate full project development, along with all associated infrastructure improvements, and permitting actions associated with the Project. All of the actions and components of the proposed project are described in detail in Chapter 2.0 of this Draft EIR.

1.6 TYPE OF EIR
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The program -level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed project as a whole.

It is noted that the Specific Plan provides a very high level of design detail for certain components of the project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full project-level analysis is provided in this EIR. Examples of a full project level analysis would include topics that are related to the physical acreage affected (i.e. the project footprint), as opposed to the number of units, land uses/zoning, or other design parameters. Topics such as Biological Resources, Cultur al Resources, and Hydrology/Water Quality are analyzed at a project -level analysis in this EIR given that these are physical environmental resources, and the area of impact is fully defined. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a substantial level of detailed information that allows for a project -level analysis of topics such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The analysis for these topics is driven by the number of units and square footage of development, which is detailed in the land use design and development projections. In some cases, there may be specific commercial uses that have design details developed at a later date that cannot reasonably be analyze d at a project-level at this time.

Additionally, the design of the school facilities and other public facilities are not known at this time, so they are not able to be analyzed at a project-level.

This EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the project . The program-level approach, with some project-level analysis, is appropriate for the proposed project because it allows Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-5

1.0 INTRODUCTION
comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the development plan; however, as discussed above, not all design aspects of the future development phases are known at this stage in the planning process. Subsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically,
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negat ive declarations, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelin es Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).

Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:

(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the o peration were covered in the program EIR.

Here, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps,

1. 0-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

INTRODUCTION 1.0
conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approva l, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. are there new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). The City’s expectation, at least at present, is that the checklist will conclude that most, or all, components of the Specific Plan can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects given that there is a high level of resolution with regard to the project details that have been analyzed in this program EIR. In some cases, however, a site-specific application (i.e. commercial use) may have specific issues associated with the project, or business, that this program EIR could not anticipate given the information that was available at this time. In those situations, the detailed site-specific information from that application could have site-specific effects not wholly anticipated in this EIR and would require some additional environmental review. (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subd. (b)(1)(C).)
Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” ( Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first -tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second - and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other me ans.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:
a) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or b) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

Here, as noted above, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. have all significant environmental impacts identified been “adequately addressed” in the program EIR). Thus, if a new analysis is required for t hese site-specific actions, it would focus on impacts that cannot be “avoided or mitigated” by mitigation measures that either (i) were Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-7

1.0 INTRODUCTION
adopted in connection with the Specific Plan or (ii) were formulated based on information in this EIR.

In addition, for purely residential projects consistent with the Specific Plan, the City intends to preserve its ability to treat such projects as exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457. Subdivision (a) of that statute provides that “[a]ny residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an [EIR] has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of [CEQA].” The statutes go on to say, moreover, that “if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental [EIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [EIR] is certified, the exemption … applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.” (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15182.)
When purely residential projects are proposed, the City will consider whether they qualify for this exemption or whether the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR must be updated through a supplement to this EIR or a subsequent EIR as required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.

1.7 RESPONSIBLE A ND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
As required by CEQA, this EIR defines lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City of Fresno is the “Lead Agency” for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

The term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California . CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 recognizes four particular trustee agencies: (a) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with regard to the fish and wildlife of the State, to designated rare or endangered native plants, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the department; (b) the State Lands Commission with regard to State owned “sovereign” lands such as the beds of navigable waters and State school lands; (c) the State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State Park System; and (d) The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this project, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); • Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD); • Fresno Irrigation District (FID);

1. 0-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

INTRODUCTION 1.0
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit;
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Approval of construction -related air quality permits, authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
• Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also function as a trustee agency with respect to the proposed project. The City is unaware of any other trustee agency, as the proposed project would not affect any state owned “sovereign” lands, any units of the State Park System, or any sites within the University of California’s Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

1.8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
As noted previously, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on June 28, 2019 to responsible and trustee agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Glacier Point Middle School Cafeteria in Fresno to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of this EIR.

RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR
This document constitutes the Recirculated Draft EIR. The Recirculated Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth -inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Recirculated Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in this EIR. Upon completion of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the City has filed the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period.

PUBLIC NOTICE /P UBLIC REVIEW
The City has provided a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR, and invites comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Consistent with CEQA, the Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-9

1.0 INTRODUCTION
review period for this Draft EIR is forty-five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft EIR or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Casey Lauderdale
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS /F INAL EIR
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period for the Recirculated Draft EIR. As noted previously in this chapter, consistent with the requirements established under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(1), the City of Fresno, acting as the lead agency for the project, formally requires that reviewers of the Recirculated Draft EIR submit new comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR included herein. The Final EIR, which will be prepared after the public review period for the Recirculated Draft EIR, will include responses to comments received only on this Recirculated Draft EIR. While comments submitted on the original Draft EIR shall be part of the project’s administrative record, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(1), the City will not respond to comments received on the original Draft EIR during the earlier circulation period.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/P ROJECT CONSIDERATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 requires lead agencies to certify the final EIR prior to approving a project. The lead agency decision-making body shall certify that (i) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (ii) that the final EIR was presented to the decision-making body, which reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (iii) that the final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

For the proposed project, t he City Council shall be the City’s ultimate decision-making body. The Council will therefore review and consider the Final EIR and make a determination regarding whether the document is "adequate and complete." In general, a Final EIR meets this standard if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project in contemplation of environmental considerations.

The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines and recent court decisions, which provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state as follows:
“An EIR should be prepared with a s ufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect s of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR

1. 0-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

INTRODUCTION 1.0
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
Following review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may take action to approve, modify, or reject the project. As part of project approval, the City also is also required to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described below, prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must include all of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment, and would be designed to ensure that these measures are actually carried out during project implementation.

1.9 ORGANIZATION A ND SCOPE
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include or address a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth -inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Discussion of the environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR was established through review of environmental and planning documentation developed for the project, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the City of Fresno, applicable local and regional planning documents, and responses to the NOP.

This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter id entifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed project.

CHAPTER 1.0 – I NTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR.

CHAPTER 2.0 – P ROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, related infrastructure improvements, and a list of related agency action requirements.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-11

1.0 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING , IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of each environmental topic area as identified below. Each subchapter addressing a topical area is organized as follows:

Environmental Setting. A description of the existing environment as it pertains to the topical area.

Regulatory Setting. A description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the project.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Identification of the significance criteria (also referred to as “thresholds of significance” throughout this EIR ) by which the significance of impacts are determined, a description of project-related impacts associated with the environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact after the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures.

The following environmental topics are addressed in this chapter:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Resources
• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and R ecreation
• Transportation and Circulation
• Utilities
CHAPTER 4.0 – OTHER CEQA -R EQUIRED TOPICS
Chapter 4.0 evaluates and describes the CEQA required topics as follows: cumulative and significant and unavoidable environmental effects under cumulative conditions. Chapter 4.0 also evaluates and describes the CEQA required topics as follows: impacts considered less-than-significant, significant and irreversible impacts, growth-inducing effects, and significant and unavoidable environmental effects.

1. 0-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

INTRODUCTION 1.0
CHAPTER 5.0 – A LTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the project. Chapter 5.0 provides a comparative analysis between the environmental impacts of the project and the selected alternatives.

CHAPTER 6.0 – R EPORT PREPARERS
This chapter lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

CHAPTER 7.0 – R EFERENCES
This chapter lists all references used in the preparation of the EIR.

APPENDICES
This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR, as well as technical material prepared to support the analysis. The EIR appendices are available in electronic format. The appendices can be viewed online at: https://www.fresno.gov/westareaplan.

1.10 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA (“THRESHOLDS ”)
In general, CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial” adverse change in the physical environment. A potential impact is considered significant if a project would substantially degrade the environmental quality of land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines §§15360, 15382).

Definitions of significance vary with the physical condition affected and the setting in which the change occurs. The CEQA Guidelines set forth physical impacts that trigger the requirement to make “mandatory findings of significance” (CEQA Guidelines §15065).

This CEQA document relies on three levels of impact significance:

1. Less-than-significant impact, for which no mitigation measures are warranted;

2. Significant impact that can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant; and,

3. Significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Such impacts are referred to as significant and unavoidable.

Each resource area uses a distinct set of significance criteria (also referred to as “thresholds of significance” throughout the EIR). The significance criteria are identified at the beginning of the impact discussion for each resource area. These significance criteria promote consistent evaluation of impacts for all alternatives considered, even though significance criteria are necessarily different for each resource considered. When criteria for significance determinations relative to a specific Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-13

1.0 INTRODUCTION
environmental resource are not identified in the CEQA Guidelines, specific criteria have been developed for this Draft EIR consistent with the past pattern and practice of the City of Fresno.

1.11 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION The City received thirteen written comment letters on the NOP for the proposed project Draft EIR.

A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR.

1. April Henry (August 1, 2019)

2. California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (July 19, 2019)

3. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (June 28, 2019)

4. Carl & Lydia Franklin (August 2, 2019)

5. Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019)

6. Central Grizzlies Youth Football & Cheer (August 2, 2019)

7. City of Fresno Transportation Department, Fresno Area Express (July 29, 2019)

8. Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019)

9. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (August 1, 2019)

10. Fresno County Public Library (July 8, 2019)

11. Jeff Roberts (July 24, 2019)

12. Patricia and Clifford Upton (July 24, 2019)

13. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (July 15, 2019)

1.12 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The following are topics of public concern or potential controversy that have become known to the City staff based on public input, known regional issues, and staff observations:
• Conversion of undeveloped land to urban use
• Light, glare, and skyglow
• Traffic congestion from automobiles and large trucks , ensuring safe routes to schools, and provision of alternative transportation infrastructure
• Annexation of county properties into the city
• Parkland, trail, and ball field impacts
• Need for aesthetics improvements, including tree planting • Air quality and pollution concerns, including dust from construction and agricultural uses, and air pollution along Highway 99
• Project impact on regional stormwater, drainage, and flood control

1. 0-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING

REGIONAL LOCATION AND SETTING
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also -known-as “Specific Plan” , “Plan Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. The footprint of the Specific Plan is referred to as the “Plan Area.” Of the 11 square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City, a small community within the city limits of Fresno , located around the junction of State Route 99 and Shaw Avenue. See Figure 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2.0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map.

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

The Plan Area has approximately seven different existing land uses which include the following:
• Multiple Family Residential: Approximately 3.3 percent, or 198.0 acres, of the Plan Area account for multi-family residential development. These uses are primarily located adjacent to arterial roads with easy access to State Route 99, and Fresno Area Express (FAX) service lines.
• Single-Family Residential: Approximately 50.3 percent, or 50.3 acres, of t he existing uses within the Plan Area are currently developed with single-family residential uses. These uses are located primarily within the city limits but also include rural residential uses outside the city limits.
• Vacant Land: Approximately 20.2 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 1,218.4 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities/Tax Exempt : Approximately .1 percent, or 490.1 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, fire stations, and places of worship. • Agricultural Land: Approximately 11.9 percent or 720.30 acres in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the city, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Industrial Uses: Approximately 1.3 percent, or 79.78 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately 5.0 percent, or 299.57 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.

The Plan Area has approximately 3,228.24 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built -Up, according to the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Prime Farmland is principally located outside of the Plan Area. The Plan Area has 1.5 acres of Prime Farmland, 153.9 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance which is located primarily in the western edge of the Plan Area. Approximately 854.13 acres of Unique Farmland is located within the Plan Area, most of which is within the southwest portion of the Plan Area. Farmland of Local Importance is located throughout the entire Plan Area, and totals approximately 1,158.12 acres.

Vacant or Disturbed Land and Rural Residential Land account for approximately 1,643.23 acres within the growth area.

See Figure 2.0-3 for an aerial view of the Plan Area.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99 ; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the north ; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) ; and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USES AND ZONING
A portion of the Plan Area is located within the Fresno city limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (within the City’s SOI). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential; Medium Low Density Residential ; Medium Density Residential; Medium High Density Residential; Urban Neighborhood Residential ; High Density Residential; Community Commercial; General Commercial; Recreation Commercial; Office; Business Park; Light Industrial; Corridor/Center Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use; Community Park; Ponding Basin; Neighborhood Park; Park; Open Space; Public/Quasi-Public Facility; Church; Fire Station; Special School; Elementary School; Elementary, Middle & High School; and High School. See Figure

2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.

The City of Fresno Zoning Map provides zoning for those portions of the Plan Area located within the city limits, but not for areas within the unincorporated County. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The City zoning designations for the Plan Area include: Residential Estate (RE), Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density (RS-1), Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density (RS-2), Residential Single -Family, Low Density (RS-3), Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4), Residential Single -Family, Medium Density (RS-5),

2. 0-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM -1), Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2), Residential Multi-Family, High Density (RM-3), Mobile Home Park (RM-MH), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Recreation (CRC), Commercial Highway and Auto (CH), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Regional Mixed Use (RMX), Business Park (BP), Office (O), Light Industrial (IL), Public and Institutional (PI) , Open Space (OS), and Park and Recreation (PR). See Figure 2.0-5 for the existing zoning designations.

In the unincorporated areas of the Plan Area, the Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits but within the SOI as: Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industrial (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential (20,000) (R1), Single Family Residential (9,00) (R1C), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). Upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION
The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area.

The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and es tablishes the Plan Area as a complete neighborhood w ith enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and development of a diverse housing stock. The Plan Area does not currently have needed commercial amenities, causing residents to travel east of State Route 99 for retail services. The Plan Area also lacks a complete roadway network and parkland.

BACKGROUND
The proposed Specific Plan process officially started in September 2017 with the drafting of the existing conditions report. That document provides a detailed overview of the existing land uses within the Plan Area. Outreach to the Plan Area community started in early 2018 with individual meetings between City staff and community stakeholders, including residents, local agencies, institutional partners, elected officials, landowners, and developers. Public outreach included community stakeholder interviews, Steering Committee orientation sessions and meetings, community meetings and workshops, and an on-line survey.

The 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations on the draft land use map and guiding principles based o n i nput received f rom community members. Additionally, approximately 25 community stakeholders were interviewed from January 2018 to April 2018. Next, a kick -off survey Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-3

regarding the Plan Area was released in April 2018. The survey covered topics such as quality of life, needed improvements, needed housing and commercial development, agritourism, and the overall future vision for the Plan Area. Two community conversations (i.e., workshops) were also held in order to receive feedback: Community Conversation No. 1 was held in May 2018, and Community Conversation No. 2 was held in June 2018. The Steering Committee then held meetings in June, July, August, November, and January 2018 in order to review and select the conceptual land use options.

The draft land use map and guiding principles were released to the public on November 28, 2018.

The draft land use map was then amended by the Steering Committee in January 2019. Lastly, an agritourism workshop was held in the spring of 2019. The Plan was scheduled for consideration by the City Council in October 2022, however staff received direction to make modifications to the Land Use Map. Additional community meetings were held to provide feedback to a revised map in Spring of 2023 and a new map was initiated later that year.

RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS
The Specific Plan serves as the first major specific planning effort, environmental e valuation, and infrastructure analysis for the Plan Area. However, other past and in -progress planning efforts impacting the Plan Area have occurred and are described below.

The Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan (1998)
The Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan, which applies to about five percent of the Plan Area, was adopted on January 6, 1998, and was prepared to address problems, issues, and opportunities of the Highway City neighborhood. One of the guiding principles for the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan encouraged development of neighborhoods characterized by a diverse but compatible arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses to be supported by existing single-family residential areas. The proposed Specific Plan will replace a portion of the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan, but will carry forward applicable area-specific policies.

The West Area Community Plan (2002)
The West Area Community Plan was adopted on February 1, 2002, as “Appendix W” of the 2025 General Plan and applies to the area encompassing the Plan Area and additional land to the east (to the railroad tracks east of Golden State Boulevard) and south (to Belmont Avenue and the railroad tracks south of Belmont Avenue). The core goals of the Community Plan were to develop the West Area as a planned community with a complete range of services, facilities, and public infrastructure development, and to minimize land use conflicts between agriculture and urban uses. The proposed Specific Plan would replace the Community Plan, updating and incorporating still-relevant policies.

The General Plan (2014)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The General Plan was adopted on December 18, 2014, and set a forward-looking course for the city focusing on infill development, Complete Neighborhoods, and multimodal transportation to achieve fiscally sustainable and environmentally responsible growth. It establishes the foundation for this Specific Plan, anticipating that this Plan will further refine the General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area.

2.0 -4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
One of the primary goals of the General Plan is to support established neighborhoods in Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible streets; public utilities, education and job training; proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable hou sing, youth development opportunities, open space and parks, transportation options; and opportunities for home grown businesses. Another key goal of the General Plan that is reiterated in the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is to resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies, make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase connectivity, competitiveness, and to promote economic growth.

To achieve its goals while maintaining orderly development, the General Plan designates a sequencing of development that calls for roughly half to occur in infill areas (defined as within the city limits on December 31, 2012) and permits half to occur in greenfield areas. For greenfield areas, development must first occur in parts of the Sphere of Influence defined as Growth Area 1, which is deemed to be infrastructure-ready. Growth Area 2, on the other hand, is in need of significant infrastructure investment that the City has not planned for nor funded. Development within the city and Growth Area 1 is supported by and based on planned infrastructure expansion, public service capacity, and financial considerations undertaken during the General Plan process. The Plan Area is within Growth Area 1 and therefore has capacity to support growth.

The General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area is to create opportunities for the development of Complete Neighborhoods. The concept of Complete Neighborhoods is to enable Fresnans to live in communities with convenient access to services, employment, and recreation within walking distance. It provides residents with amenities that make their neighborhood mostly self -sufficient and interconnected. Characteristics of a Complete Neighborhood, which can create an enhanced quality of life and increase property values, include:
a) A range of housing choices;
b) Neighborhood-serving retail;
c) Employment opportunities;
d) Public services, such as health clinics;
e) Entertainment and cultural assets;
f) Parks and public schools;
g) Community services, such as a library, recreation center, senior center, and/or community garden;
h) Sidewalks, bikeways, trails and other active transportation infrastructure; i) Public plaza/civic space; and
j) Access to public transit.

Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code (2015) The main purpose of the Development Code, which was adopted in 2015, is to implement the General Plan and other adopted plans. The Development Code is the City’s zoning code, and it seeks to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the city of Fresno. It classifies the city into districts, or “zones” that allow various land uses, including:

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-5

residential single-family, residential multi-family, mixed-use, commercial, public and semi -public, downtown, and employment districts.

ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (2016)
The 2016 Update to the ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW Transition Plan) was adopted by Council on February 25, 2016. The goal of the ROW Transition Plan is to ensure that the City maintains accessible paths of travel in the ROW for people with disabilities. The ROW Transition Plan incorporates retrofitting curb Ramps, sidewalks, and accessible pedestrian signals and replaces the 2003 Amended Curb Ramp Transition Plan.

The Active Transportation Plan (2017)
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was adopted on March 2, 2017 , and serves as the C ity’s comprehensive guide for active transportation. The ATP envisions a complete, safe, and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that serve as a means for people to safely get to their destinations while reducing roadway congestion and i mproving the air quality. This also results in replacing vehicle miles traveled with walking or biking. Additional Class II bike lanes are planned for the Plan Area and Class I bicycle and pedestrian trails are to be constructed with four connection points over State Route 99 at Herndon Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, Gettysburg Avenue, and the Herndon Canal which is located near West Shaw Avenue.

The Parks Master Plan (2017)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Parks Master Plan was adopted on December 14, 2017, and serves as a community-based vision and road map for achieving a complete park system in the city of Fresno. Through a public outreach process, examination of existing conditions, and analysis of the General Plan’s goals, the Parks Master Plan d etermined the amount of parkland n eeded f or the city’s existing and future population.

PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE S, ZONING , AND MAXIMUM

BUILDOUT POTENTIAL
The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for t he Plan Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential; Medium Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Medium High Density Residential; Urban Neighborhood Residential; High Density Residential; Community Commercial; General Commercial; Recreation Commercial; Regional Commercial; Office; Business Park; Light Industrial; Neighborhood Mixed Use; Corridor/Center Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use; Community Park; Ponding Basin; Neighborhood Park; Open Space; Public/Quasi -Public Facility; Church; Fire Station; Special School; Elementary School; Elementary, Middle & High School; and High School.

2. 0-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
See Table 2.0-1 for a summary of the existing and proposed land uses within the city limits, growth area, and Plan Area. See Figure 2.0-6 for the proposed Specific Plan land use designations and dual land use designations.

As indicated in Table 2.0 -1, the Specific Plan would result in an increase in land designated for employment, and mixed use and a decrease in land designated for residential , commercial, open space, and public facilities uses compared to the existing General Plan.

As previously indicated, the City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS- 1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS -5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CRC, CH, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, PI, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the city which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan will be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation.

The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel and the zoning established in the prezoning would take effect.

Table 2.0-2 summarizes the existing General Plan land uses, the maximum number of units, and the maximum non-residential square footage that would be allowed under the existing General Plan. As shown, 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.

Table 2.0 -3 summarizes the acreages of each land use, the maximum number of units, and the maximum non-residential square footage that would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan.

As shown in the table, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future deve lopment of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facilit y uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools , fire stations, an d places of worship. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would allow for approximately 338.95 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

Certain properties that have a primary land use designation under the open space and public facilities categories carry a dual, or secondary, designation, meaning that it can be developed under either the primary or secondary designation. Because of this allowance, the commercial and housing capacities of the secondary designation are considered in applicable calculations.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-7

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TABLE 2.0-1: PARCEL ACREAGES BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN

2.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS

CITY LIMITS GROWTH AREA PLAN AREA TOTAL

GENERAL

PLAN ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE IN
CITY

GENERAL

PLAN ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE

IN GROWTH
AREA

GENERAL

PLAN ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

OVERALL
CHANGE
Low 163.88 94.35
-199.54
652.86 413.69
-192.98
816.74 508.04
-392.51
Medium Low 582.08 769.41 273.34 612.04 855.43 1,381.46 Medium 1,629.48 1,485.49 768.72 596.82 2,398.20 2,082.32 Medium High 261.09 249.60 78.56 51.24 339.65 300.84 Urban Neighborhood 248.79 87.56 146.30 81.00 395.09 168.56 High 28.00 27.38 27.98 0.00 55.99 27.38
Subtotal - Residential 2,913.32 2,713.78 1,947.76 1,754.78 4,861.08 4,468.56 Community 93.91 46.51
-68.10

25.41 8.63
+20.74
114.97 55.14
-47.36
General 141.59 120.90 1.62 34.92 143.21 155.81
Recreation 41.33 41.33 0.00 0.00 41.33 41.33
Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 4.24
Subtotal - Commercial 276.84 208.74 27.04 47.78 303.87 256.52 Business Park 22.71 20.57
-0.26

54.40 54.40
+42.71

77.11 74.97
+42.46 Light Industrial 33.13 32.75 0.00 0.00 33.13 32.75 Office 7.51 9.77 0.00 42.71 7.51 52.48
Subtotal - Employment 63.35 63.09 54.40 97.11 117.74 160.20 Corridor/Center 106.32 192.27
+115.35

0.00 23.70
+89.82
106.32 215.98
+205.18 Neighborhood 0.00 159.13 0.00 66.12 0.00 225.25 Regional 144.62 14.89 0.00 0.00 144.62 14.89
Subtotal - Mixed Use 250.94 366.29 0.00 89.82 250.94 456.12 Open Space 5.03 49.70
+114.33

0.00 12.60
+12.08

5.03 62.30
+126.41
Open Space – Comm. Park 24.23 52.32 13.98 13.98 38.21 66.30 Open Space – Neigh. Park 51.21 40.04 36.86 36.86 88.06 76.90 Open Space – Park 2.45 8.95 0.00 0.00 2.45 8.95
Open Space – Ponding Basin 97.14 124.50 0.52 0.00 97.66 124.5 Easement 0.00 18.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.87
Subtotal - Open Space 180.05 294.38 51.36 63.44 231.41 357.82 Public Facility 4.98 12.64
+38.21

16.81 10.21
+27.62

21.78 22.84
+65.83
Church 9.93 27.35 1.66 41.21 11.59 68.56
Elem. School 70.88 80.87 10.95 10.95 81.82 91.82
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 145.37 0.00 0.00 145.37 145.37 Fire Station 0.20 3.32 5.32 0.00 5.52 3.32
High School 46.95 46.95 0.00 0.00 46.95 46.95
Special School 4.50 4.50 13.88 13.88 18.38 18.38
Subtotal - Public Facilities 282.79 321.00 48.62 76.24 331.41 397.24 Grand Total 3,967.28 3,967.28 -- 2,129.18 2,129.18 -- 6,096.46 6,096.46 --

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
TABLE 2.0-2: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA– EXISTING GENERAL PLAN

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
(AND DENSITY/INTENSITY)

EXISTING

GENERAL

PLAN ACRES

GENERAL PLAN
DUAL

DESIGNATION

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS NON-RESIDENTIAL SF
Low (1-3.5 DU/AC) 816.74 2,859 -
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 855.43 9.71 5,191
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,398.20 20.89 29,029
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 339.65 12.67 5,637
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 395.09 91.70 14,604 High (30-45 DU/AC) 55.99 2,520
Subtotal - Residential 4,861.08 134.98 59,839
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 119.33 13.98 5,806,983.6 Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.33 900,167.40
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 143.21 12,476,700.84
Regional (80 DU/AC; /1.0 Max. FAR)* 0.00 0
Subtotal - Commercial 303.87 13.98 19,183,851.8
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 7.51 654,271.20
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 77.11 3,359,020.88
Light Industrial (1.5 Max. FAR) 33.13 2,164,414.58 Subtotal - Employment 117.74 6,177,706.66
Neighborhood (64 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR)* 0.00
Corridor/Center (75 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR)* 106.32 24.23 9,791 8,530,137 Regional (90 DU/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR)* 144.62 13,016 12,599,294.40 Subtotal - Mixed Use 250.94 24.23 22.807 21,129,431.4 Open Space 5.03
Community Park 38.21
Neighborhood Park 88.06
Open Space 2.45
Ponding Basin 97.66
Easement 0.00
Subtotal - Open Space 231.41
Public Facility 21.78
Church 11.59
Special School 18.38
Elem. School 81.82
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37
High School 46.95
Fire Station 5.52
Subtotal - Public Facilities 331.41
Grand Total 6,096.46 82,646 46,490,989.9
NOTE: * THE COMMERCIAL REGIONAL AND THE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS DO NOT HAVE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITIES; THEREFORE, THIS TABLE REFLECTS A PRACTICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY . IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A PRACTICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY , THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL CALCULATIONS USE THE FOLLOWING DENSITIES : NMX: 64 DU/AC; CMX: 75 DU/AC; RMX: 90 DU/AC; AND CR: 80 DU/AC.

Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-9

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TABLE 2.0-3: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN – PROPOSED WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN

SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
(AND DENSITY/INTENSITY)

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
DUAL

DESIGNATION

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS NON-RESIDENTIAL SF
Low (1-3.5 DU/AC) 508.04 6.23 1,800
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 1,381.46 91.02 8,835
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,082.32 91.19 26,082
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 300.84 4.50 4,885
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 168.56 21.40 5,699
High (30-45 DU/AC) 27.38 18.26 2,054
Subtotal - Residential 4,468.6 232.58 49,355
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 55.14 1.66 2,474,155.20
Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.33 900,251.94
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 155.81 13.98 14,792,493.91
Regional (80 DU/AC; 1.0 Max. FAR) 4.24 339 184,518.82 Subtotal - Commercial 256.52 339 18,351,419.87
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 52.48 4,572,212.13
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 74.97 3,265,608.40
Light Industrial (1.5 Max. FAR) 32.75 2,139,678.63 Subtotal - Employment 160.20 9,977,499.16
Neighborhood (64 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR)* 225.25 3.23 14,623 14,928,854.36 Corridor/Center (75 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR)* 215.98 16.99 17,473 15,222,128.16 Regional (90 DU/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR)* 14.89 1,340 1,297,369.60 Subtotal - Mixed Use 456.12 33,436 31,448,352.12
Neighborhood Park 76.9
Community Park 66.3
Open Space 62.3
Park 8.94
Ponding Basin 124.5
Easement 18.86
Subtotal - Open Space 357.8
Public Facility 22.84
Church 68.55
Elem. School 91.82
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37
High School 46.95
Special School 18.37
Fire Station 3.32
Subtotal - Public Facilities 397.22
Grand Total 6,096.46 83,129 59,777,271.15
NOTE: * THE COMMERCIAL REGIONAL AND THE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS DO NOT HAVE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITIES; THEREFORE, THIS TABLE REFLECTS A PRACTICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY . IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A PRACTICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY , THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL CALCULATIONS USE THE FOLLOWING DENSITIES : NMX: 64 DU/AC; CMX: 75 DU/AC; RMX: 90 DU/AC; AND CR: 80 DU/AC.

The proposed Specific Plan land uses could result in an increase in the number of residential units in the Plan Area and an increase in the amount of non -residential square footage. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan could increase the number of housing units by 483 DU (including a 10,482

2.0-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
DU reduction in the residential category, a 339 DU increase in the commercial category, and an 10,630 DU increase in the mixed -use category). The proposed Specific Plan could increase the amount of non-residential SF by 13,286,281 SF (including a 832,432 SF decrease in the commercial category, a 3,799,793 SF increase in the employment category, and a 10,318,921 SF increase in the mixed use category).

The Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility, so there are a number of variations/combinations for residential and non-residential development. However, the development potential identified within the table represents the maximum development that would be allowed based upon the existing and proposed land uses and their associated densities and intensities without requiring a future amendment to the Specific Plan. In effect, this is very likely an overestimate of what will actually be developed, but for purposes of environmental analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) it represents a conservative scenario.

It is noted that the proposed Specific Plan would amend the land uses for approximately half of the land within the Plan Area. The remaining parcels would maintain their existing land use and zoning designations. The parcels that are proposed for change by the proposed land use map are shown in Figure 2.0-7.

REVISIONS TO CORE GOALS
In addition to the proposed land use plan, the following are revisions to the core goals provided in the General Plan for the Plan Area:

1. West Shaw Avenue Town Center: The West Shaw Avenue Town Center (the Town Center) will extend from State Route 99 to the east side of Grantland Avenue and is envisioned to be comprised of mixed-use development supported by enhanced transit service. Land on the south side of West Shaw Avenue will provide additional neighborhood and commercial mixed-use opportunities.

2. Catalytic Corridors: The proposed Specific Plan designates higher density land uses along corridors for the purpose of providing easy access to major arterials and streets, retail centers, and community amenities. Catalytic corridors will include transit services. The corridors are designed to include neighborhood and pocket parks, commercial and retail uses, educational facilities, multi-family dwelling units, and professional offices. The corridors are located on the following streets:
a) West Shaw Avenue, from State Route 99 to Grantland Avenue; b) West Ashlan Avenue, from State Route 99 to Grantland Avenue; c) North Brawley Avenue, from West Clinton to West Ashlan Avenue; d) West Shields Avenue from North Hayes Avenue to Grantland Avenue; e) West Clinton Avenue from State Route 99 to North Brawley Avenue; and f) Veterans Boulevard, from West Gettysburg Avenue to West Barstow Avenue.

PLAN ADOPTION AND REGULATION
The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement the General Plan. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Plan Area. The Specific Plan shall be used to Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-11

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
review, process, and approve development proposals for the Plan Area including, but not limited to, site specific development applications and site improvement plans.

PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Specific Plan, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15050.

Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Repeal of a portion of the Highway City Specific Plan that overlaps with the plan area boundaries;
• Repeal of the West Area Community Plan;
• Certification of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan; • Amendment of the General Plan land use map to incorporate the planned land uses of the Specific Plan; and
• Rezone of a ll parcels proposed for la nd use changes within city limits of the Specific Plan area to a zone district consistent with the planned land use.

2.3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed Specific Plan include future development of land for a wide variety of land uses including: Low Density Residential; Medium Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Medium High Density Residential; Urban Neighborhood Residential ; High Density Residential; Community Commercial ; Recreation Commercial ; General Commercial; Regional Commercial; Office; Business Park; Light Industrial; Corridor/Center Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use; Pocket Park ; Neighborhood Park; Community Park ; Open Space; Ponding Basin ; Public Facility; Church; Special School; Elementary School; Elementary, Middle & High School; High School; and Fire Station uses, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements.

QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES
The quantifiable objective of the proposed Specific Plan includes 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 SF of non-residential uses.

SPECIFIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Specific Plan’s guiding principles are designed to form the direction of the Specific Plan, and how the Plan can best b enefit the future of the Plan Area. The guiding principles incorporate input received from community members and formal recommendations of the Steering Committee. The guiding principles of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:

2. 0-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Transportation
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecking exists. • Accommodate planned transit services in the West Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well -maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well -maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the West Area to other sections of the city and region.

Parks and Trails
• Create parks that are within existing and planned neighborhoods that are easily accessed by community members using pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit services, or motor vehicles, consistent with the City of Fresno’s Parks Master Plan. • Provide for the location of a flagship regional park i n the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.
• Increase the tree canopy to improve air quality and health outcomes while enhancing neighborhood streetscapes.

Agriculture

• Incorporate elements of agriculture in future parks by planting a mixture of native drought tolerant vegetation, shrubs, and trees that can serve to provide shade and enhance the streetscape.
• Encourage and provide land use opportunities for agritourism ventures to occur in the West Area.
• Encourage the development of harvest-producing community gardens.

Retail

• Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the West Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants (other than fast food), and boutiques.
• Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores. • Encourage the development of retail establishments along commercial corridors.

Housing

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
• Encourage a variety of housing types and styles.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-13

• Encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including multi-generational houses and other elder housing options. • Reaffirm the City’s commitment and obligation to affirmatively furthering access to fair and affordable housing opportunities by strongly encouraging equitable and fair housing opportunities to be located in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.

Catalytic Corridors
• Encourage the orderly and consistent development of civic, parkland, retail and commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family uses along West Shaw Avenue, West Ashlan Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, West Shields Avenue, West Clinton Avenue, and Brawley Avenue.

Education
• Attract much needed educational opportunities for the residents of the West Area, especially for post-secondary education, and access to programs for life-long learners.

Public Safety

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhoods that have sporadic access. • Work to promote Neighborhood Watch in all neighborhoods, and further assess the need for the location of emergency response facilities west of Highway 99.

These Specific Plan guiding principles functionally represent project objectives as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15124, subdivision (b).

2.4 USES OF THE EIR AND REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Specific Plan, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA, Section 15050. Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to the following:
• Repeal of a portion of the Highway City Specific Plan that overlaps with the plan area boundaries;
• Repeal of the West Area Community Plan;
• Certification of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan; • Amendment of the General Plan land use map to incorporate the planned land uses of the Specific Plan; and
• Rezone of a ll parcels proposed for la nd use changes within city limits of the Specific Plan area to a zone district consistent with the planned land use.

2. 0-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this Specific Plan, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed Specific Plan:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Future Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit;
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD);
• Fresno Irrigation District (FID);
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Future approval of construction -related air quality permits, authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
• Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also function as a trustee agency with respect to the proposed Specific Plan. The City is unaware of any other trustee agency, as the proposed Specific Plan would not affect any state owned “sovereign” lands, any units of the State Park System, or any sites within the University of California’s Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-15

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2. 0-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan KERMAN
DINUBA

REEDLEY
SELMA

PARLIER
SANGER
CLOVIS
FRESNO

VISALIA
MADERA

HANFORD

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

K I N G S C O U N T Y

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

T U L A R E

C O U N T Y
145
145
168
41 99
99 99
145
201
168
41 41
152
269
43 180 180

L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Incorporated Area
County Area
0 52½
Miles
Regional Location Map

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
FIGURE 2.0-1
Source: California State Geoportal; City of Fresno. Map date: January 12, 2024.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2.0-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan CJ
1111
••••
E Church Ave
W Belmont Ave
W American Ave
N Maroa Ave
N Fruit Ave
E Nees Ave
N West Ave
N Marks Ave
E Bullard Ave
G St
S West Ave
E Butler Ave
W Dakota Ave
E Mckinley Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Cornel
ia Ave
N Brawley Ave
Van Ness Ave
E Shaw Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Blackstone Ave
E Ashlan Ave
N Maple Ave
W Olive Ave E Olive Ave
W North Ave
E Central Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Mckinley Ave
N Web
er Av
e
P St
W California Ave
E Herndon Ave
W Shaw Ave
E Shepherd Ave
N Golden State
Blvd
S Goldenrod Ave
S Cherry Ave
S Marks Ave
W Shields Ave
W Nielsen Ave
N Madera Ave
W Jensen Ave
N Dickenson Ave
S Dickenson Ave
Barstow
Borden
Calwa
Figarden
Gregg
Irrigosa
Pinedale
Pratton
Raco
Ripperdan
Rolinda
Biola
Trigo
Floyd
Madera
Ranchos
Rolling Hills
San Joaquin
River
Estates
Parkwood
Highway
City
KERMAN
MADERA
145
99 99
168
145
41 41
41 180180
180

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

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

L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
County Area
Fresno
Kerman
Madera
0 21
Miles
Vi
cinity Map
FIGURE 2.0-2

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: California State Geoportal; City of Fresno. Map date: August 26, 2024.

F R E S N O
Fresno-Clovis
Regional W
astewater

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2.0-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ._•I
' -..

Cl
@- - 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
99 99
12 28
29 30
31 33
32 34
6 9
7 11
10 8
13 17
23 19
18 20
14 26
24 25
27 22
21 15
16 4 5
1 2
3 Maxar

L E G E N D
Specific Plan
Bou
ndary
Fresno City
Lim
its
Fresno Sphere
of
Influence
0 ½¼
Miles
Aerial View of Project
FIGURE 2.0-3

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: January 22, 2024
24 Rio Vista Middle School
1 Station #18 12 US Post Office 25 River Bluff Elementary School 2 Station #16 26 William Saroyan Elementary School
3 Station #14 13 Herndon-Barstow Elementary School 27 Lawless Elementary School 14 Teague Elementary School
4 Riverside Golf Course 15 Harvest Elementary School 28 Marketplace at El Paso 5 San Joaquin Country Club 16 Justin Garza High School 29 Costco 17 Glacier Point Middle School
6 Neighborhood Park 18 Central High School East Campus 30 Island Water Park 7 Inspiration Park 19 John Steinbeck Elementary School 31 Deran Koligian Stadium 8 Highway City Community Center 20 Roosevelt Elementary School 32 Central Unified Aquatics Complex 9 Jaswant Singh Khalra Neighborhood Park 21 Central Elementary School 33 Gateway Ice Center 10 Fresno County Horse Park 22 El Capitan Middle School 34 Highway City Science Center 11 Stallion Park 23 Hanh Phan Tilley Elementary School
Fire Stations
Golf Courses
Parks
Schools
Shopping
Special Point of Interest
Post Office

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2.0-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan i
-
i =-- ■--■-■■- · i
·-·· i - ■ r r-
'1.- ■■- . -··-··-"
··-··-: i·-··-:
=• - -~--.. l .. _:
- -
1:1
- --- -- -- -- -- -
l)~'..:o,o l' l ~11 n i ng Grou p ■ ■ ■ ■
,i..,.J u., PL,,.,.·,.g.u., -~"••"d m o"'" ' "'•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
PB
PB
PB
PB
NP

NPNP NP

PP P OS
NP
NP
NP
NPNP
NP
NP
NP
NP
OS
P
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

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional

EMPLOYMENT
Office
Business Park
trial

PUBLIC FACILITIES
Light Indus

MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
Public Facilities

OPEN SPACE
Open Space
0 ½¼
Miles
FIGURE 2.0-4.

Existing General Plan

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: December 15, 2023.

Church (CH) -- Fire Station (FS) -- Special School (SS) Elementary School (E) -- High School (H)
Elemen
tary/Middle/High School (E/M/H)
Community Park (CP) -- Neighborhood Park (NP)
Ponding Basin (PB) -- Open Space (OS) -- Park (P)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2. 0-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan - ---
c:::::I
-
r-··-i I ••-••-••-
- ____ _:•=-•=•-i•j _rr··---.. . :
r•----. . .
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
99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
0 ½¼
Miles
Ex
isting Zoning Designations
FIGURE 2.0-5.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno; County of Fresno. Map date: January 16, 2025.

Z O N I N G
Fresno Coun
ty Zoning Designation
AE20: Exclusive Agriculture
AL20: Limited Agriculture
C4: Central Trading
C6: General Commercial
RCC: Rural Commercial Center
M1: Light Manufacturing
RR: Rural Residential
R1: Single Family Residential (20,000)
R1C: Single Family Residential (9,000)
TP: Trailer Park Residential
R3: Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
City of Fresno Z
oning Designation
CC: Commercial Community
CG: Commercial General
CH: Commercial Highway and Auto
CRC: Commercial Recreation
IL: Light Industrial
CMX: Corridor/Center Mixed Use
RMX: Regional Mixed Use
BP: Business Park
O: Office
PI: Public and Institutional
OS: Open Space
PR: Park and Recreation
RE: Residential Estate
RS-1: Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density
RS-2: Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density
RS-3: Residential Single-Family, Low Density
RS-4: Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density
RS-5: Residential Single-Family, Medium Density
RM-1: Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density
RM-2: Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood
RM-3: Residential Multi-Family, High Density
RM-MH: Mobile Home Park

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2. 0-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan .-
i r-·•
.....

I
J - I
--■ ..

L .. _:
a
----
-
. i
!m11 !
i
i. ■■-■■
-
-
-
---
-
.,...---··
i i
i .. ___________ _
··-··-i
-----
r----~ • I i :
■-■■-.
l..
0 •
0 0
li31 r··-_ ,_,; :rJ. __
I
.• J r··""·-: I
•■--■-- ------■ -=
@- -
i" .. !
i i i i.
r
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
P
CH
E
E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
CP
CH
CH
FS
NP
NP
CH
PB
PB
CH
CH
FS
CH
CH
P
PB
PB
NP
PB
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
P
P
P
P
P
P
CP
P
P
CH
CP
PP
CP
P
OS
OS
CH
CH
CH
OS
OS
OS
CP
99 Community Park (CP) -- Neighborhood Park (NP)
Ponding Basin (PB) -- Open Spac
e (OS) -- Park (P)
Church (CH) -- Fire Station (FS) -- Special School (SS) Element
ary School (E) -- High School (H)
Elementary/Middle/High School (E/M/H)

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)
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
0 ½¼
Miles
Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses
and Dual Designations
FIGURE 2.0-6.

CITY OF FRESNO
WES

T AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: November 17, 2023
Dual Designations

RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Low Density
Medium Density
Medium High Density
Urban Neighborhood
High Density
COMMER
CIAL
Community
General

MIXED USE
Corridor/Center
Neighborhood

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2. 0-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan J - I
a
D
D
-
D
r··-··--.
i ' ·-·
--··-" i i: r-·• .. I
!
.. J
□
"l ,.... o
c:::::::J 0-: L _____ j ~~ r-·--------··:i- ~ a
i r· ·-: : : i, !____ __,... _______ ,
,--------·-·1 I I •
··-··-··-·•--" r·-··-' i DJ ! : . :-·· .. i t ,-.J .. - : I • L .. I, L------------- ----L---·JJ· ,- i
:.. •• ..: c::::::i ~-
.-----.... .--- : : ,.,.j l '··-··--' ........ :_.
•
r-••-_j
I
·-··-: ....... i
,---··-: : l ,---~ .......
'i'".r
;
.i
! .. ,.

L •• _
: .--·-··, ■ I • :
- - - ~---J - - r -----~----l_
flTI Lb ,..,_ .. """j
-'~- -1Efci. - - - -
D
--
-
.,...---··
i L---··-··-···
i·-··-i
0 0
• •
•
r----~
• I i :
,.J r·•.._ __
j _____ _ r-·-··-··-·
l)~'..:o,o l'l~11ning Group ■ ■ ■ ■
~,.Ju., PL,,.,.·,.g.u.,-~ . ,ud mo"'"" .0 ·m
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
99 0 ½¼
Miles
FIGURE 2.0-7.

Changes to Proposed Specific Plan
2019-2023

CITY OF FRESNO
WES

T AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: City of Fresno. Map date: November 17, 2023

L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence

RESIDENTIAL
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
COMMER
CIAL
Community

MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use

PUBLIC FA

CILITIES
Public Facilities

OPEN SPA
CE
Open Space
Dual Designations
RE

SIDENTIAL
Medium Low Density
Medium Density
Urban Neighborhood
High Density
COMMER
CIAL
General

MIXED USE
Corridor/Center

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page left intentionally blank.

2. 0-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
This section provides an overview of the visual character, scenic resources, views, scenic highways, and sources of light and glare that are encountered in the Plan Area and the surrounding area. This section provides an evaluation of the potential impacts to aesthetic resources associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and recommendations for mitigating those impacts. Information in this section is derived primarily from the following:
• California Scenic Highway Mapping System (Caltrans, 2019); • C
ity of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• C
ity of Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 13 Sidewalks, Streets, Parkways, and Undergroun d U
tility Districts Section 13-305 Tree Preservation (City of Fresno, 2019).

C
omments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) . The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres ( approximately 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the eleven square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-1

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
• Vacant Land: Approximately 20.2 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 1,218.4 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities /Tax Exempt : Approximately .1 percent, or 490.1 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, fire stations, and places of worship. • Agricultural Land: Approximately 11.9 percent or 720.30 acres in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the city, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins. • Industrial Uses : Approximately 1.3 percent, or 79.78 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately 5.0 percent, or 299.57 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.

Surrounding land uses include State Route 99 ; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the north ; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) ; and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

REGIONAL SCENIC RESOURCES
Visual resources are generally classified into two categories: scenic views and scenic resources.

Scenic views are elements of the broader viewshed such as mountain ranges, valleys, and ridgelines.

They are usually mid-ground or background elements of a viewshed that can be seen from a range of viewpoints, often along a roadway or other corridor. Scenic resources are specific features of a viewing area (or viewshed) such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. They are specific features that act as the focal point of a viewshed and are usually foreground elements.

Features of the built environment that may also have visual significance include individual or groups of structures that are distinctive due to their aesthetic, historical, social, or cultural significance or characteristics. Examples of the visually significant built environment may include bridges or overpasses, architecturally appealing buildings or groups of buildings, landscaped freeways, and a location where a historic event occurred. Aesthetically significant features occur in a diverse array of environments within the region, ranging in character from urban centers to rural agricultural lands to natural water bodies.

SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND CORRIDORS
Scenic highways and corridors make major contributions to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of a region. The development of community pride, the enhancement of property values,

3.1 -2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

and the protection of aesthetically-pleasing open spaces reflecting a preference for the local lifestyle are all ways in which scenic corridors are valuable to residents.

Scenic highways and corridors can also strengthen the tourist industry. For many visitors, highway corridors will provide their only experience of the region. Enhancement and protection of these corridors ensures that the tourist experience continues to be a positive one and, consequently, provides support for the tourist-related activities of the region's economy.

Scenic Highways

A scenic highway is generally defined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by tra velers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.

There are no officially Designated Scenic Highways in Fresno County. Fresno County has four eligible State Scenic Highways, and the nearest eligible highways are east of the Plan Area along State Route 33 (approximately 27 miles west of the Plan Area), along State Route 168 east of the City of Clovis (approximately 19 miles east of the Plan Area), along State Route 180 (approximately 67 miles east of the Plan Area), and along St ate Route 198 (approximately 37 miles south of the Plan Area). The Plan Area is not visible from any of these eligible State Scenic Highways.

Scenic Corridors

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
A scenic corridor is the view from the road that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate roadside area. A scenic corridor encompasses the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic. It is the visual quality of the man-made or natural environments within a scenic corridor that are responsible for its scenic value. Commonly, the physical limits of a scenic corridor are broken down into foreground views (zero to one quarter mile) and distant views (over one quarter mile). In addition to distinct foreground and distant views, the visual quality of a scenic corridor is defined by special features, which include:
• Focal points - prominent natural or man-made features which immediately catch the eye. • Transition areas - locations where the visual environment changes dramatically. • Gateways - locations which mark the entrance to a community or geographic area.

The Fresno General Plan designates the following roadway segments as scenic corridors:
• Van Ness Boulevard – Weldon to Shaw Avenues
• Van Ness Extension - Shaw Avenue to the San Joaquin River Bluff • Kearney Boulevard - Fresno Street to Polk Avenue
• Van Ness/Fulton couplet - Weldon Avenue to Divisadero • Butler Avenue - Peach to Fowler Avenues
• Minnewawa Avenue - Belmont Avenue to Central Canal
• Huntington Boulevard - First Street to Cedar Avenue
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-3

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
The nearest scenic corridor to the Plan Area is Van Ness Boulevard, located approximately 5.34 miles east of the Plan Area. However, the Plan Area is not visible from Van Ness Boulevard or any of the above designated scenic corridors.

LIGHT AND GLARE
There are two typical types of light intrusion. First, light emanates from the interior of structures and passes out through windows. Secondly, light projects from exterior sources such as street lighting, security lighting, balcony lighting, and landscape lighting. “Light spill” is typically defined as the presence of unwanted and/or misdirected light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated.

Glare is the sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is significantly greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted, which causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.

The majority of the Plan Area is urbanized, with significant sources of light and glare, such as streetlights, parking lots, interior lights from buildings, lighted recreational facilities, and light emitted from residential and non-residential buildings throughout the Plan Area. Substantial lighting currently exists in the more developed portions of the Plan Area along SR 99 and the eastern portion of the Plan Area. Limited lighting currently exists in rural residential and agricultural areas that are located within the western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Buildings and structures made with glass, metal, and polished exterior or roofing materials exist throughout the Plan Area.

These surfaces, as well as the natural a nd manmade light sources, could result in localized glare.

3.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the aesthetic resources of the state including the California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, and the California Energy Commission. These agencies are often responsible for preserving the economic, social and scenic values of aesthetic resources such as the California Highway System and combating light pollution of the night sky . The following is an overview of the State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

STATE
California Scenic Highway Program
The intent of the California Scenic Highway Program is “to protect and enhance California’s natural scenic beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the State’s scenic resources.” Caltrans administers the program, which was established in 1963 and is governed by the California Streets and Highways Code (§260 et seq.). The goal of the program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of the

3. 1-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
adjacent land. Caltrans has compiled a list of state highways that are designated as scenic and county highways that are eligible for designation as scenic.

Scenic highway designation can provide several types of benefits to the region. Scenic areas are protected from encroachment of inappropriate land uses, free of billboards, and are generally required to maintain existing contours and preserve important vegetative features. Only low-density development is allowed on steep slopes and along ridgelines on scenic highways, and noise setbacks are required for residential development.

Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The California legislature passed a bill in 2001 requiring the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting for both the public and private sectors. In addition to improved energy efficiency standards, Title 24 standards regulate lighting characteristics such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off.

Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on population figures of the 2010 Census. Areas can be designated as LZ1 (dark), LZ2 (rural), or LZ3 (urban). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter in order to protect the areas from new sources of light pollution and light trespass.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to aesthetics and visual resources:

URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective D-1: Provide and maintain an urban image that creates a “sense of place” throughout Fresno.

Policy D-1-a: Direct Access to Units. Require all new multi -family residential development along BRT and other transit or pedestrian -oriented streets (Collector and Local), including high-rise, townhomes or other units, to provide direct pedestrian street access and to promote walkable connectivity, individualization, family-friendly development, identity, and street safety to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.

Policy D-1-b: Active Ground Floor Frontage. Encourage all new development located within Activity Centers and/or along BRT corridors to incorporate active ground floor frontages that engage pedestrians to the maximum extent feasible. Establish pedestrian-oriented design standards in the Development Code for building frontages, transparency, fenestration, and entries to create active streetscapes.

Policy D-1-c: Privately Owned Public Spaces. Consider creating and adopting design standards and incentives for providing privately owned public open spaces and plazas for gathering to enhance the pedestrian realm and provide opportunities for social interaction.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-5

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Policy D-1-d: Public Art. Continue to promote a citywide public art program that contributes to an awareness of the City’s history and culture.

Policy D-1-e: Graphic Identity. Continue the preservation, promotion, procurement and strategic location of landmarks, monuments and artwork that provide orientation and represent Fresno's cultural heritage and artistic values.

Policy D-1-f: Update Street Signs. Consider updating street sign regulations to create a way- finding system and graphic identity without dominating city and district appearance.

Policy D-1-g: Reducing Surface Parking. Consider adopting and implementing incentives to replace existing large surface parking lots in centers with parking structures, and to incorporate them into high-density mixed use developments.

Policy D-1-h: Screening of Parking. Consider requiring all new development with parking in Activity Centers and along corridors to be screened or concealed. Locate principal pedestrian entrances to new nonresidential buildings on the sidewalk; any entrances from parking areas should be incidental or emergency use only.

Policy D-1-i: Wrapping Parking Structures. Consider requiring new development of above- grade parking structures to be wrapped with and provide direct access to active uses, such as dwelling units, offices, and shopping spaces.

Policy D-1-j: Lighting Standards. Update lighting standards to reflect best practices and protect adjoining uses from glare and spillover light.

Objective D-2: Enhance the visual image of all “gateway” routes entering the Fresno Planning Area.

Policy D-2-a: Design Requirements for Gateways. Create unified design requirements for gateways to welcome travelers to the City’s Activity Centers.

Policy D-2-b: Funding for Gateway Enhancements. Pursue funding to implement gateway enhancement plans and programs.

Policy D-2-c: Highway Beautification. Work with Caltrans, the Fresno Council of Governments, Tree Fresno, neighboring jurisdictions, and other organizations to obtain funding for highway beautification programs.

Objective D-3: Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.

Policy D-3-a: Green Street Tree Planting. Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, with a well-balanced variety and spacing of trees to establish continuous shading and visual continuity for each streetscape. Strive to achieve coherent linkages between public and private spaces, prioritizing tree planting along tree- deficient Arterial Roadways in neighborhoods characterized by lower per capita rates of vehicle ownership.

3. 1-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Policy D-3-b: Funding for Green Street Tree Planting Program. Pursue funding for the Green Street Tree Planting Program, including landscaping of median islands.

Policy D-3-c: Local Streets as Urban Parkways. Develop local streets as “urban parkways,” where appropriate, with landscaping and pedestrian space.

Policy D-3-d: Undergrounding Utilities. Partner with utility companies to continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.

Objective D-4: Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.

Policy D-4-a: Design Review for Large Buildings. Consider adopting and implementing a streamlined design review process for new construction and visible exterior alterations of large and significant multi-family, mixed-use and non-residential development.

Policy D-4- b: Incentives for Pedestrian-Oriented Anchor Retail . Consider adopting and implementing incentives for new pedestrian -friendly anchor retail at intersections within Activity Centers and along corridors to attract retail clientele and maximize foot traffic.

Policy D-4-c: Appropriate Day and Night Activity. Promote new residential, commercial and related forms of development that foster both day and appropriate night time activity; visual presence on the street level; appropriate lighting; and minimally obstructed view areas.

Policy D -4-d: Design for Safety. Continue to involve the City’s Police Department in the development review process to ensure new buildings are designed with security and safety in mind.

Policy D-4-e: Flexibility through Overlay Districts. Allow innovative lot designs and patterns to enhance community livability in residential neighborhoods through new zoning provisions, with flexible development standards.

Policy D-4-f: Design Compatibility with Residential Uses. Strive to ensure that all new non - residential land uses are developed and maintained in a manner complementary to and compatible with adjacent residential land uses, to minimize interface problems with the surrounding environment and to be compatible with public facilities and service.

Policy D-4-g: Development Code Update for Design Concepts. Ensure that standards in the Development Code implement General Plan design concepts for each land use type.

Policy D-4-h: Metal Buildings. Promote the establishment of standards and guidelines for metal buildings to be acceptable and economical forms of structures. • New buildings with metal walls or metal roofs shall be painted or have other appropriate finishes, as approved by the City; and
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-7

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
• Mechanical equipment shall be screened with parapet walls, mechanical wells, or other means. Roof vent color must match that of the roof. The distinctive pattern of ribs and joints in standing seam and other metal roofing materials should coordinate dimensionally with similar elements in exterior walls.

Objective D-6: Encourage design that celebrates and supports the cultural and ethnic diversity of Fresno.

Policy D-6-a: Consult with neighboring populations, including non-English speaking groups, to inform the architecture, landscape, programming, and interior design of City-owned facilities such as parks, offices, street lighting, and other visible features.

Policy D-6-b: Consider adopting and implementing incentives for, and support efforts by, private development to incorporate culturally-specific architectural elements in areas with a predominant ethnic population.

Objective D -7: Continue applying local urban form, land use, and design policies to specific neighborhoods and locations.

Policy D-7-b: Consider preparing new community, neighborhood, and/or Specific Plans for neighborhoods and locations that were covered by repealed plans.

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective M T-3: Identify, promote and preserve scenic or aesthetically unique corridors by application of appropriate policies and regulations
Policy MT -3-b: Preserve street trees lining designated scenic corridors or boulevards.

Replace trees of the predominant type and in a comparable pattern to existing plantings if there is no detriment to public safety.

Fresno Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance
The City’s Municipal Code contains Chapter 15 Article 20, General Site Regulations, which provides standards for outdoor lighting in an effort to minimize light pollution, glare, and light trespass caused by inappropriate or misaligned light fixtures, while improving nighttime public safety, utility, security, and preserving the night sky as a natural resource and thus facilitating people’s enjoyment of stargazing.

3. 1-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Fresno Tree Preservation Ordinance
The City’s Municipal Code contains Chapter 13 Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, which contains policies regarding the preservation of trees within city limits. The Article requires the City to plant, maintain, protect, preserve, and to regulate the planting, maintaining, protecting and preserving of public trees and landscaping; to eliminate dangerous conditions caused by trees and shrubs that may result in injuries to perso ns or property; to protect all trees within the city against the spread of disease or pests, and to provide for the special protection of heritage and landmark trees within

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
the city limits. The Fresno Municipal Code implements a comprehensive permitting process for new and existing development and property owners and provides feasible alternatives and options to tree removal where practicable.

3.1.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have significant impact on aesthetics if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • In non- urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings ( public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 3.1-1: Specific Plan implementation would not result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas. (No Impact)
No part of Plan Area is designated as a scenic vista by the City of Fresno General Plan, nor does the Plan Area contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify it for designation as a scenic vista.

The Plan Area is partially visible from State Route 99. Because the topogra phy of the Plan Area is relatively flat and SR 99 is at a similar elevation as the surrounding area, views from SR 99 are primarily limited to the more developed and urbanized portions of the Plan Area. More specifically, views from SR 99 primarily consist of uses located immediately adjacent to the freeway. As the Plan Area is not identified as having scenic vistas and expansive views across the Plan Area are limited due to intervening structures and the relatively flat and consistent topogr aphy of the area, no impact would occur to scenic vistas.

Impact 3.1 -2: Project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. (No Impact) There are no designated State Scenic Highways within or in the vicinity of the Project area. There are no highways in Fresno County listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System. Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways are located east of the Planning Area along State Route 180 (approximately 7 miles east of the Planning Area) and along State Route 168 east of the City of Clovis (approximately 5 miles Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-9

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
east of the Planning Area). The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is located within the County of Madera, more than 30 miles northeast of the Planning Area. Thus, no impact to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would occur with implementation of the Project.

Impact 3.1 -3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Future development of the Plan Area with new and/or more intense development of residential, commercial, employment, mixed use, open space, and public facil ity uses would substantially change the visual character of individual sites and the Plan Area.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would change the existing visual character of the Plan Area from a relatively undeveloped area to a primarily urbanized area. Impacts related to a change in visual character are largely subjective and very diffi cult to quantify. People have different reactions to the visual quality of a project or a project feature, and what is considered “attractive” to one viewer may be considered “unattractive” to other viewers.

The western half of the Plan Area is generally more rural and less developed while more developed portions of the Plan Area are along SR 99 and the southeastern portion of the Plan Area. The proposed Plan would result in the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses, which may contribute to changes in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. In order to reduce visual impacts, development within the Plan Area is required to be consistent with the General Plan, Fresno Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed Specific Plan, which includes development standards in order to ensure quality and cohesive design. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation; exterior lighting standards and specifications; and landscaping standards. Implementation of the design standards would ensure quality design throughout the Plan Area, and result in development that would be internally cohesive while maintaining an aesthetic quality similar to surrounding uses. Thus, development o f an existing developed or urbanized site would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. In addition, a majority of the parcels identified for change are already planned for development in the exising General Plan or contain existing urbanized land uses.

In addition to future development anticipated within the existing city limits, the Specific Plan anticipates future development in areas outside the existing city limits, but within the City’s SOI.

These areas are primarily rural and agricultural lands. Thus, development of these areas with more urbanized uses would alter the visual character of the area from its current conditions. However, as noted above, development within these areas would be in compliance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, along with the development standards and guidelines established by the Specific Plan to ensure compatible development and cohesive development that considers the visual character of the specific site and surrounding uses. Further, the Specific Plan anticipates less urbanized development within the outer portions of the Plan Area and appro ximately 357 acres of park, recreational, and open space uses which will provide visual relief within the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would also include visual components that would assist in enhancing the appearance of the Plan Area following site development. These improvements may include

3. 1-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
landscaping improvements such as new street trees, open lawn area and other vegetation landscaping associated with residential and non-residential development. Although compliance with development regulations and guidelines would improve the aesthetic character of the area associated with more urbanized development, existing views provided to the public of vast open space lands would be replaced with more urbani zed development. Additionally, public views of expansive rural and agricultural lands that occur to the west of the Plan Area would be limited within the Plan Area due to intervening development conditions. Thus, impacts to visual character are considered significant and unavoidable.

Various temporary visual impacts could occur as a result of construction activities as the Plan Area develops, including grading, equipment and material storage, and staging. Some of these impacts could last for several weeks or months during any single construction phase. The loss of existing landscaping and trees would also be a temporary impact until new landscaping matures. However, these construction -related impacts would b e temporary and viewer sensitivity in the majority of cases would be slight to moderate. Thus, construction impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Specific Plan includes goals policies that would reduce impacts to visual and aesthetic resources. Specifically, Infrastructure & Public Realm (IPR) Goal 2 includes policies that are intended to improve streetscapes within the Specific Plan Area and contribute to the community's safety and quality of life. Land Use & Housing (LUH) Goal 1 includes policies that promote the orderly development of the Specific Plan Area and LUH Goal 2 includes policies that promote retention of agricultural uses and agritourism within the West Area.

Overall, the loss of the visual appearance of the existing vacant and open space land in the Plan Area will change the visual character of the area in perpetuity. Compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s development regulations would reduce visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the proposed Plan would permanently convert undeveloped rural, agricultural, and open space areas to urbanized uses. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

There is no feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

The proposed Specific Plan would result in an increased development potential throughout the Plan Area. Compared to what is allowed under the existing General Plan, the Specific Plan would increase the residential development potential by 483 DU and increase the non-residential development potential by 15,478,680.15 SF. However, the only methods to completely avoid adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be to severely limit the development potential throughout the Plan Area. Methods to reduce impacts to the vis ual character or quality of the Plan Area include reducing overall development potential (via reduced densities and floor -area-ratios), reducing building heights, limiting building mass, and reducing lot coverage and/or requiring development, which would have the effect of limiting density and the number of residential and non-residential development that can be accommodated on sites, which would also have the effect of reducing the density and capacity of sites anticipated to accommodate residential, commercial, public, industrial, and mixed use development. These types of mitigation are not consistent with the objectives of the proposed Project.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-11

Impact 3.1 -4: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in light and glare impacts. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would introduce new sources of light and glare into the Plan Area. However, there are no specific features within the proposed Plan that would create unusual light and glare. Implementation of existing Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance and the General Plan policies, such as Policies D-4-c, D-1-j, addressing light and glare may also ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.

Many areas within the Plan Area are currently exposed to a nominal amount of light due to the rural and agricultural setting. The western half of the Plan Area is generally more rural and less developed, and therefore uses within those areas are exposed to less artificial light from urbanized uses. Other areas within the Plan Area are exposed to substantial lighting, such as the more developed portions of the Plan Area along SR 99 and the southeastern portion of the Plan Area.

Increases in lighting and the introduction of new light sources would occur with new development in the Plan Area. Development within the Plan Area will include new roads , some of which will include lighting systems along the rights -of-way. Residential development will include interior and exterior light sources. Non-residential development will include lighting system s for parking areas, building, and signs, including security lighting. Some park and recreation facilities may include sports lighting to illuminate play areas for evening activities. Other public facility uses, such as schools and fire stations, will also involve lighting for parking, buildings, and security. Additionally, with the increase in development in the Plan Area, there will be increases in nighttime traffic that will increase lighting from car headlights. Although lighting would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis, for the purposes of this analysis, it has been conservatively assumed that exterior lighting would be located throughout most of the outdoor areas of the Plan Area. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to , street lighting in the r esidential areas; exterior lighting on the buildings; courtyard lighting; and parking lot lighting.

The introduction of new light sources and intensification of lighting within the Plan Area would be most notable in areas that are not currently developed or have minimal development within the western and southern portions of the Plan Area. Development in the westernmost portion of the Plan Area could result in lighting within the Plan Area being visible from uses adjacent to and outside of the Plan Area. The City’s Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance would reduce the impact of lighting impacts onto adjacent properties. However, although direct impacts associated with new lighting would be reduced with compliance with General Plan policies and adherance to the City’s Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance, the overall increase in lighting that would occur within the area would create a new source of substantial light which could adversely affect nighttime views in the area, specifically the nightime sky.

3. 1-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LIGHT IMPACTS

GLARE IMPACTS

Development in accordance with the Specific Plan will increase the amount of structures that could create new sources of glare within the Planning Area and directly adjacent to the Planning Area.

These new sources of glare could be from materials used on building facades, parking lots, signs, and motor vehicles. Within the city limits, there are currently many sources of glare, and future development will add to the existing sources. Within the rural and agricultural areas, there are limited sources of glare. The primary sources of glare that will be added within the Planning Area will occur from vertical structures such as building facades. Parking lots, roadway surfaces and motor vehicles do not create substantial amount of glare. Due to the substantial amount of new building square footage planned for the Plan Area, new buildings may have the potential, to result in a substantial increase in glare. This increase could result in a potentially significant glare impact .

However, glare impacts would be reduced with compliance of General Plan policies, design review, municipal code requirements, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 that will require reflective building materials, visible from sensitive receptors, be prohibited from future project sites within the Plan Area.

CONCLUSION

There is the potential for reflective building materials and windows to result in increases in daytime glare within the Plan Area. The use of reflective building materials, including polished steel and reflective glass, could increase daytime glare for sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project area. However, Mitigation Measure 3.1 -1 would ensure that the potential for glare from proposed project buildings and structures would be minimized. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this is considered less than significant impact.

Light sources from the proposed development may have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding areas, by introducing nuisance light into the area and decreasing the visibility of nighttime skies. Additionally, on-site light sources may create light spillover impacts on surrounding land uses in the absence of mitigation. However, the proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Fresno outdoor lighting and illumination standards and specifications, and would be required to incorporate design features to minimize the effects of light and glare. However, without a detailed lighting plan, increase of nighttime lighting is a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1 -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with nighttime lighting and light spillage onto adjacent properties to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: In order to reduce the potential for glare from buildings and structures within the project area, the submitted plan(s) for all future projects in the Plan Area shall show that the use of reflective building materials that have the potential to result in glare that would be visible from sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site s shall be prohibited. The City of Fresno Planning and Development Department shall ensure that the approved project uses appropriate building materials with low reflectivity to minimize potential glare nuisance to off -site Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-13

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
receptors. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: A lighting plan for all future projects in the Plan Area subject to Section 15-2508 and Section 15-2015 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall be prepared prior to the approval of the entitlement application for each project site. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the lighting systems and other exterior lighting throughout the project area have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with Section 15-2508. – Lighting and Glare and Section 15-2015 – Outdoor Lighting and Illumination of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. Use of LED lighting or other proven energy efficient lighting shall be required for facilities to be dedicated to the City of Fresno for maintenance.

In addition to complying with the above City of Fresno Municipal Code requirements, the lighting plan shall comply with the following design requirements, as applicable:
• Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences. • Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.
• Lighting systems for nonresidential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the li ghting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.
• Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.

These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

3. 1-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts to agricultural resources associated with the development of the proposed Specific Plan . This section also discusses the potential conflicts between the proposed uses within the Plan Area and ongoing agricultural activities in the vicinity of the Plan Area. This section is primarily based on information from the following resources:
• City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 2020); • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017);
• Fresno County Crop Report (County of Fresno, Agricultural Commissioner, 2022).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) . The portion of the comment letter related to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A.

3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies lands that have agriculture value and maintains a statewide map of these lands called the Important Farmlands Inventory (IFI). IFI classifies land based upon the productive capabilities of the land, rather than the mere presence of ideal soil conditions.

The suitability of soils for agricultural use is just one factor for determining the productive capabilities of land. Suitability is determined based on many characteristics, including fertility, slope, texture, drainage, depth, and salt content. A variety of classification systems have been devised by the State to categorize soil capabilities. The two most widely used systems are the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index. The Capability Classification System classifies soils from Class I to Class VIII based on their ability to support agriculture with Class I being the highest quality soil. The Storie Index considers other factors such as slope and texture to arrive at a rating. The IFI is in part based upon both of these two classification systems.

Soil Capability Classification System
T
he Soil Capability Classification System takes into consideration soil limitations, the risk of damage wh
en soils are used, and the way in which soils respond to treatment. Capability classes range from Class I soils, which have few limitations for agriculture, to Class VIII soils that are unsuitable for agriculture. Generally, as the rating of the capability classification increases, yields and profits are more difficult to obtain. A general description of soil classifications, as defined by the Natura l Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is provided in Table 3.2-1 below.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-1

TABLE 3.2-1: SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION

CLASS DEFINITION
I Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.

II Soils have moderate limitations that restrict choice plants or that require moderate conservation practices.

III Soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.

IV Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.

V Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations; impractical to remove that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VIII Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plans and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife habitat, water supply, or aesthetic purposes.

SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019
Storie Index Rating System
TABLE 3.2-2: STORIE INDEX RATING SYSTEM
The Storie Index Rating system ranks soil characteristics according to their suitability for agriculture from Grade 1 soils (80 to 100 rating) which have few or no limitations for agricultural production, to Grade 6 soils (less than 10) which are not suitable f or agriculture. Under this system, soils deemed less than prime can function as prime soils when limitations such as poor drainage, slopes, or soil nutrient deficiencies are partially or entirely removed. The six grades, ranges in index rating, and definition of the grades, as defined by the NRCS, are provided below in Table 3.2-2.

GRADE INDEX RATING DEFINITION
1 80 - 100 Few limitations that restrict their use for crops 2 60 – 80 Suitable for most crops, but have minor limitations that narrow the choice of crops and have a few special management needs
3 40 – 60 Suited to a few crops or to special crops and require special management 4 20 – 40 If used for crops, severely limited and require special management 5 10 – 20 Not suited for cultivated crops, but can be used for pasture and range 6 Less than 10 Soil and land types generally not suited to farming

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019
In addition to soil suitability, other factors for determining the agricultural value of land include whether soils are irrigated, the depth of soil, water -holding capacity, and physical and chemical characteristics. Areas considered to have the greatest agricultural potential are designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; refer to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program discussion below.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The F
armland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to continue the Important Farmland mapping efforts begun in 1975 by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS). T he intent of the USDA-SCS was to produce agriculture maps based on soil quality and land use across the nation. As part of the nationwide agricultural land use

3.2-
2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
mapping effort, the USDA -SCS developed a series of definitions known as Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria. The LIM criteria classified the land’s suitability for agricultural production; suitability included both the physical and chemical charac teristics of soils and the actual land use.

Important Farmland Maps are derived from the USDA-SCS soil survey maps using the LIM criteria.

Since 1980, the State of California has assisted the USDA -SCS with completing its mapping in the state. The FMMP was created within the California Department of Conservation (CDC) to carry on the mapping activity on a continuing basis, and with a greater level of detail. The CDC applied a greater level of detail by modifying the LIM criteria for use in California. The LIM criteria in California utilize the Soil Capability Classific ation and Storie Index Rating systems, but also consider physical conditions such as dependable water supply for agricultural production, soil temperature range, depth of the ground water table, flooding potential, rock fragment content, and rooting depth.

The CDC classifies lands into seven agriculture -related categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Statewide Farmland), Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance (Local Farmland), Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land (Urban Land), and Other Land. The first four types listed above are collectively designated by the State as Important Farmlands. Important Farmland maps for California are compiled using the modified LIM criteria (as described above) and current land use information. The minimum mapping unit is 10 acres unless otherwise specified. Units of land smaller than 10 acres are incorporated into surrounding classifications. Each of the seven land types is summarized below.

PRIME FARMLAND
P
rime Farmland is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sus
tain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
F
armland of Sta tewide I mportance is farmland with characteristics similar to those of Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.

Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

UNIQUE FARMLAND
U
nique Fa rmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-3

FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE
Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

GRAZING LAND
Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND
Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10 -acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

OTHER LAND

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borr ow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

FRESNO COUNTY AGRICULTURE
Although the Plan Area is located within the Fresno Sphere of Influence ( SOI), it is immediately adjacent to active agricultural operations in Fresno County. Agriculture is a major activity within the undeveloped portions of Fresno County. According to the 2 022 Fresno County Crop Report, published by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner ’s Office , the gross value of Fresno County’s agricultural production for 2017 was $8,095,546,000. Grapes were the top agricultural commodity grown in the County, with production values over $1.2 billion.

In 2020, Fresno County was estimated to have 1,346,199 acres of Important Farmland: 663,706 acres of Prime Farmland, 385,283 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 95,048 acres of Unique Farmland, and 202,162 acres of Farmland of Local Importance [ California Department of Conservation (CDC), 2020]. Over the past decade, the availability of Important Farmland has been consistently declining from year to year primarily because of conversions to urban and other developed land uses.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (approximately 11 square miles) in the city of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the eleven square miles within the Plan

3.2 -4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s SOI boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth. A large amount of land within the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels. The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from appr oximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level.

As shown on Figure 3.2-1, the Plan Area has approximately 3, 228.24 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built -Up, according to the State Department of Conservation. Prime Farmland is principally located outside of the Plan Area, with the exception of approximately 1.5 acres located near the western boundary, west of North Grantland Avenue. The Plan Area has 153.9 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance which are located primarily in the western portion of the Plan Area. Approximately 854.13 acres of Unique Farmland are located within the Plan Area, most of which is within the southwest portion of the Plan Area. Farmland of Local Importance is located throughout the entire Plan Area, and totals approximately 1,158.12 acres. Vacant or Disturbed Land and Rural Residential Land account for approximately 1,643.23 acres within the growth area.

ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL USES
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99 ; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; and incorporated areas of the c ity of Fresno to the north ; incorporated areas of the c ity of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses) ; unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) ; and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

Lands to the north, and east of the Plan Area are classified as urban and built up and are currently zoned for Light Industrial, Commercial , and Mixed Use. Lands to the south of the Plan Area are classified as urban and built up with large portions classified as Farmland of Local Importance. These lands are currently zoned for Low and Medium Density Residential, Community and General Commercial, Parks and Recreation, and Public and Institutional by the City of Fresno zoning map and zoned Rural Residential by the County Zoning map. The lands west of the Plan Area are classified as Farmland of Local Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime Farmland as shown on Figure 3.2 -1 and are currently zoned Exclusive Agricultural by the County of Fresno zoning map.

PROJECT AREA SOILS AND FARMLAND CHARACTERISTICS
The Soil Capability Classifications and Storie Index ratings are presented in Table 3.2-3. As shown in Table 3.2-3, the Soil Survey of Fresno County, shows that the Plan Area contains Capability Class II, Class III and Class IV (non -irrigated and irrigated soils) . Soils present within the project area are shown in Figure 3.6-1 and described below.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-5

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE 3.2-3: ON-SITE SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS AND STORIE INDEX RATING

SOIL NAME
OILS APABILITYC LASSIFICATION1C TORIES
INDEX

CRES INA

PLAN AREA IRRIGATED NON-IRRIGATED
Exeter loam IIIs IVs 35 215.7
Exeter sandy loam IIIs IVs 34 1,227.6
Exeter sandy loam, shallow IVs IVs 23 150.2
Hanford gravelly sandy loam IVs IIs 72 15.0
Hanford sandy loam, benches IVe IIe 86 17.3
Hesperia fine sandy loam moderately deep IVs IIs 90 1.7 Pollasky fine sandy loam 2-9% IVe IVe 85 2.6
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% IVe IVe 78 5.3
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% IIIs IVs 31 213.4
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% IVs IVs 25 757.6
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% IVs IVs 16 1,523.4
San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% IVs IVs 21 2,872.8 TOTAL 7,002.6
NOTES

1. CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES ARE SOIL GROUPS WITHIN ONE CLASS. THEY ARE DESIGNATED BY ADDING A SMALL LETTER, E, W, S, OR C, TO THE CLASS NUMERAL, FOR EXAMPLE, IIE. THE LETTER ‘E’ SHOWS THAT THE MAIN HAZARD IS THE RISK OF EROSION UNLESS CLOSE- GROWING PLANT COVER IS MAINTAINED ; ‘W’ SHOWS THAT WATER IN OR ON THE SOIL INTERFERES WITH PLANT GROWTH OR CULTIVATION (IN SOME SOILS THE WETNESS CAN BE PARTLY CORRECTED BY ARTIFICIAL DRAINAGE ); ‘S’ SHOWS THAT THE SOIL IS LIMITED MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS SHALLOW , DROUGHTY, OR STONY; AND ‘C’, USED IN ONLY SOME PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, SHOWS THAT THE CHIEF LIMITATION IS CLIMATE THAT IS VERY COLD OR VERY DRY.

SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.

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

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

Hesperia Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 1.7 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1 in Section 3.6). The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained :
soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Used for desert range, and for production of irrigated orchards, row crops, field crops, grain, hay, pasture and grapes. Native vegetation consists of creosotebush in the high desert and sparse annuals in the valley. Well drained; negligible to low runoff, moderately rapid permeability.

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

San Joaquin Loam . This soil is located throughout the entirety of the Plan Area on approximately 5,367.2 acres (see Figure 3.6-1 in Section 3.6). The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent.

Well and moderately well drained; medium to very high runoff; very slow permeability. Some areas are subject to rare or occasional flooding. Typically used as cropland and livestock grazing; crops are small grains, irrigated pasture and rice; vineyards, fruit and nut crops.

3.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the agricultural resources of the state including the California Department of Conservation. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Program
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Farmland Protection Program (FPP). This is a program that is designed to conserve productive farmland. The NRCS provides funds to agencies for the purchase of conservation easements that meet the specific requirements of the program. Landowners that are interested in the program must agree to conserve their farmland for a minimum period of thirty years.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-7

STATE
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, was established based on numerous State legislative findings regarding the importance of agricultural lands in an urbanizing society. Policies emanating from those findings include those that discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and discourage discontinuous urban development patterns, which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents.

The Williamson Act authorizes each county to establish an agricultural preserve. Land that is within the agricultural preserve is eligible to be placed under a contract between the property owner and County that would restrict the use of the land to agriculture in exchange for a tax assessment tha t is based on the yearly production yield. The contracts have a ten-year term that is automatically renewed each year, unless the property owner r equests a non-renewal or the contract is cancelled.

If the contract is cancelled the property owner is assessed a fee of up to 12.5 percent of the property value.

The Williamson Act also outlines the process for filing for Non-renewal, meaning enrolled lands for which non-renewal has been filed. Upon the filing of non-renewal, the existing contract remains in effect for the balance of the period remaining on the contract. During the non-renewal process, the annual tax assessment gradually increases. At the end of the nine-year non-renewal period, the contract expires and the land is no longer enforceably restricted. Within the Plan Area, approximately 64 acres are under Williamson Act- Mixed Enrollment Agricultural Land, meaning enrolled lands containing a combination of Prime, Non-Prime, Open Space Easement, or other contracted or enrolled lands not yet delineated by the County.

According to the latest statewide data (2023), there are approximately 28.63 acres within the Plan Area under a Williamson Act contract. As shown in Figure 3.2 -2, these lands are located in the southwestern portion of the Plan Area near Roosevelt Elementary School. There are no immediately adjacent properties under a Williamson Act contract.

Farmland Security Zones

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In 1998 the State legislature established the Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) program. FSZs are similar to Williamson Act contracts, in that the intention is to protect farmland from conversion. The main difference however, is that the FSZ must be designated as Prime Farm land, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The term of the contract is a minimum of 20 years. The property owners are offered an incentive of greater property tax reductions when compared to the W illiamson Act contract tax incentives; the incentives were developed to encourage conservation of Prime Farmland through FSZs. The non -renewal and cancellation procedures are similar to those for Williamson Act contracts. The Plan Area and the immediately adjacent parcels are not within the FSZ program.

3. 2-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
While the Plan Area is primarily designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation, the Plan Area does contain prime soils as defined by the California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program. According to the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program, farmland shall be considered Prime Farmland if it meets the definition of "prime agricultural land" in Government Code Section 51201. Government Code Section 51201 states that prime agricultural land means any of the following:
(1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications.
(2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture.
(4) Land planted with fruit - or nut -bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years.

LOCAL
Fresno County Right to Farm Ordinance
The Fresno County “Right to Farm” Ordinance is discussed in Section 17.04.100 of the County Code.

This ordinance helps protect farming operations from interruptions due to land use conflicts with adjacent properties. The intent of the ordinance is to allow farmers to conduct normal farming operations (harvest crops, till soil, or spray crops) without interference from nearby land owners. In essence, it allows farmers to conduct their operations as needed.

Fresno County Right-to-Farm Notice states the following: It is the declared policy of Fresno County to preserve, protect, and encourage development of its agricultural land and industries for the production of food and other agricultural products. Residents of property in or near agricultural districts should be prepared to accept the inconveniences and discomfort associated with normal farm activities. Consistent with this policy, California Civil Code 3482.5 (right -to-farm law) provides that an agricultural pursuit, as defined, maintained for commercial uses shall not become a nuisance due to a changed condition in a locality after such agricultural pursuit has been in operation for three years.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-9

Fresno General Plan

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The City’s General Plan includes goals, policies, standards, and actions that strive to preserve agricultural resources and minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. The following General Plan goals and policies are relevant to the proposed Specific Plan.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE
Objective RC-9: Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.

Policy RC-9-a: Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land.

Policy RC-9-b: Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
• Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; • Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or
• Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).

Policy RC-9-c: In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside city limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covena nts or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some of all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.

3.2.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on agricultural or forest resources if it will:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use;

3.2-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; • Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g));
• Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; • Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 3.2 -1: Specific Pl an implementation would convert Im portant Farmland to non-agricultural land uses. (Significant and Unavoidable) Within the city limits, the Plan Area is currently zoned for urban land uses (i.e., residential single family, multi -family, public and institutional, mixed use and commercial) and proposes zoning changes similar to the existing land uses . Land uses surrounding the Plan Area consist of light industrial, commercial general, commercial highway and auto, open space, single family residential, rural residential, single family residential agricultural, limited agriculture, exclusive agriculture and other similar land uses . The Plan Area is located adjacent to productive agricultur al land or lands zoned for agricultural uses, primarily within the County of Fresno limits . Although the Specific Plan anticipates and plans for future annexation and development of this land into the city, annexation is not currently proposed. The timing of future annexation proposals is not currently known. At the time of annexation proposals, the land proposed for annexation and development would be reviewed to determine if Important Farmland would be converted to non-a gricultural land uses or result in a conflict with lands zoned for agricultural uses. If future annexation and development would involve the loss of important farmlands to non-a gricultural uses, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would be required.

The City of Fresno is currently working on a Farmland Preservation Program, which was proposed to be adopted by the end of 2025.
1 While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2 -1 would reduce the above -identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a less - than-significant level due to the fact that active agricultural land would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Feasible mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.2 -1: Prior to initiation of grading activities, project proponents shall compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique 1 Personal communication with Casey Lauderdale, City of Fresno, June 12, 2024.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-11

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Farmland within the Plan Area by preserving an equivalent type and quality of land at a 1:1 ratio through recordation of a conservation easement, or other recorded instrument such as a covenant or deed that restricts the preserved land in perpetuity to agricultural uses.

The acreage and type of land used to compensate for the loss of farmland shall be determined using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given product’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands.

In the alternative, if the City adopts a Farmland Preservation Program pursuant to Fresno General Plan Policy RC-9-c, project proponents may compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland by complying with the adopted Farmland Preservation Program.

Impact 3.2 -2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use , or a Williamson Act Contract . (Significant and Unavoidable)
According to the latest statewide data (2023), there are approximately 28.63 acres within the Plan Area under a Williamson Act contract. As shown in Figure 3.2 -2, these lands are located in the southwestern portion of the Plan Area near Roosevelt Elementary School. There are no immediately adjacent properties under a Williamson Act contract. The approximately 28.63 acres are currently designated for medium low density residential and Urban Neighborhood uses under the Fresno General Plan and are zoned rural residential by Fresno County . Agricultural uses are currently permitted in areas zoned as rural residential by the County.

Under the proposed Specific Plan, the approximately 28.63 acres of Williamson Act Contract land are proposed for Medium Low Density Residential where agricultural uses are intended to be transitioned to urban residential uses. The existing agricultural uses can continue to operate, but potentially as legal non-conforming land uses. However, future revisions to the zoning map related to agricultural uses would result in a significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural uses because non-agricultural uses, such as low, medium low density, and medium density residential would be allowed on the existing Contract land.

Although the proposed project includes measures to reduce impacts to the conversation of agricultural uses through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2 -1, adherence to General Plan policies, and the application of both the ANX Overlay (which allows certain rural uses, including crop cultivation, to persist as a permitted use) per Specific Plan Policy LUH 2.4 and legal non - conforming provisions per the Development Code, this would still be considered a potentially significant impact because agricultural zoning would still be replaced with non-agricultural zoning, which is required for implementation of the project . As such , there are no feasible mitigation measures and the impact would not be reduced to a less -than-significant level due to the fact that land zoned for agricultural uses would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Therefore, this would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

3.2-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Impact 3.2-3: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
The Plan Area and surrounding area does not include any land designated or zoned as forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned for Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Additionally, there are no forest lands within the Plan Area or surrounding area.

Therefore, because the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact to forest resources or timberland.

Impact 3.2 -4: Future d evelopment of the Plan Area would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations and conversion of farmland or forest land to non -agricultural or non-forest land use . ( Less than Significant)
As discussed in Impact 3.2-1, future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Except for direct conversion, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would impact agricultural land outside of the Plan Area. Although the Specific Plan may convert land to more urbanized uses, it will not contribute to the same occurring outside of the Plan Area because the land outside of the Plan Area is within the County and outside the City’s SOI and growth Boundary. It is noted that future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan could create pressure to convert farmland to non-agricultural uses if there becomes a financial incentive to do so.

In addition, Fresno County’s Right to Farm Ordinance is intended to reduce the occurrence of such conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses between the County of Fresno and the City of Fresno through requiring the transferor of any property in the County to provide a disclosure statement describing that the County permits agricultural operation s. Projects outside of the Plan Area that are compliant with the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance would include adequate measures to buffer project uses from adjacent agricultural uses and would reduce adverse effects on neighboring agricultural uses. Since the proposed Specific Plan would not result in other changes that would lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations or the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural land uses, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Separately, the development in accordance with the proposed project would not impact forest land because no parcel within or and adjacent to the Plan Area are designated as forest land or forest land use . Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact on farmland or forest land involving other changes in the existing environment.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-13

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
This page left intentionally blank.

3.2-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ._•I
I•-.
-----. L .. _.J
c:::::I
1111
1111
'
■■-••-· ,__ . i
.-·-·· i • I• . . . r··.. ....
j
-. ..... ,
i
i.-·-··v·-••-.
i i
i,-•-··1
i ··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··
("""" ··-· •• • I j
r·-·•- ■--••-··-··-··' l, ____ ; :

I
.--■■--. •
I j .. _____ ..._ ______ _
r··-··-··-··1
r··-··-··-··J r··---..:

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

I -~
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water Area
0 ½¼
Miles
Farmland Classifications
FIGURE 3.2-1.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Fresno 2020; City of Fresno. Map date: January 5, 2024 M a d e r a C o u n t y

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
This page left intentionally blank.

3.2-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan r··-·· • I ._ ___ _.
c::::::I
. i r,-... .,
. ., , .. 1·•-··-··---...... j•
·': , .. ,
41' ..... J..., •• \
•• j\./ I ♦•"" I • I
•··-·• '\ I 1'
I ·• •
·-··-· ! ·-..... ,;
·, . : r·· \.:
. .i
........
!
i----~---·1
i i--··-,
!
' -■■--■--■-■■-■•-••--'
.. r-1 r:
~-·-··-··-··-··"' :...,._Jj I
.----■ .= . .
! '··-··--··-··-= i .-·-··-··-. i r·-··-··-= r·-·J
i 1·_j (.1•-'
··-··----··-••-,, r ·--=
·-··1 !L •• ..! l .,_, r·-··1 ::. :_ ___ , .. ...-•:.. .. , □ i ~---~ -----------
i r---, . :.. ....... -.. ---~ ---..
1111
CJ
1111
r··-·
! ··-··-··-, : i •-••-. r·-··1 I •
r••-; i ,_, ■1 1: i .. _ . .i
I I I I ■
• 1 i ! . r· ! : . . i J' • .., r·" ··-··-· I •
:u .. , .. i .J '-••-··
••- I
"-··-··-··"' .---·-··-··-··1
L •• 1 ,-••-:
: -·-·
i°-,, •• - I
"-••r 11•-• ■-•I
r-··-··-·i : ..... ! )
@--
WBullardAve
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 Fig
ar
de
n Dr
99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Williamson Act Enrollmen
t Type
Prime
Nonprime
Mixed
Nonrenewal
0 ½ ¼
Miles
W
illiamson Act Lands
FIGURE 3.2-2.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: California Department of Conservation Williamson Act Database 2023; City of Fresno. Map date: September 6, 2024 M a d e r a C o u n t y

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
This page left intentionally blank.

3.2-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
This section describes regional air quality, the current attainment status of the air basin, local sensitive receptors, emission sources, and the impacts that are likely to result from Specific Plan implementation. Following this discussion is an assessment of consistency of the Specific Plan with applicable policies and local plans. The Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy analysis is located in Section 3.7. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (California Air Resources Board [CARB], 2005);
• Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impact (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD], 2015);
• 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard (SJVAPCD, 2022); • 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard (SJVAPCD, 2024); • CalEEMod (v.2022.1) (CAPCOA, 2024); and
• Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations (Kittelson & Associates, 2024).

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

3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
The City of Fresno (City) is in the central portion of the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Tulare, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. Air pollution from significant activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on - and off-road mobile sources. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and an average of 35 miles wide. It is bordered by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south.

There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeast end (elevation 408 feet) to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Straits. At its no rthern end is the Sacramento Valley, which comprises the northern half of California’s Central Valley. The bowl- shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the valley (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Climate
The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone and is influenced by a subtropical high -pressure cell most of the year. Mediterranean climates are characterized by sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-1

3.3 AIR QUALITY
in winter. Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100°F in the valley.

The subtropical high -pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer, and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions in the valley. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500 to 3,000 feet).

Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks, with surface temperatures often lowering into the 30°F. During these events, fog can be present and inversions are extremely strong.

These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Wind Patterns
Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing and transporting it to other locations.

Especially in summer, winds in the San Joaquin Valley most frequently blow from the northwest. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement and c hannel the air mass towards the southeastern end of the valley. Marine air can flow into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta and over Altamont Pas s and Pacheco Pass, where it can flow along the axis of the valley, over the Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. This wind pattern contributes to transporting pollutants from the Sacramento Valley and the Bay Area into the SJVAB. Approximately 27 percent of the total emissions in the northern portion, 11 percent of total emissions in the central region, and 7 percent of total emission in the south valley of the SJVAB are attributed to air pollution transported from these two areas.1 The Coastal Range is a barrier to air movement to the west and the high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east (the highest peaks in the southern Sierra Nevada reach almost halfway through the Earth’s atmosphere). Many days in the winter are marked by stagnation events where winds are very weak. Transport of pollutants during winter can be very limited. A secondary but significant summer wind pattern is from the southeast and can be associated with nighttime drainage winds, prefrontal conditions, and summer monsoons.

Two significant diurnal wind cycles that occur frequently in the valley are the sea breeze and mountain-valley upslope and drainage flows. The sea breeze can accentuate the northwest wind flow, especially on summer afternoons. Nighttime drainage flows can accentuate the southeast movement of air down t he valley. In the mountains during periods of weak synoptic scale winds, winds tend to be upslope during the day and downslope at night. Nighttime and drainage flows are especially pronounced during the winter when flow from the easterly direction is enhanced by nighttime cooling in the Sierra Nevada. Eddies can form in the valley wind flow and can recirculate 1 SJVAPCD. Frequently Asked Questions,
http://www.valleyair.org/general_info/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20being%20done%20 to%20improve%20ai r%20quality%20in%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley, accessed July 12, 2024.

3.3-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
a polluted air mass for an extended period. Such an eddy occurs in the Fresno area during both winter and summer (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Temperature
Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Photochemical air pollution (primarily ozone) is produced by the atmospheric reaction of organic substances (such as volatile organic compounds) and nitrogen dioxide under the influence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are very dependent on the amount of solar radiation, especially during late spring, summer, and early fall. Ozone levels typically peak in the afte rnoon. After the sun goes down, the chemical reaction between nitrous oxide and ozone begins to dominate. This reaction tends to scavenge and remove the ozone in the metropolitan areas through the early morning hours, resulting in the lowest ozone levels, possibly reaching zero at sunrise in areas with high nitrogen oxides emissions. At sunrise, nitrogen oxides tend to peak, partly due to low levels of ozone at this time and also due to the morning commuter vehicle emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. However, extremely hot temperatures can “lift” or “break” the inversion layer.

Typically, if the inversion layer does not lift to allow the buildup of contaminants to be dispersed, the ozone levels will peak in the late afternoon. If the inversion layer breaks and the resultant afternoon winds occur, the ozone will peak in the early afternoon and decrease in the late afternoon as the contaminants are dispersed or transported out of the SJVAB.

Ozone levels are low during winter periods when there is much less sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Precipitation, Humidity, and Fog
Precipitation and fog may reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog can block the required solar radiation. Wet fogs can cleanse the air during winter as moisture collects on particles and deposits them on the ground. Atmospheric moisture can also increase pollution levels. In fogs with less water content, the moisture acts to form secondary ammonium nitrate particulate matter. This ammonium nitrate is part of the valley’s PM

2.5 and PM10 problem. The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the SJ VAB floor. This creates strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to tule fog.

Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM

2.5 and PM10 (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Inversions
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Air temperature in the lowest layer of the atmosphere typically decreases with altitude. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-3

3.3 AIR QUALITY
is termed an inversion. The height of the base of the inversion is known a s the “mixing height.” This is the level to which pollutants can mix vertically. Mixing of air is minimized above and below the inversion base. The inversion base represents an abrup t density change where little air movement occurs.

Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor (SJVAPCD, 2015).

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
All criteria pollutants can have human health and environmental effects at certain concentrations.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S. EPA) uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Sta ndards (NAAQS). In addition, California establishes ambient air quality standards, called California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). California law does not require that the CAAQS be met by a specified date as is the case with NAAQS.

The ambient air quality standards for the six criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.3 -1) are set to public health and the environment within an adequate margin of safety (as provided under Section 109 of the Federal Clean Air Act). Epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicology studies evaluate potential health and environmental effects of criteria pollutants, and form the scientific basis for new and revised ambient air quality standards. Principal characteristics and possible health and environmental effects from exposure to the six primary criteria pollutants generated by the project are discussed below.

Ozone (O3) is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. While O 3 in the upper atmosphere is beneficial to life by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, high concentrations of O3 at ground level are a major health and environmental concern. O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds ( ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO x) in the presence of sunlight. These reactions are stimulated by sunlight and temperature so that peak O 3 levels occur typically during the warmer times of the year. Both ROGs and NOx are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. ROGs are emitted from sources as diverse as autos, chemical manufacturing, dry cleaners, paint shops and other sources using solvents. Relatedly, reactive organic compounds (ROG) are defined as the subset of ROGs that are reactive enough to contribute substantially to atmospheric photochemistry.

The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.

Studies show associations between short -term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory -related deaths (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the resul ts vary, evidence suggest that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8 - hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019b). The average background level of ozone in the California and Nevada is approximately 48.3 parts per billion, which represents approximately 77 percent of the total ozone in the western region of the U.S. (NASA, 2015).

In addition to human health effect, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth, leaf discoloration, cell damage, and premature death. O 3 can also act as a corrosive
and oxidant, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products and other materials.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon fuels. Carbon monoxide is harmful because it binds to hemoglobin in the blood, reducing the ability of blood to carry oxygen. This interferes with oxygen delivery to the body’s organs. The most common effects of CO exposure are fatigue, headaches, confusion, and dizziness due to inadequate oxygen delivery to the brain. For people with cardiovascular disease, short -term CO exposure can further reduce thei r body’s already compromised ability to respond to the increased oxygen demands of exercise, exertion, or stress. Inadequate oxygen delivery to the heart muscle leads to chest pain and decreased exercise tolerance. Unborn babies whose mothers experience high levels of CO exposure during pregnancy are at risk of adverse developmental effects. Exposure to CO at high concentrations can also cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain.

There are no ecological or environmental effects to ambie nt CO (California Air Resources Board, 2019a).

Very high levels of CO are not likely to occur outdoors. However, when CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability for getting oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where the heart needs more oxygen than usual. They are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, shor t-term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain also known as angina ( U.S.

EPA, 2016). Such acute effects may occur under current ambient conditions for some sensitive individuals, while increases in ambient CO levels increases the risk of such incidences.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-5

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Nitrogen oxides (NOx
The main effect of increased NO2 is the increased likelihood of respiratory problems. Under ambient conditions, NO 2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone (O3) and acid rain, and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO 2 may contr ibute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma, as well as children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2.

The major mechanism for the formation of NO 2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NO x). NO x plays a major role, together with ROGs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O 3. NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major emission sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of the multiple gaseous oxidized sulfur species and is formed during the combustion of fuels containing sulfur, primarily coal and oil. The largest anthropogenic source of SO2 emissions in the U.S. is fossil fuel combustion at electric utilities and other industrial facilities.

SO2 is also emitted from certain manufacturing processes and mobile sources, including locomotives, large ships, and construction equipment.

SO2 affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children and the elderly. SO 2 is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large parts of the country.

This is especi ally noticeable in national parks. Ambient SO 2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters.

Short-term exposure to ambient SO 2 has been associated with various adverse health effects.

Multiple human clinical studies, epidemiological studies, and toxicological studies support a causal relationship between short-term exposure to ambient SO2 and respiratory morbidity. The observed health effects include decreased lung function, respiratory symptoms, and increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations for all respiratory causes. These studies further suggest that people with asthma are potentially susceptible or vulnerable to these health effects. In addition, SO2 reacts with other air pollutants to form sulfate particles, which are constituents of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Inhalation exposure to PM2.5 has been associated with various cardiovascular and respiratory health effects (U.S. EPA, 2017). Increased ambient SO2 levels would lead to increased risk of such effects.

SO2 emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2 in the a ir generally also lead to the formation of other sulfur oxides (SOx ). SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles contribute to particulate matter (PM) pollution. Small particles may penetrate deeply into the lungs and in sufficient quantity can contribute to health problems. ) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres.

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Particulate matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO
2 and ROG s are also considered particulate matter. PM is generally categorized based on the diameter of the particulate matter: PM 10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (known a s respirable particulate matte r), and PM 2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (known as fine particulate matter).

Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO 2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defe nse systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.

Small particulate pollution causes health i mpacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.

Respirable particulate matter (PM10) consists of small particles, less than 10 microns in diameter, of dust, smoke, or droplets of liquid which penetrate the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, or in combination with other gases. Particulate matter is caused primarily by dust from grading and excavation activities, from agricultural activities (as created by soil preparation activities, fertilizer and pesticide spraying, weed burning and animal husbandry), and from motor vehicles, particularly diesel-powered vehicles. PM
10 causes a greater health risk than larger particles,
since these fine particles can more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system.

PM2.5 consists of fine particles, which are less than 2.5 microns in size. Similar to PM10, these particles are primarily the result of combustion in motor vehicles, particularly diesel engines, as well as from industrial sources and residential/agricultural activities such as burning. It is also formed through the reaction of other pollutants. As with PM
10, these particulates can increase the chance of
respiratory disease, and cause lung damage and cancer. In 1997, the U.S. EPA created new Federal air quality standards for PM2.5.

The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children. Particulate mat ter also impacts soils and damages materials, and is a major cause of visibility impairment.

Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lun g function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that every 1 microgram per cubic meter reduction in PM

2.5 results in a one percent reduction in mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017). Long -term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis – and even premature death. Additionally, depending on its composition, both PM 10 and PM2.5 can also affect Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-7

water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019c).

Lead (Pb) exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion of Pb in food, water, soil or dust. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Excessive Pb e xposure can cause seizures, intellectual disabilities, and/or behavioral disorders. Low doses of Pb can lead to central nervous system damage. Recent studies have also shown that Pb may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease.

Lead is persistent in the environment and can be added to soils and sediments through deposition from sources of lead air pollution. Other sources of lead to ecosystems include direct discharge of waste streams to water bodies from mining. Elevated lead in the environment can result in decreased growth and reproductive rates in plants and animals, and neurological effects in vertebrates.

Lead exposure is typically associated with industrial sources; major sources of lead in the air are ore and metals processing and piston -engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts, including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014 (U.S. EPA, 2019d). Based on this reduction of lead in the air over this period, and since most new developments to not generate an increase in lead exposure, the health impac of ambient lead levels are not typically monitored by the California Air Resources Board. ts

3.3 AIR QUALITY

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

The federal and State ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3.3-1 for important pollutants. The federal and State ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health -related effects. As a result, the federal and State standards differ in some cases. In general, the California standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The U.S. EPA signed a final rule for the federal ozone eight-hour standard of 0.070 ppm on October 1, 2015, and was effective as of December 28, 2015 (equivalent to the California state ambient air quality eight-hour standard for ozone).

3. 3-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan AIR QUALITY 3.3

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-9

TABLE 3.3-1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD STATE STANDARD Ozone 1-Hour
8-Hour
--

0.070 ppm

0.09 ppm

0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour
1-Hour

9.0 ppm

35.0 ppm

9.0 ppm

20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual
1-Hour

0.053 ppm

0.100 ppm

0.03 ppm

0.18 ppm
Annual 0.03 ppm --
Sulfur Dioxide 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual
24-Hour
--
150 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
PM2.5 Annual
24-Hour
12 ug/m3
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
--
Lead 30-Day Avg.
3-Month Avg.
--

0.15 ug/m3

1.5 ug/m3
--
NOTES: PPM = PARTS PER MILLION, UG/M3 = MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2024.

In 1997, new national standards for fine particulate matter diameter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The existing PM10 standards were retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the standards were revised.

In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.

Existing air quality concerns within Fresno County and the entire air basin are related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles which account for 70 percent of the ozone in the region. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, a
agricultural burning.
nd smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood- burning stoves, and

Attainment Status
In accordance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.

Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly st ringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The U.S. EPA designates areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used.

Fresno County has a State designation Attainment or Unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for Ozone, PM10, and PM 2.5. Fresno County has a national designation of either Unclassified or Attainment for all criteria pollutants except for Ozone and PM2.5. Table 3.3-2 presents the state and nation attainment status for Fresno County.

TABLE 3.3-2: STATE AND NATIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS IN FRESNO COUNTY

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATE DESIGNATIONS NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS Ozone (O3) (1-hour) Severe/Nonattainment Not Applicable Ozone (O3) (8-hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified
Sulfates Attainment No Federal Regulation
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Regulation
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified No Federal Regulation

3.3 AIR QUALITY
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2024.

Fresno County Air Quality Monitoring
The SJVAPCD and the CARB maintain air quality monitoring sites throughout Fresno County that collect data for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The nearest active air quality monitoring s ite to the Project site that monitors current ozone data is the Fresno-Sierra Skypark #2 monitoring site. Data for PM2.5 and PM10 is provided by the nearest location with current PM data, the Fresno -Garland monitoring site. It is important to note that while the State retains the one-hour standard, the federal ozone 1- hour standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA and is no longer applicable for federal standards. Data obtained from the monitoring sites between 2021 and 2023 (latest years of data available) is shown in Table 3.3-3, Table 3.3-4, and Table 3.3-5.

3.3-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE 3.3-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO-SIERRA SKYPARK #2) - OZONE YEAR
DAYS > STANDARD 1-HOUR OBSERVATIONS 8-HOUR AVERAGES YEAR

COVERAGE STATE NATIONAL STATE NAT'L STATE NATIONAL 1-HR 8-HR 1-HR 8-HR MAX. D.V.¹ D.V.² MAX. D.V.¹ MAX. D.V.² MIN MAX 2023 2 12 0 11 0.101 0.10 0.104 0.80 0.085 0.079 0.079 90 90 2022 1 5 0 5 0.097 0.10 0.106 0.803 0.089 0.083 0.080 98 99 2021 6 16 0 15 0.110 0.11 0.106 0.089 0.089 0.088 0.080 97 97 NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. THE NATIONAL 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN JUNE 2005 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. STATISTICS RELATED TO THE REVOKED STANDARD ARE SHOWN IN ITALICS. D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE . D.V. ²= NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR I ADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

TABLE 3.3-4: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO-GARLAND) - PM10 YEAR
EST. DAYS > STD. ANNUAL AVERAGE HIGH 24-HR AVERAGE YEAR

COVERAGE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE
2023 0 55.9 32.3 32.7 109.3 107.8 0
2022 0 No data 37.2 No data 116.1 109.2 0
2021 1.0 91.5 41.4 41.6 281.0 283.3 0

NOTES: THE NATIONAL ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN DECEMBER 2006 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. AN EXCEEDANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIOLATION. STATISTICS MAY INCLUDE DATA THAT ARE RELATED TO AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR T
HE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING F EDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON STANDARD CONDITIONS. STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA. ND=THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT (OR NO) DATA AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE.

SOURCE: C ALIFORNIA A IR R ESOURCES B OARD (AEROMETRI C D ATA A NALYSIS A ND M ANAGEMENT S YSTEM OR IADAM) A IR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

TABLE 3.3-5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO-GARLAND) - PM2.5 YEAR
EST. DAYS >
NAT'L '06
STD.

ANNUAL AVERAGE NAT'L
ANN. STD.

D.V.¹
STATE
ANNUAL
D.V.²
NAT'L '06
STD. 98TH

PERCENTILE
NAT'L
'06 24-
HR STD.

D.V.¹
HIGH 24-HOUR

AVERAGE
YEAR

COVERAGE

NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE MIN MAX
2023 4.1 10.5 11.9 13.0 16 33.3 43 39.1 42.7 99 99
2022 13.7 12.9 No
Data 15.9 18 43.2 61 53.3 53.5 94 94
2021 30.3 15.6 15.7 15.3 1818 53.5 58 99.9 99.9 99 99.9 AIR QUALITY 3.3
NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE

STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS . STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA. D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE. D.V. ²= NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR I ADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

ODORS
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

Recirculated Draft EIR
– West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-11

3.3 AIR QUALITY
With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole s ensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast -food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another.

It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Inten sity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.

When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those wi th cardiorespiratory diseases. A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants.

Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals and schools. The closest sensitive receptors to the Plan Area include existing residences and schools located within the Plan Area itself.

3.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING

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

3.3-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
The U.S. EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health (with an adequate margin of safety, including for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory diseases) , and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non - health-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.

NAAQS standards define clean air and represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people and the environment. Existing violations of the ozone and PM

2.5 ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals exposed to these pollutants may experience certain health effects, including increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.

NAAQS standards have been designed to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and are reviewed every five years by a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), consisting of seven members appointed by the U.S. EPA administrator. Reviewing NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and includes the following major phases: Planning, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), Policy Assessment (PA), and Rulemaking. The process starts with a comprehensive review of the relevant scientific literature. The literature is summarized and conclusions are presented in the ISA. Based on the ISA, U.S. EPA staff perform a risk and exposure assessment, which is summarized in the REA document. The third document, the PA, integrates the findings and conclusions of the ISA and REA into a policy context, and provides lines of reasoning that could be used to supp ort retention or revision of the existing NAAQS, as well as several alternative standards that could be supported by the review findings. Each of these three documents is released for public comment and public peer review by the CASAC. Members of CASAC are appointed by the U.S. EPA Administrator for their expertise in one or more of the subject areas covered in the ISA. The committee’s role is to peer review the NAAQS documents, ensure that they reflect the thinking of the scientific community, and advise the Administrator on the technical and scientific aspects of standard setting. Each document goes through two to three drafts before CASAC deems it to be final.

Although there is some variability among the health effects of the NAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. NAAQS standards were last revised for each of the six criteria pollutant as listed below, with detail on what aspects of NAAQS changed during the most recent update:
• Ozone: On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA lowered the national eight -hour standard from

0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm, providing for a more stringent standards consistent with the current California state standard.
• CO: In 2011, the primary standards were retained from the original 1971 level, without revision. The secondary standards were revoked in 1985.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-13

3.3 AIR QUALITY
• NO2: The national NO2 standard was most recently revised in 2010 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for adverse effects in asthmatics at lower NO2 concentrations than the existing national standard. • SO2: On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO 2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3- year average of the annual 99 th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb.
• PM: the national annual average PM2.5 standard was most recently revised in 2012 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for increased risk of premature mortality at lower PM2.5 concentrations than the existing standard. • Lead: The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3 -month average. In 2016, the primary and secondary standards were retained.

The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as special consideration of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. are needed to have full comprehension of the local pollution control problems. As a result, the U.S. EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that explains how each state will implement the FCAA within their jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will implement to control air quality within their jurisdiction. The CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing the California SIP.

Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity requirements were added to the FCAA in the 1990 amendments, and the U.S. EPA adopted implementing regulations in 1997. See §176 of the FCAA (42 U.S.C. §7506) and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. Transportation conformity serves much the same purpose as general conformity: it ensures that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by the United States Department of Transportation or that are recipients of funds under the Federal Transit Act or from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), conform to the SIP as approved or promulgated by U.S. EPA.

Currently, transportation conformity applies in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas. Under transportation conformity, a determination of conformity with the applicable SIP must be made by the agency responsible for the project, such as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Council of Governments, or a federal agency. The agency making the determination is also responsible for all the requirements relating to public participation. Generally, a project will be considered in conformance if it is in t he transportation improvement plan and the transportation improvement plan is incorporated in the SIP. If an action is covered under transportation conformity, it does not need to be separately evaluated under general conformity.

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures as a part of making progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources, some are typically also created to address mobile or transportation sources. These are known as transportation control measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated air pollution. These goa ls are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use. Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.

STATE
Advanced Clean Cars II
The Advanced Clean Cars II regulations reduce light -duty passenger car, pickup truck and SUV emissions starting with the 2026 model year through 2035. The regulations are two -pronged. First, it amends the Zero -emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of zero -emission vehicles, and relies on currently available advanced vehicle technologies, including battery -electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric and plug-in hybrid electric-vehicles, to meet air quality and climate change emissions standards. These amendments support Governor Newsom’s 2020 Executive Order N-79- 20 that requires all new passenger vehicles sold in California to be zero emissions by 2035. Second, the Low-emission Vehicle Regulations were amended to include increasingly stringent standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions.

Advanced Clean Trucks
On June 25, 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, which requires the sale of zero -emission or near zero -emission HDTs starting with the manufacturer-designated model year 2024. Sales requirements are defined separately for three vehicle groups: Class 2b-3 trucks and vans, Class 4 -8 rigid trucks, and Class 7-8 tractor trucks. The regulation is structured as a credit and deficit accounting system. In 2023, the EPA granted the state the waiver it needs to enact the ACT rule. The enacted rule requires truck makers to sell an increasing percentage of electric models annually through 2035. Forty percent of big rigs, half of all cargo and travel vans and 75 percent of box truck and dump truck sales need to be zero emissions by 2035.

CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the State. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, the CARB motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, the CARB has adopted regulations which require auto manufacturers to phase in less polluting vehicles.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-15

California Clean Air Act

3.3 AIR QUALITY
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and p erformance. The CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. The CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards.

California Air Quality Standards
Although NAAQS are determined by the U.S. EPA , states have the ability to set standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. As such, California established more stringent ambient air quality standards. Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, c arbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates a nd lead. In addition, California has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by federal standards.

Although there is some variability among the health effects of the CAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. The existing state and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 3.3-1.

Air quality standard setting in California commences with a critical review of all relevant peer reviewed scientific literature. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses the review of he alth literature to develop a recommendation for the standard. The recommendation can be for no change, or can recommend a new standard. The review, including the OEHHA recommendation, is summarized in a document called the draft Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), which is released for comment by the public, and also for public peer review by the Air Quality Advisory Committee (AQAC). AQAC members are appointed by the President of the University of California for their expertise in the range of subjects covered in the ISOR, including health, exposure, air quality monitoring, atmospheric chemistry and physics, and effects on plants, trees, materials, and ecosystems. The Committee provides written comments on the draft ISOR. The ARB staff next revises the ISOR based on comments from AQAC and the public. The revised ISOR is then released for a 45-day public comment period prior to consideration by the Board at a regularly scheduled Board hearing.

In June of 2002, the CARB adopted revisions to the PM 10 standard and established a new PM2.5 annual standard. The new standards became effective in June 2003. Subsequently, staff reviewed the published scientific literature on ground -level ozone and nitrogen dioxide and the CARB adopted revisions to the standards for these two pollutants. Revised standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide went into effect on May 17, 2006 and March 20, 2008, respectively. These revisions reflect the most recent changes to the CAAQS.

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

Tanner Air Toxics Act (TACs)

AIR QUALITY 3.3
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted U.S. EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the C ARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) to minimize emissions.

AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

Omnibus Low-NOx Rule
The C
ARB approved the Omnibus Low-NOx R ule on August 28, 2020, which will require engine NOx emissions to be cut to approximately 75% below current standards beginning in 2024, and 90% below current standards in 2027. The rule also places nine additional regulatory requirements on new heavy-duty truck and engines. Those additional requirements include a 50% reduction in particulate matter emissions, stringent new low -load and idle standards, a new in -use testing protocol, extended deterioration requirements, a new California-only credit program, and extended mandatory warranty requirements. The regulatory requirements in the Omnibus Low-NOX Rule will first become effective in 2024, at the same time as the Advanced Clean Trucks regulations that CARB approved that mandates manufacturers convert increasing percentages of their heavy -duty trucks sold in California to zero-emission vehicles.

Assembly Bill 170
A
ssembly Bill 170, Reyes (AB 170), was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003, creating Government Co
de Section 65302.1, which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality. The elements to be amended include, but are not limited to, those elements dealing with land use, circulation, housing, conservation, and open space. Section 65302.1.c iden tifies four areas of air quality discussion required in these amendments:
• A report describing local air quality conditions, attainment status, and state and federal air quality and transportation plans;
• A summary of local, district, state, and federal policies, programs, and regulations to improve air quality;
• A comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives to improve air quality; and • Feasible implementation measures designed to achieve these goals.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-17

3.3 AIR QUALITY
The City of Fresno complied with AB 170 in 2009, when it amended the General Plan to include updated policies and analysis, consistent with AB 170, via City Council Resolution 2009-146.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan includes objectives and policies within its Resource Conservation and Resilience Element that pertain directly to air quality. However, various objectives and policies included in the other General Plan Elements related to land use development patterns (e.g., infill and mixed-use development), transportation and transit, and urban form would also contribute in improving air quality within the proposed Plan Area and SJVAB. The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to air quality:

URBAN FORM, LAND USE AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective UF-1. Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.

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

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

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

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

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

Policy UF -12-b: Activity Centers. Mixed-use designated areas along BRT and/or transit corridors are appropriate for more intensive concentrations of urban uses. Typical uses could include commercial areas; employment centers; schools; compact residential

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
development; religious institutions; parks; and other gathering points where residents may interact, work, and obtain goods and services in the same place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-19

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

Policy LU -6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and c ommunity commercial uses to implement the Urban F orm concepts of the General Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhood and community shopping areas, and a llow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
• Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place. • Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3 -20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.

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

Policy RC-4-f: Municipal Operations and Fleet Actions. Continue to control and reduce air pollution emissions from vehicles owned by the City operations and municipal operations and facilities by undertaking the following:
• Expand the use of alternative fuel, electric, and hybrid vehicles in City fleets. • Create preventive maintenance schedules that will ensure efficient engine operation.
• Include air conditioning recycling and charging stations in the City vehicle maintenance facilities, to reduce freon gases being released into the atmosphere and electrostatic filtering systems in City maintenance shops, when feasible or when required by health regulations.
• Use satellite corporation yards for decentralized storage and vehicle maintenance. • Convert City-owned emergency backup generators to natural gas fuels whenever possible, and
• Create an advanced energy storage system.

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

Land Use Diagram.

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

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

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

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

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-21

3.3 AIR QUALITY

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

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

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.

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

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

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

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

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

3.3-2
2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Objective MT-4: Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.

Policy MT-4-a: Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan. To the extent consistent with this General Plan, continue to implement and periodically update the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan to meet State standards and requirements for recommended improvements and funding proposals as determined appropriate and feasible.

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

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

Objective MT-5: Establish a well-integrated network of pedestrian facilities to accommodate safe, convenient, practical, and inviting travel by walking, including for those with physical mobility and vision impairments.

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

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

Objective MT -6: Establish a network of multi -purpose pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as limited access trails, to link residential areas to local and regional open spaces and recreation areas and urban Activity Centers in order to enhance Fresno's recreational ameni ties and alternative transportation options.

Policy MT -6-a: Link Residences to Destinations. Design a pedestrian and bicycle path network that links residential areas with Activity Centers, such as parks and recreational facilities, educational institutions, employment centers, cultural sites, and other focal points of the city environment.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-23

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Policy MT-6-c: Link Paths and Trails and Recreational Facilities. Continue to participate in multi-agency planning and implementation partnerships for the coordinated development of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area planned path and trail system and with Madera County for the San Joaquin River Parkway trail system.

Policy MT -6-g: Path and Trail Development. Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose path and trail development standards and corridor linkages consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-by-case determinations as a condition of project approval.

Policy MT -6-i: Path and Trail Design Standards. Designate and design paths and trails in accordance with design standards established by the City that give consideration to all path and trail users (consistent with design, terrain and habitat limitations) and provide for appropriate widths, surfacing, d rainage, design speed, barriers, fences, signage, visibility, intersections, bridges, and street cleaning.

Policy MT -6-j: Variety in Path and Trail Design. P rovide for different levels and types of usable pedestrian and bicycle corridors, including broad, shaded sidewalks; jogging paths; paved and all terrain bicycle paths; through-block passageways; and hiking trails. Where a designated multi -purpose path route is adjacent to a public right -of-way which accommodates bike lane, allow for flexibility in path design, so that bike lanes may be substituted for the bicycle component of the multi -purpose path where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

Objective MT -8: Provide public transit options that serve existing and future concentrations of residences, employment, recreation and civic uses and are feasible, efficient, safe, and minimize environmental impacts.

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

Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decision- making.

Objective MT -9: Provide public transit opportunities to the maximum number and diversity of people practicable in balance with providing service that is high in quality, convenient, frequent, reliable, cost- effective, and financially feasible.

Policy MT -9-a: Equitable Transit Provision. P rovide transit that can serve all residents, including older residents and persons with disabilities.

Policy MT-9-c: Addressing Unmet Transit Needs. Continue to participate in the Council of Fresno County Governments’ annual unmet transit needs evaluation process, particularly with respect to identifying need for access to medical and educational services; perform market analysis to identify potential transit choice riders; and pursue public education and

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
information programs to identify changes in demand characteristics and opportunities to increase ridership.

Policy MT -9-d: Long -Range Transit Options. Advocate and participate in regional transportation analyses and identify appropriate long-range measures to support incorporation of light rail transit and other advanced transit service within major transportation corridors, freeway and railroad alignments.

Policy MT-9-e: Area Specific Transit Improvements. Continue to evaluate and pursue the planning and implementation of area specific transit improvements, such as street car facilities.

Policy MT-9-f: Encourage Telecommuting. Support measures that will facilitate expanded use of telecommunications technologies to reduce congestion, expansion of regional transportation facilities consistent with this General Plan, energy use, and air emissions (i.e., work at home, dispersed telecommute work centers, teleconferencing).

Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 10, Article 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code addresses healthy air and smog prevention. For example, Section 10 -1305 of this chapter provides an assessment and recommendations for natural gas fueling and electric vehicle charging stations. S ection 10-1306 of this chapter identifies that the Director of General Services of the city, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, the California Air Resources Board, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and interested cit y departments, shall develop and adopt fuel-efficiency specifications governing the purchase of motor vehicles. Section 10 -1308 of this chapter describes the implementation of a pilot program to evaluate the efficacy of using Alternative Fuel and/or Hybrid Electric Buses, and the phase-out of older diesel buses. Additionally, strategies to reduce air emissions from the regional public sector and private sector fleets is addressed in Section 10 -1309 of the Municipal Code. In addition, Section 15 -2510 of the Municipal Code identifies limitations on odors during a project’s operational phase (i.e. “No use, process, or activity shall produce objectionable odors that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of a site” ), although odors from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, vehicle emissions, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.

Fresno Council of Governments
Fresno Council of Governments’ ( Fresno COG’s) primary functions are transportation planning and programming. As a state-designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and federally- designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Fresno County, Fresno COG must comply with both designation requirements. Fresno COG prepares a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that looks 25 years into the future, and sets policies for a wide variety of transportation options and projects. It guides how and where people and goods will travel by identifying both existing and needed transportation facilities. Fresno COG prepares the region’s Federal Transportation Improvement Program, a four -year program of financially constrained transportation projects Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-25

3.3 AIR QUALITY
consisting of highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects that are selected through an approved project selection process.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The primary role of SJVAPCD is to develop plans and implement control measures in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to control air pollution. These controls primarily affect stationary sources such as industry and power plants. Rules and regulations have been developed by SJVAPCD to control air pollution from a wide range of air pollution sources. SJVAPCD also provides uniform procedures for assessing potential air quality impacts of proposed projects and for preparing the air quality section of environmental documents.

AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The U.S. EPA requires states that have areas that do not meet the National AAQS to prepare and submit air quality plans showing how the National AAQS will be met. If the states cannot show how the National AAQS will be met, then the states must show progress toward meeting the National AAQS. These plans are referred to as the State Implementation Plans (SIP). California’s adopted 2007 State Strategy was submitted to the U.S. EPA as a revision to its SIP in November 2007. 2 More recently, in October 2018, the CARB adopted the 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan.

In addition, the CARB requires regions that do not meet California AAQS for ozone to submit clean air plans (CAPs) that describe measures to attain the standard or show progress toward attainment.

To ensure federal CAA compliance, SJVAPCD is currently developing plans for meeting new National AAQS for ozone and PM 2.5 and the California AAQS for PM 10 in the SJVAB (for California CAA compliance)3 The following describes the air plans prepared by the SJVAPCD, which are incorporated by reference per CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
1-HOUR OZONE PLAN
Although U .S. EPA revoked its 1979 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005, many planning requirements remain in place, and SJVAPCD must still attain this standard before it can rescind CAA Section 185 fees. The SJVAPCD’s most recent 1 -hour ozone plan, the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1- hour Ozone Standard, demonstrated attainment of the 1 -hour ozone standard by 2017. However, on July 18, 2016, the U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that SJVAB has attained the 1- hour ozone NAAQS b ased on the 2012 to 2014 three -year period allowing nonattainment penalties to be lifted under federal Clean Air Act section 179b (SJVAPCD, 2015). 2 Note that the plan was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007; California Air Resources Board. 2007.

California Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. 3 SJVAPCD, 2012. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, December 20.

3.3-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

8-HOUR OZONE PLAN

The SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-hour Ozone Standard (2022 Ozone Plan) on December 15, 2022. The 2022 Ozo ne Plan builds upon comprehensive strategies already in place from adopted District plans and CARB state-wide strategies. Overall, the aggressive control strategy included in the 2022 Ozone Plan wil l reduce NOx emissions by 72% between 2018 and 2037, contributing to the San Joaquin Valley’s progress toward attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. In addition to the regulatory strategy contained in the 2022 Ozone Plan, the Air District and state’s incentive programs will also reduce emissions from mobile sources in the coming years.4
PM10 PLAN

Based on PM10 measurements from 2003 to 2006, the U.S. EPA found that the SJVAB has reached federal PM10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. This plan demonstrates that the valley will continue to meet the PM10 standard. U.S. EPA approved the document and on September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment/maintenance (SJVAPCD, 2015).

PM2.5 PLAN

AIR QUALITY 3.3
The SJ
VAPCD adopted the 2024 Pla n for the 2012 PM 2.5 Standard (Plan) on June 20 , 2024, to fulfill the remaining CAA requirements, including the final modeling analysis, attainment strategy and emission reduction commitments, reasonable further progress/quantitative milestones, and contingency measures. This Plan demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 standard by 2030. This Plan satisfies applicable CAA requirements and demonstrates attainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable. The Valley will attain the 2012 PM2.5 standard by December 31, 2030.5
All of the above-referenced plans include measures (i.e., federal, state, and local) that would be implemented through rule making or program funding to reduce air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB. Transportation control measures are part of these plans. 4 SJVAPCD. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air- quality-plans/ozone-plans/2022-ozone-plan-for-the-san-joaquin-valley/, accessed November 7, 2024. 5 SJVAPCD. 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard, https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air- quality-plans/particulate-matter-plans/2024-plan-for-the-2012-pm25-standard/, accessed November 7, 2024.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-27

SJVAPCD RULES AND REGULATIONS
SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review

3.3 AIR QUALITY
On December 15, 2005, SJVAPCD adopted the Indirect Source Review Rule (ISR or Rule 9510) to reduce ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx) and PM10 emissions from new land use development projects. Specifically, Rule 9510 targets the indirect emissions from vehicles and construction equipment associated with these projects and applies to both construction and operational-related impacts. The rule app lies to any applicant that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for a development project, or any portion thereof, which upon full buildout would include any one of the following:
• 50 residential units.
• 2,000 square feet of commercial space.
• 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.
• 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space.
• 20,000 square feet of medical office space.
• 39,000 square feet of general office space.
• 9,000 square feet of educational space.
• 10,000 square feet of government space.
• 20,000 square feet of recreational space.
• 9,000 square feet of space not identified above.
• Transportation/transit projects with construction exhaust emissions of two or more tons of NOx or two or more tons of PM10.
• Residential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, regardless of the number of tract maps, and has the capabilit y of accommodating more than 50 residential units.
• Nonresidential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, and has the capability of accommodating development projects that emit two or more tons per year of NOx or PM10 during project operations.

The rule requires all subject, nonexempt projects to mitigate both construction and operational period emissions by (1) applying feasible SJVAPCD-approved mitigation measures, or (2) paying any applicable fees to support programs that reduce emissions. Off -site emissions reduction fees (off- site fee) are required for projects that do not achieve the required emissions reductions through on- site emission reduction measures. Phased projects can defer payment of fees in accordance with an Off-site Emissions Reduction Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS) approved by the SJVAPCD.

To determine how an individual project would satisfy Rule 9510, each project would submit an air quality impact assessment (AIA) to the SJVAPCD as early as possible, but no later than prior to the project’s final discretionary approval, to identify the project’s baseline unmitigated emissions inventory for indirect sources: on-site exhaust emissions from construction activities and operational activities from mobile and area sources of emissions (excludes fugitive dust and

3. 3-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
permitted sources). Rule 9510 requires the following reductions, which are levels that the SJVAPCD has identified as necessary, based on their air quality management plans, to reach attainment for ozone and particulate matter:

Construction Equipment Emissions
The exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) used or associated with the development project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by CARB:
• 2
0 percent of the total NO x emissions
• 45 percent of the total PM10 exhaust emissions
Mitigation measures may include those that reduce construction emissions on -site by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing add-on controls, cleaner fuels, or newer, lower emitting equipment.

Operational Emissions
• NOx Emissions. Applicants shall reduce 33.3 percent of the project’s operational baseline NOx emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA. • PM10 Emissions. Applicants shall reduce of 50 percent of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA.

These requirements listed above can be met through any combination of on-site emission reduction measures. In the event that a project cannot achieve the above standards through imposition of mitigation measures, then the project would be required to pay the applicable off-site fees. These fees are used to fund various incentive programs that cover the purchase of new equipment, engine retrofit, and education and outreach.

F ugitive PM 10 Prohibitions
SJVAPCD controls fugitive PM10 through Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce ambient concentrations of PM 10 and PM 2.5 by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human caused) fugitive dust emissions. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8021 applies to any construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities, including, but not limited to, land clearing, grubbing, scraping, travel on-site, and travel on access roads to and from the site. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8031 applies to the outdoor handling, storage, and transport of any bulk material.
• Regulation VIII, Rule 8041 applies to sites where carryout or trackout has occurred or may occur on paved roads or the paved shoulders of public roads. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8051 applies to any open area having 0.5 acre or more within urban areas or 3.0 acres or more within rural areas, and contains at least 1,000 square feet of disturbed surface area.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-29

• Regulation VIII, Rule 8061 applies to any new or existing public or private paved or unpaved road, road construction project, or road modification project. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8071 applies to any unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic area. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8081 applies to off-field agricultural sources.

Sources regulated are required to provide Dust Control Plans that meet the regulation requirements.

Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measures to be implemented before, during, and after any dust -generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJ VAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule 4002 applies in the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants); this rule applies to all sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the proposed project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

Nuisance Odors
SJVAPCD controls nuisance odors through implementation of Rule 4102, Nuisance. Pursuant to this rule, “a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the p ublic or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
Employer Based Trip Reduction Program

3.3 AIR QUALITY
SJVAPCD has implemented Rule 9410, Employer Based Trip Reduction. The purpose of this rule is to reduce VMT from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of NO x, ROG, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The rule applies to employers with at least 100 employees. Employers are required to implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) for each worksite with 100 or more eligible employees to meet applicable targets specified in the rule. Employers are required to facilitate the participation of the development of ETRIPs by providing information to its employees explaining the requirements and applicability of this rule. Employers are required to prepare and submit a n ETRIP for each worksite to the District. The ETRIP must be updated annually. Under this rule, employers shall collect information on the modes of transportation used for each eligible employee’s commutes both to and from work for every day of the commute verification period, as defined in using either the

3. 3-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
mandatory commute verification method or a representative survey method. Annual reporting includes the results of the commute verification for the previous calendar year along with the measures implemented as outlined in the ETRIP and, if necessary, any updates to the ETRIP.

Assembly Bill 617
I
n 2017, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017) to develop a new community focused program to more effectively reduce exposure to air pollution and preserve public health. This bill directs the CARB and all local air districts to take measures to protect communities disproportionally impacted by air pollution. With input from communities and air districts throughout California, CARB developed a Community Air Protection Blueprint to implement AB 617.

There are five central components to the new AB 617 mandate:
• Community-level air monitoring;
• A state strategy and community specific emission reduction plans; • Accelerated review of retrofit pollution control technologies on industrial facilities subject to Cap-and-Trade;
• Enhanced emission reporting requirements; and
• Increased penalty provisions for polluters.

In response to AB 617 the CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. The Community Air Protection Program's mission is to reduce pollution exposure in communities based on environmental, health and socioeconomic information. This first -of-its-kind statewide effort requires community air monitoring, community emission reduction plans, and incentive funding to deploy the cleanest technologies in the most impacted areas.

3.3.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment associated with air quality if it will:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the SJVAPCD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-31

the Lead Agency finds that the project would exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The applicable SJVAPCD thresholds and methodologies are contained under each impact statement below, as the City, in its discretion, has determined to utilize these thresholds and methodologies, which are based on scientific and factual data.

This analysis was performed consistent with the guidance and methodologies provided by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. 6 Based on the SJVAPCD New Source Review (NSR) offset requirements for stationary sources, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, shown in Table 3.3-6. These thresholds apply to the project because these air pollutants would be generated during project construction and operation and constitute criteria pollutants or precursor emissions for criteria pollutants, which are regulated by the federal and State Clean Air Acts.

TABLE 3.3-6: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

POLLUTANT
ROG
NOX
CO
SOX
PM10
PM2.5

CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLDS (TPY) OPERATIONAL THRESHOLDS (TPY) 10 10
10 10
100 100
27 27
15 15
15 15

3.3 AIR QUALITY
SOURCES: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (SJVAPCD). 2015. GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSING AND MITIGATING AIR QUALITY IMPACT. WEBSITE:

HTTPS://WWW.VALLEYAIR.ORG/TRANSPORTATION/CEQA%20RULES/GAMAQI%20JAN%202002%20REV.PDF ACCESSED JULY 12, 2024.

CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS MODELING
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) TM (v.2022.1), developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with California air districts, was used to estimate net emissions for the Specific Plan. Given the size and complexity of the proposed Specific Plan, it was assumed that full Specific Plan buildout would not occur until at least 2035, consistent with the assumption made in the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations prepared by Kittelson & Associates.

The land use assumptions for the modeling to estimate net emissions from the Specific Plan include the following land uses (proxy land uses were selected for CalEEMod on a best-fit basis) (consistent with the land uses assumed in the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations): Single Family Housing – 1,800 dwelling units; Single Family H ousing 6 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (SJVAPCD). 2015. GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSING AND MITIGATING AIR QUALITY IMPACT. WEBSITE:

HTTPS://WWW.VALLEYAIR.ORG/TRANSPORTATION/CEQA%20RULES/GAMAQI%20JAN%202002%20REV.PDF ACCESSED JULY 12, 2024.

3.3-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

– 8,835 dwelling units; Single Family Housing – 26,082 dwelling units; Apartments Low Rise – 4,885 dwelling units; Apartments Mid Rise – 5,699 dwelling units; Apartments High Rise – 2,054 dwelling units; Regional Shopping Center – 2,474,000 square feet; Regional Shopping Center – 900,000 square feet; Regional Shopping Center – 14,792,000 square feet; Regional Shopping Center – 185,000 square feet; Apartments Mid Rise – 339 dwelling units; General Office Building – 4,572,000 square feet; Office Park – 3,266,000 square feet; Office Park – 2,140,000 square feet; Apartments Mid Rise – 14,623 dwelling units; Regional Shopping Center – 14,929,000 square feet; Apartments Mid Rise – 17,473 dwelling units; Regional Shopping Center – 15,222,000 square feet; Apartments Mid Rise – 1,340 dwelling units; Regional Shopping Center – 1,297,000 square feet; City Park – 358 acres; Library – 100,000 square feet; Place of Worship – 20,000 square feet; Elementary School – 20,000 square feet; Elementary School – 20,000 square feet; High School – 20,000 square feet; High School – 20,000 square feet; and Government Office Building – 20,000 square feet. See Appendix B for further detail. Additionally, Table 3.3 -7, below, provides a table summarizing the CalEEMod land uses selected (for the purposes of modeling) for each Specific Plan land use.

TABLE 3.3-7: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALEEMOD

SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE CALEEMOD LAND USE (BEST

PROXY WITHIN THE MODEL) AMOUNT UNIT
Low (1-3.5 DU/AC) Single-Family Housing 1,800 Dwelling Units Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) Single-Family Housing 8,835 Dwelling Units Medium (5-12 DU/AC) Single-Family Housing 26,082 Dwelling Units Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) Apartments Low Rise 4,885 Dwelling Units Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) Apartments Mid Rise 5,699 Dwelling Units High (30-45 DU/AC) Apartments High Rise 2,054 Dwelling Units COMMUNITY (1.0 MAX. FAR) Regional Shopping Center 2,474,000 Square Feet Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) Regional Shopping Center 900,000 Square Feet General (2.0 Max. FAR) Regional Shopping Center 14,792,000 Square Feet Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) Regional Shopping Center 185,000 Square Feet Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) Apartments Mid Rise 339 Dwelling Units Office (2.0 Max. FAR) General Office Building 4,572,000 Square Feet Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) Office Park 3,266,000 Square Feet Light Industrial (1.0 Max. FAR) Office Park 2,140,000 Square Feet Neighborhood (64 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) Apartments Mid Rise 14,623 Dwelling Units Neighborhood (64 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) Regional Shopping Center 14,929,000 Square Feet Corridor/Center (74 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) Apartments Mid Rise 17,473 Dwelling Units Corridor/Center (74 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) Regional Shopping Center 15,222,000 Square Feet Regional (90 DU/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) Apartments Mid Rise 1,340 Dwelling Units Regional (90 DU/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) Regional Shopping Center 1,297,000 Square Feet Open Space City Park 358 Acres
Public Facility Library 100,000 Square Feet
Church Place of Worship 20,000 Square Feet
Elem. School Elementary School 20,000 Square Feet
Elem./Middle/High School Elementary School 20,000 Square Feet High School High School 20,000 Square Feet
Special School High School 20,000 Square Feet
Fire Station Government Office Building 20,000 Square Feet

AIR QUALITY 3.3
SOURCES: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA – CEQA IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-33

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Operational activities are those activities that would occur during the operational (i.e. post - construction) phase of the project. Operational activities include activities such as mobile sources (i.e. vehicles generated by development of the project), as well as area sources (such as consumer projects, landscape maintenances), and energy (such as electricity and natural gas). Mobile-source based criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using the emission factors provided w ithin CalEEMod; an estimate of proposed Specific Plan-generated VMT developed as part of this analysis was provided by the traffic consultant, Kittelson & Associates, as provided in Appendix G of this EIR.

Criteria pollutant emissions from consumer products, landscape maintenance activities, and other sources of operational energy usage (e.g. electricity and natural gas) were estimated using the default emission factors provided in CalEEMod.

Operation emissions from all sources were estimated for both buildout of the Specific Plan, which is anticipated to occur by 2035. Maximum daily emissions were estimated for both peak summer day and peak winter day. The highest value for each criteria pollutant was used for the purposes of this analysis. The potential for Specific Plan-generated traffic to result in concentrations of CO that exceed NAAQS and State AAQS for this pollutant were evaluated based on traffic volumes generated by future buildout allowed under the proposed Specific Plan. Health risks from Specific Plan- generated, construction- and operation-related emissions of TACs were assessed qualitatively. This assessment is based on the location from which construction - or operation-related TAC emissions would be generated by land uses developed under the Specific Plan relative to off -site sensitive receptors, as well as the duration during which TAC exposure would occur. Similarly, the assessment of odor-related impacts is based on the types of odor sources associated with the land uses that would be developed under the Specific Plan and their location relative to off-site receptors.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities were assumed take place over the course of approximately 10 years, from 2025 to 20 35. These construction activities can be described as demolition, site improvements (grading, underground infrastructure, and topside improvements) and vertical construction (building construction and architectural coatings).

Demolition: Demolition activities may be performed as one task, but may be broken into two or more separate phases. The exact demolition schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the pace of development of that would occur within the Plan Area.

Site Improvements: The construction of site improvements may be performed as one task, but may be broken into two or more separate phases. The exact construction schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability for the market to absorb the proposed residential and commercial buildings.

The site improvement phase of construction will begin with site preparation. This step will include the use of dozers, backhoes, and loaders to strip (clear and grub) all organic materials and the upper

3.3-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
half-inch to inch of soil from the Plan Area. This task will include vehicle trips from construction workers.

After the site is stripped of organic materials, grading would begin. This activity will involve the use of excavators, graders, dozers, scrappers, loaders, and backhoes to move soil around the Plan Area to create specific engineered grade elevations and soil compaction levels.

The next step involves the installation of underground infrastructure. This step will involve the use of excavators to dig trenches, place pipe and conduit, bury pipe and conduit, and compact trench soil. Grading the Plan Area and underground installation of infrastructure would include vehicle trips from construction workers.

The last task is to install the topside improvements, which includes pouring concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and access aprons and then paving of all streets and parking lots. This task will involve the use of pavers, paving equipment, and rollers and will take approximately three months and will include vehicle trips from construction workers.

Building Construction/Architectural Coatings: Building construction involves the vertical construction of structures and landscaping around the structures. This task will involve the use of forklifts, generator sets, welders and small tractors/loaders/backhoes. The exact construction schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability of the market to absorb the residential and commercial buildings. Architectural coatings involve the interior and exterior painting associated with the structures. This task generally begin after construction begins on the structure and will generally be completed for each building around the time of the completion of each building. Building construction and the application of architectural co atings will include vehicle trips from construction workers, and building construction will also include vehicle trips from vendors.

MITIGATION
Air quality-related mitigation measures developed for the proposed Specific Plan were developed using CalEEMod, with default emission factors generally as provided by CalEEMod. CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures guidance, and guidance provided by the SJVAPCD were utilized, as necessary. See Appendix B to this EIR for further detail. The results from CalEEMod for operational and construction emissions are described under Impacts and Mitigation Measures, below.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan . ( Significant and Unavoidable)
CEQA requires that projects be evaluated for consistency with the Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMPs. It fu lfills the CEQA goal of informing Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-35

3.3 AIR QUALITY
decision makers of the environmental effects of a project under consideration at a stage e arly enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals of the AQMPs. The regional emissions inventory f or t he SJVAB is compiled by SJVAPCD and Fresno Council of Governments (COG). Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by Fresno COG are based, in part, on the local jurisdictions’ general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, compiled by Fresno COG to determine priority transportation projects within the Fresno COG region. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality–related regional plan. Typically, only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects that have the potential to affect the regional population and employment forecasts need to undergo a consistency review.

SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by the Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. SJVAPCD has prepared several plans to attain the National AAQS and California AAQS. Emission reductions achieved through implementa tion of SJVAPCD’s NSR offset requirements are a major component of SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. The established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on SJVAPCD offset requirements for stationary sources. Therefore, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b) states that a project is of statewide, regional, or area -wide significance if it is a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units or a commercial office building of 250,000 square feet or more or that employs 1,000 or more employees. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan would introduce up to approximately 83,129 dwelling units (including 339 dwelling units in the commercial category, 49,355 dwelling units in the residential category and 33,436 dwelling units in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 square feet of non-residential uses in the Plan Area, and is therefore a project of statewide, regional, or area -wide significance.

Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would have the potential to substantially affect Fresno COG’s demographic projections beyond what is already anticipated for the Plan Area.

In addition, the SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. In that capacity, the SJVAPCD has prepared plans to attain Federal and State ambient air quality standards . To achieve attainment with the standards, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions in their SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (2015). Projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan”.

The analyses under Impact 3.3-2 demonstrates that the proposed Specific Plan would generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional construction- phase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SJVAB’s nonattainment designations. In addition, the

3. 3-36 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

analyses under Impact 3.3-3 demonstrates that the proposed Specific Plan would generate long- term emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional operation-phase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SJVAB’s nonattainment designations. Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of the AAQS.

Summary

As disc
ussed above, while the proposed Specific Plan would result in a substantial increase in long - term criteria pollutant emissions compared to existing conditions, it would support a more sustainable development pattern for the Plan Area. As the improvements, objectives, and policies under the proposed Plan would support a more sustainable development pattern in accommodating future growth for the Plan Area, they would contribute to minimizing long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. Various policies of the proposed Plan would promote complete streets, mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhoods, and increased capacity for alternative transportation modes, which would help reduce air pollutant emissions. For example, Specific Plan IPR Goal 1 promotes improved access, movement, and safety for all transportation modes in the Specific Plan, and Policy IPR 1.1 promotes implementation of the Active Transportation Plan and the General Plan to provide for complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk, bicycle, and trail networks that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The goals and polices in the Specific Plan would promote active transit and support the reduction in average vehicle trip distances, which would contribute to reducing overall vehicle trips and VMT.

However, despite furthering the regional transportation and planning objectives, as stated, buildout of the proposed Plan would r epresent a substantial increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional operational and construction-related significance thresholds (see Impact 3.3-2 and Impact 3.3-3). As a result, the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs and would not be considered consistent with the AQMPs. Therefore, impacts are considered significant.

CONCLUSION

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the generation of substantial long- term criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds and would therefore not be considered consistent with the existing AQMPs. Future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 (below).

No further measures to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions are available beyond the applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulation s, the proposed Specific Plan goals and policies, and the additional mitigation measures provided under Impact 3.3-2 and Impact 3.3-3 (see below). The various goals and policies of the proposed Specific Plan, such as those outlined above, would contribute to reducing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, due to the magnitude and intensity of development accommodated by the proposed Plan, this impact would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-37

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant (s) shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Impact 3.3 -2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard . (Significant and Unavoidable)
Emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality.

Construction activities would temporarily increase PM 10, PM 2.5, ROG, NO x, SO x, and CO regional emissions within the SJVAB. The primary source of NOx, CO, and SOx emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary source of ROG emissions is the application of architectural coating and off-gas emissions associated with asphalt paving.

Construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed Specific Plan are anticipated to occur sporadically over an approximately 25 -year period. Buildout would be comprised of multiple smaller projects, each having its own construction timeline and activities. Development of multiple properties could occur at the same time. However, there is no defined development schedule for these future projects at this time. The amount of construction assumed is consistent with the anticipated buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. An es timate of maximum daily construction emissions is provided in Table 3.3-8, below. The table shows the maximum annual emissions that would be generated over a single year during the anticipated development period (i.e. during year 2022). See Appendix B for further detail.

TABLE 3.3-8: CONSTRUCTION PROJECT GENERATED EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM TONS PER YEAR ) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 180 50 59 0.1 37 9.1

EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

3.3 AIR QUALITY
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)

3.3-38 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
As shown in the above table (Table 3.3-8), construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the SJVAPCD regional thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM 2.5. NOx is a precursor to the formation of both ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). ROG is a precursor to the formation of ozone . Project-related emission of NO x would contribute to the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SJVAB. As part of the development process, individual, site -specific projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable Air District rules and regulations, such as Rule 4641, which requires limits on VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. Additionally, all individual, site-specific projects under the proposed Specific Plan that meet the criteria of Rule 9510 would be required to prepare a detailed air quality impact assessment (AIA). To the extent applicable under Rule 9510 for each such individual development, SJVAPCD would require calculation of the construction emissions from the development. The purpose of the AIA is to confirm a development’s construction exhaust emissions, and therefore be able to identify appropriate mitigation, either through implementation of specific mitigation measures (e.g., use of construction equipment with Tier 4-rated engines) or payment of applicable off-site fees. As stated, under Rule 9510, each project that is subject to this Rule would be required to reduce construction exhaust emissions by 20 percent for NOx or pay offset mitigation fees for emissions that do not achieve the mitigation requirements.

While adherence to Rule 9510 would contribute to reducing exhaust NOx emissions, it would not be applicable to reducing ROG emissions generated operation of equipment and from off-gassing from asphalt and paints , or other criteria pollutant emissions . Therefore, project -related construction activities would result in significant regional air quality impacts.

CONCLUSION
Future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to comply with pre -existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements. For example, application of SJVAPCD Rules 9510 and Regulation VIII would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible and may result in reducing construction - related regional air quality impacts of individual projects. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Specific P lan, construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects are not available and there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction -related emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the construction -related criteria pollutant thresholds as promulgated by the SJVAPCD. Future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to implement al l of the mitigation measures provided below for construction-related emissions.

However, even with implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed Specific Plan would cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, with respect to the construction of the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-39

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading or building permits (whichever occurs first) , the property owner(s)/developer(s) for individual projects within the Plan Area shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used in the Plan Area for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non- exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans, or in a separate document and shall include a statement on how they are utilizing the cleanest (e.g. higher engine tier) equipment, as feasible. The construction equipment list shall state the make and model of all the equipment.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Prior to future discretionary project approval of individual development projects within the Plan Area, development project applicants shall prepare and s ubmit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction phase -related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology for assessing construction impacts. If construction related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD adopted threshold of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below the Air District’s applicable criteria pollutant thresholds of significance, as feasible. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions include but are not limited to:
• Install temporary construction power supply meters on site and use these to provide power to electric power tools whenever feasible. If temporary electric power is available on site, forbid the use of portable gasoline- or diesel-fueled electric generators. • Use of diesel oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate traps on diesel equipment, as feasible.
• Maintain equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications. • Restrict idling of equipment and trucks to a maximum of 5 minutes (per California Air Resources Board [CARB] regulation).
• Phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas and times of exposure. • Avoid excavation and grading during wet weather.
• Limit on-site construction routes and stabilize construction entrance(s). • Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely necessary. • Sweep up spilled dry materials (e.g., cement, mortar, or dirt track-out) immediately. Never attempt to wash them away with water. Use only minimal water for dust control. • Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a temporary roof or secured plastic sheeting or tarp.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: In order to reduce ROG emissions from construction activities, prior to issuance of a building permit for individual projects within the Plan Area that are subject to the

3. 3-40 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the property owner/developer shall require the construction contractor provide a note on the construction plans indicating that:
• All c
oatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound ( ROG) content lower tha n r
equired under Rule 4601 (i.e., super compliant paints). • All ar
chitectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-pressur e s
pray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge t
o achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-
roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applic ant e
fficiency.

T
he construction contractor may also use precoated/natural colored building materials.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: During all construction activities for individual projects within the Plan Area, the project proponent shall implement the following dust control practices identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (2002).
a. All di
sturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized fo r c
onstruction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical s
tabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All
on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dus
t emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. c. All land
clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and de
molition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or b y pr
esoaking.
d. W
hen materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to lim
it visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of t he c
ontainer shall be maintained.
e. All
operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt fro m adj
acent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The us e o
f dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied b y s
ufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is express ly f
orbidden.
f. Fo
llowing the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface o f o
utdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emission s ut
ilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. g. L
imit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and
h. In
stall sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadway s f
rom sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-41

Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable) Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping equipment). Mobile-source criteria air polluta nt emissions are based on the traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson and Associates (see Appendix G). The net change of operational emissions from buildout of the proposed Specific Plan is shown in Table 3.3-9, below. The net change in emissions is based on the new emissions associated with the new land uses.

TABLE 3.3-9: OPERATIONAL PROJECT GENERATED EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR ) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 2,881 460 1,010 7 667 179

EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

3.3 AIR QUALITY
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
As shown in Table 3.3 -9, operation of future projects at buildout would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 at buildout. Emissions of ROG and NOx that exceed the SJVAPCD regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to th e ozone nonattainment designation of the SJVAB. Emissions of NOx that exceed SJVAB’s regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SJVAB. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would contribute to the PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment d esignations.

Similar to construction-related emissions, application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 to future individual projects would contribute to reducing NOx and particulate matter emissions. In addition, application of SJVACPD Rule 9410 would contribute to reducing mobile-s ource emissions. Furthermore, as stated, the planned improvements, guidelines, objectives, and policies under the proposed Specific Plan would generally support a more sustainable development pattern to accommodate growth within the area by creating complete neighborhoods and providing more transit options through improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, public transportation, and alternative fueled vehicle networks and infrastructure, which would contribute in minimizing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. However, while SJVAPCD rules and policies of the proposed Specific Plan may contribute to reducing operation-related regional air quality impacts of individual projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan to less than significant, the projected cumulative emissions associated with future development projects would be in exceedance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact because it would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SJVAB.

3.3 -42 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

In accordance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) is required to be prepared based on the applicability and exemption criteria of Rule 9510.7 The rule includes general mitigation requirements for construction and/or operational emissions. Per the general mitigation requirements of Rule 9510, the individual developments within the Specific Plan are required to reduce their operational baseline NOx emissions by 33.3% over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. The individual developments within the Specific Plan are also required to pay any off-site fees in full by the invoice due date or prior to generating the emissions associated with the Specific Plan or any phase thereof, whichever occurs first.

Separately, the Specific Plan would comply with SJVAPCD Rule 4101, which prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants. Furthermore, the Plan would comply with SJVAPCD Rule 4601, which limits requires the Project to abide by more stringent VOC emissions requirements . Emissions of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings by specifying storage, clean up and labeling requirements.

Implementation of these and other SJVAPCD rules and regulations would further reduce overall Specific Plan emissions below the levels identified in Table 3.3-9.

PROJECT EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH

Criteria pollutants generated by the Specific Plan are associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma). Criteria pollutants can be classified as either regional or localized pollutants. Regional pollutants can be transported over long distances and affect ambient air quality far from the emissions source. Localized pollutants affect ambient air quality near the emissions source. Ozone is considered a regional criteria pollutant, whereas CO, NO 2, SO 2, and lead (Pb) are localized
pollutants. PM can be both a local and a regional pollutant, depending on its composition. The SJVAPCD establishes thresholds at levels that allow the SJVAPCD to come into compliance with the CAAQS and NAAQS. The CAAQS and NAAQS are set at levels protective of human health, and emissions below the SJVAPCD thresholds are deemed to not have a sig nificant impact on human health.

Ozone

AIR QUALITY 3.3
He
alth incidence rates and other health data are typically collected by the government as well as the World Health Organization. The Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP), developed by the U.S. EPA, is a powerful and flexible tool that helps users estimate human health effects and economic benefits resulted from changes in air quality. BenMAP outputs include PM- and ozone-related health endpoints such as premature mortality, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits. BenMAP calculates background health incidence rates based on the available health statistics and population data, with preference given to individual-level data counts (e.g., mortality counts or hospital and emergency department discharges) at the County -level. For 7 Available a t: https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r9510-a.pdf. Accessed: July 12, 2024.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-43

California counties, data were available at the individual-level. The background health incidence data are also based on different years depending on data availability. For example, hospital admissions and emergency department visits for California are based on 2011 data. For mortality background incidence rates, the U.S. EPA obtained data for 2012-2014 from the Centers for Disease Control WONDER database8, and generated age-, cause -, and county -specific mortality rates as described in the BenMAP manual.

The estimated background health incidences of mean ozone annual health effects across the San Joaquin Valley are shown in Table 3.3-10.9,10 The background health incidences provide an estimate of the average number of people over a given population that suffer from some adverse health effect over a given period. For example, the background health incidence in the San Joaquin Valley for total asthma-related emergency room visits for adults is 11,039 per year; this represents approximately 0.3% of the population as experiencing such incidents each year. Therefore, as shown in Table 3.3-10, the background health incidents for various ozone-related health endpoints is less than one percent for each of the health endpoints studied. This represents a relatively low rate of health incidents from cumulative regional ozone emissions, when compared to the population.

TABLE 3.3-10: BENMAP-ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN OZONE HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT EMISSIONS ACROSS THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MODEL DOMAIN1
HEALTH ENDPOINT2

BACKGROUND
HEALTH

INCIDENCE
(ANNUAL)

SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY
POPULATION11

PERCENTAGE OF

BACKGROUND HEALTH

INCIDENTS AS A

PROPORTION OF

POPULATION
HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, ALL RESPIRATORY [65-99] 35,103 4,300,000 0.8% MORTALITY, RESPIRATORY [30-99] 11,222 4,300,000 0.3% EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS, ASTHMA [0-17] 11,039 4,300,000 0.3% EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS, ASTHMA [18-99] 25,345 4,300,000 0.6%

3.3 AIR QUALITY
NOTES: 1HEALTH EFFECTS ARE SHOWN TERMS OF INCIDENCES OF EACH HEALTH ENDPOINT AND HOW IT COMPARES TO THE BASE VALUES. YEAR 2025 IS USED FOR BASE YEAR HEALTH EFFECT INCIDENCES, OR “BACKGROUND HEALTH INCIDENCE”. HEALTH EFFECTS AND BACKGROUND HEALTH INCIDENCES ARE ACROSS THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MODEL DOMAIN .2 AFFECTED AGE RANGES ARE SHOWN IN SQUARE BRACKETS.

SOURCE: RAMBOLL, 2023.

The Specific Plan would generate emissions of ROG and NOx during operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-9. Increases in ROG and NOx could affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but 8 See: http://wonder.cdc.gov
9 As provided for the San Joaquin Valley for Year 2025, as prepared by Ramboll U.S. Consulting Inc. in their Analysis of Potential Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Impacts, North Manteca Annexation #1 Project, March 20 23.
10 Note: Although the Ramboll U.S. Consulting Inc. analysis for was prepared for a different project, the background health incidence rates are not project-specific. Rather, they are for the San Joaquin Valley as a whole for year 2025, and therefore are also provide a representative data snapshot for this project. 11 See: https://www.ppic.org/blog/2020-census-counting-the-san-joaquin-valley/

3.3-44 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
also healthy adults and children. Both operational NOx and R OG are anticipated to exceed the applicable air district criteria pollutant thresholds . These increases in NOx and ROG would be primarily due to the operational mobile vehicles generated by the Specific Plan, but also due to the use of consumer products by people in the Plan Area. Consumer products are known to generate ROG through off-gassing. Such increases in ROG could fuel potential increases in health effects due to exposure to ozone.

Separately, it should be noted that this analysis does not consider potential future reductions in overall ROG off -gassing due to anticipated stricter consumer products regulations in the future.

Additionally, ROG emissions are anticipated to be reduced over time with anticipated shifts to electric vehicles as a proportion of the overall mobile vehicle fleet over time. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.3-10, health-related incidences associated with ozone are relatively low in the San Joaquin Valley, as a proportion of the overall population.

Pa
rticulate Matter
The Spe
cific Plan would generate emissions of PM during operational activities, as shown in Table

3.3-9. Although the exact effects of such emissions on local health are not known, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed Specific Plan would not on their own generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards. In addition, based on the nature of the Specific Plan and its size, such emissions when combined with the existing PM emitted regionally would have minimal health effect on people located in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area.

UFPs are a subset of PM and represent a health concern. Such particles have been shown to have the potential for even greater health effects than PM
10 or PM2.5, due to their even smaller particle
sizes. However, there are no adopted rules or regulations by the U.S. EPA or California air districts regarding UFPs. Moreover, attainment status related to UFPs is not monitored by the U.S. EPA or California air districts, and the SJVAPCD does not provide any guidance for assessment, thresholds, or mitigation asso ciated with UFPs. Additionally, air districts are not required to monitor UFPs.

Nevertheless, funding for harm reduction and monitoring of UFPs is occurring throughout California.

For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), a neighboring air district, established in 2011 a comprehensive program to study UFPs. As part of this program, the BAAQMD began making measurements at four air monitoring stations, with additional monitoring stations expected to be online in the future. At each station, the number of particles in a specified volume of air is counted every second. In addition to the number counts, sampling began in 2015 at two stations to gather data on UFP composition. Collected samples are analyzed for nineteen metals.

Data obtained from these measurements is used to identify major UFP sources in the San Francisco Bay Area, and to evaluate models and refine estimates of UFP’s public health impact. 12 Separately,
the SJVAPCD provides grant funding for off-road engine projects through their grants and incentives programs, which reduce UFPs13; the U.S. EPA Pacific Southwest region has provided funding for both the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the SJVAPCD District to help spur early-stage, Recirculated Draft EIR – Wes t Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-45 12 See: https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-measurement/special-air-monitoring- projects/special-reports/ultrafine-particulate-matter?sc_lang=en&switch_lang=true 13 See: https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/

3.3 AIR QUALITY
innovative technologies that need further testing and demonstration prior to massive deployment and commercialization of California Clean Air Initiative (CATI) projects. 14 Examples of such projects include Hybrid Natural Gas -Electric and Fully Electric Class 8 Trucks, Zero Emission Heavy -Duty Electric Trucks, Zero- and Near-Zero Emission School Buses, Electric Delivery Trucks, and School Bus Air Filtration. Other, numerous efforts are underway throughout the state to reduce PM emissions, which also tend to reduce emissions of UFPs (since UFPs are a subset of PM).

Different sources of PM generate differing levels of UFPs. For example, almost all the PM emitted by natural gas combustion is in the PM0.1 size fraction, whereas this is only true for less than half of the PM emitted by gasoline and diesel fuel combustion. 15 Therefore, estimating PM 0.1 can be difficult, given that it is not incorporated into the modeling software recommended by the CARB and the California air districts (i.e. CalEEMod). Nevertheless, a numerical estimate of the Project’s PM0.1 is provided under Impact 3.3-4, based on assumptions provided in available literature.

It is well documented from scientific studies that criteria pollutants can have adverse health effects.

The federal and state governments have established the NAAQS or CAAQS as a method to regionally, and cumulatively, assess and control the health effects that criteria pollutants have within Air Basins.

It is anticipated that public health w ill continue to be affected by the emission o f criteria pollutants, especially by those with impaired respiratory systems in the city of Fresno and the surrounding region so long as the region does not attain the CAAQS or NAAQS. Many of the Specific Plan’s criteria pollutant emissions are above the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance, that were established to enable the Air Basin to achieve attainment for the NAAQS and CAAQS standards. As such, the Specific Plan emissions would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution.

CONCLUSION
As shown in Table 3.3 -9, buildout of the Specific Plan Area is expected to exceed some of the SJVAPCD operational criteria pollutant emissions thresholds, as modelled. Application of State and SJVAPCD rules and regulations, such as Rules 9510 and 9410, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s roadway, bicycle, and trail improvements, policies , and complete streets design guidelines, and implementation of applicable General Plan policies would reduce operation-related criteria air pollutants generated from energy, stationary, and mobile sources to the extent feasible.

In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.3-6 (below) requires the individual project applicants to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce emissions from operational activities.

As stated, the aforementioned improvements, goals, and policies could contribute to reducing operation-phase regional air quality impacts of future individual projects. Individual projects would also be required to undergo CEQA review. However, despite implementation of the Specific Plan goals and policies, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of 14 See: https://www.epa.gov/cati/california-clean-air-technology-initiative-cati-projects 15 Venecek, M. A., Yu, X., and Kleeman, M. J.: Predicted ultrafine particulate matter source contribution across the continental United States during summertime air pollution events, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9399–9412, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9399-2019, 2019.

3.3-46 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
the overall land use development associated with the proposed Specific Plan. As such, operation of the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -6: Prior to future discretionary project approval within the Plan Area , development project applicants for individual projects within the Plan Area shall prepare and submit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD - adopted thresholds of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activit ies to below the applicable SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance, as feasible. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site -specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with CARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulation s [CCR] Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on building roofs to generate solar energy. • Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping.
• Maximize the installation of either solar panels or trees, or combination thereof, in parking lots.
• Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street-sweepers with HEPA filters. • Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-47

Mitigation Measure 3.3 -7: Prior to future discretionary approval for individual projects within the Specific Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, the City of Fresno shall evaluate new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) h ave the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel- powered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City Planning and Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the Applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to below the applicable Air District thresholds for TACs, as feasible. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter;
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or • Install solar panels, zero- emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Developers of individual projects that shall locate sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CA RB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to below the applicable thresholds for TACs, as feasible must be identified and approved by the City.

Impact 3.3-4: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ODORS

3.3 AIR QUALITY
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local

3. 3-48 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
governments and the SJVAPCD . The general nuisance rule (California Health and Safety Code §41700) and Air District Rule 402 is the basis for the threshold.

Examples of facilities that are known producers of odors include: wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g. auto body shops), composting facilit y, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant.

Odors from the types of land uses that could generate objectional odors are regulated under Regulation IV, Prohibitions, Rule 4102, Nuisance, which states:
“A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code §41700 prohibits emissions of air contaminants from any source that cause nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of people or that present a threat to public health or cause property damage. Compl iance with these rules would preclude land uses proposed under the proposed Specific Plan from emitting objectionable odors.

Heavy industrial land uses are the primary types of land uses that have the potential to generate objectionable odors. Heavy industrial -type land uses would generally be prohibited within the proposed Specific Plan Area. Residential and other non -residential (excluding industrial) land uses could result in generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment. However, u nlike heavy industrial land uses, these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from the planned land uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan are considered less than significant.

Separately, during construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.

Furthermore, short-term co nstruction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-9, as applicable. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3 -9, impacts associated with construction -generated odors are considered less than significant.

CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1 -hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8 -hour standard of 9.0 ppm. The GAMAQI previously required CO hotspot monitoring. However, emissions from Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-49

3.3 AIR QUALITY
motor vehicles, the largest source of CO emissions, have been declining since 1985 despite increases in VMT due to the introduction of new automotive emission controls and fleet turnover.

Consequently, no CO hotspots have been reported in the SJVAB even at the most congested intersections. Furthermore, under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.16
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in approximately 991,667 ADT over existing conditions. However, distributing the total daily vehicle trips within the proposed Specific Plan Area and region and by peak hour would result in smaller traffic volumes at the various intersections.

Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan is not anticipated to produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, implementation o f the proposed Specific Plan would not have the potential to substantially i ncrease CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the planning area, and impacts would be less than significant relative to this issue.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the State and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in its latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources. In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3- butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.

The 2007 EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 145 percent, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050. 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, May.

3.3-50 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
California maintains stricter standards for clean fuels and emissions compared to the national standards; therefore, it is expected that MSAT trends in California will decrease consistent with or more than the U.S. EPA's national projections.

In general, land uses that would require a permit from SJVAPCD for emissions of TACs include chemical processing facilities, chrome -plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline -dispensing facilities. As the proposed Specific Plan is a program -level document, it is currently unknown which types of stationary sources may be installed, if any. However, the proposed Specific Plan would generally prohibit the development of heavy industrial-type land uses. While development of land uses may result in stationary source emissions such as dry cleaners and restaurants with charbroilers or buildings with emergency generators, these types of land uses would not be large emitters.

Additionally, they would be controlled by SJVAPCD through permitting and would be subjec t to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under Regulation II. According to SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, Regulation II ensures that stationary source emissions (permitted sources) would be reduced or mitigated below SJVAPCD significance thresholds of ten in one million cancer risk and one for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual. Though these sources would incrementally contribute to the project’s inventory individually, they would be mitigated to the standards identified above. Moreover, future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-7, which requires project applicants for individual projects to conduct health risk assessments (where warranted by land use and proposal ). In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.3 -8 requires sensitive land uses to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook are required to provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

Separately, i t should be noted that the mobile vehicles generated by the Specific Plan during operation would generate ultrafine particles ( UFPs) through vehicle emissions, braking, and tire wear. Like PM in general, (though generating even higher risk per unit than larger particle sizes) UFPs are notable for their potential to generate chronic risks associated with cardiovascular disease, potential long-term loss of long-function, and cancer. According to a recent study prepared for the European Geosciences Union, UFPs vary widely as a proportion of PM overall, depe nding on location; specifically, the PM

0.1 to PM2.5 ratio analyzed in approximately 39 cities in the United States varied from approximately 1% to 16%.17 These factors vary so widely because the sources of PM 0.1 vary substantially from city to city. For example, cities that are located close to substantial sources of natural gas combustion have higher PM

0.1 to PM 2.5 ratios, since almost all the PM emitted by natural gas combustion is in the PM0.1 size fraction, whereas this is only true for less than half of the 17 Venecek, M. A., Yu, X., and Kleeman, M. J.: Predicted ultrafine particulate matter source contribution across the continental United States during summertime air pollution events, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9399–9412, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9399-2019, 2019.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-51

3.3 AIR QUALITY
PM emitted by gasoline and diesel fuel combustion. Taken together, these facts support the potential importance of natural gas combustion for ambient PM0.1 concentrations.

The city analyzed in the study with the greatest similarity to the city of Fresno (i.e. where the Plan Area is located) was the city of Bakersfield, given its similarity in location within the Central Valley region. The ratio of PM0.1 to PM2.5 for Bakersfield was found to be approximately 11%. Absent data specific to the city of Fresno, this data is presumed to be the best available data and reasonable for use in estimating PM 0.1 levels in this case. Therefore, given the Specific Plan’s estimated 667 tons per year of PM 2.5 (see Table 3.3 -9), the total PM 0.1 generated by the Plan is estimated to be approximately 73.4 tons per year (146,740 lbs/year). This is equivalent to 402 lbs/day of PM0.1. While there is not specifically a numerical threshold of significance established by the SJVAPCD for PM 0.1, the quantity estimated is considered small relative to thresholds established for other particulate matter. From an incremental health perspective, this level of UFPs generated by the Specific Plan would not be substantial. As such, the Specific Plan would not result in substantial UFP emissions that may affect nearby receptors.

Therefore, overall, impacts would be less than significant relative to this environmental issue.

CONCLUSION
The Specific Plan does not propose sensitive receptors that could be exposed to odors in the vicinity; nor does it propose uses that would create odors that could expose receptors in the area. Moreover, Mitigation Measure 3.3 -9 would ensure that the project would not generate an odors impact.

Therefore, operation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant objectionable odors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3 -9, impacts associated with exposure to odors would be less than significant.

The Plan Area is located in an area that is designated attainment-unclassified for carbon monoxide.

Therefore, no project -level conformity analysis is necessary for CO. Substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersecti ons affected by the development of the Plan Area. Impacts associated with carbon monoxide hotspots would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.

Overall, while implementation of the Specific Plan, in and of itself, would not result in an increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs, there is a potential for future commercial business activity, as permitted under the Specific Plan, to result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs. The emission sources could be stationary sources and/or mobile source (i.e. diesel truck traffic). Because, at the Specific Plan level of land use planning, the City does not yet know the precise locations, configurations, and sizes of any future land uses within the Specific Plan that uses may generate sufficient levels of TACs to create the possibility of adverse health effects, it is premature, at the Specific Plan stage, to undertake an overall health risk assessment for the Specific Plan. Future health risk assessments will be performed where warranted, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-9, below. In addition, Mitigation Measure

3.3-10 requires sensitive land uses to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances, and to prepare an HRA if required.

3.3-52 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

The following mitigation measure s would ensure that each future business is assessed for TACs in accordance with the requirements of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization Guidelines (July 1990). Implementation of this measure would ensure that impacts related to public exposure to TACs would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)

Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: The project applicant(s) shall r equire developers of individual projects within the Specific Plan Area with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD, to prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the SJVAPCD. The City’s Planning and Development Department shall verify that all odor control measures have been incorporated into the project design specifications prior to issuing a permit to operate.

Impact 3.3 -5: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Development that would be accommodated by the proposed Specific Plan could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during operational and construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those levels. As stated, the planned improvements, objectives and policies under the proposed Specific Plan would generally support a sustainable development pattern in accommodating future growth within the Plan Area, which would generally contribute to reducing long- term criteria air pollutant emissions. In addition, application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and Regulation VIII would contribute to reducing operation - and construction-related NOx and particulate matter emissions. Furthermore, Rule 9410 would also contribute t o reducing operation -related mobile -source emissions. However, the projected cumulative emissions associated with future development projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan would be in exceedance and could result in causing an exceedance of the AAQS. Therefore, as construction and operation of future individual development projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan could result in causing or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards, impacts to air quality would be significant.

OZONE

AIR QUALITY 3.3
O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of (also known as ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.

The reactivity of O
3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-53

during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.

Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory -related deaths (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the resul ts vary, evidence suggests that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8- hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019b).

O perational Emissions
Future development projects in the Plan Area would generate emissions of ROG and NOx during project operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-9. The CAA regulates these pollutants mainly because they contribute to ozone formation, but they can each cause adverse reactions in people on their own, as explained earlier in this chapter. Although the exact effects of project -level emissions on local health are not precisely known, it is likely that the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed Specific Plan w ould especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity o f the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the proposed Plan Area in comparison to Fresno County as a whole. Instead, the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing ROG and NOx emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

Construction Emissions

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Although the exact effects of ROG and NOx emissions on local health are not known, it is likely that the i ncreases in ROG and NOx generated by future development projects during construction would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by buildout of the proposed Specific Plan are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the proposed project in comparison to Fresno County as a whole. Instead, the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed project, including during construction activities, when combined with the existing ROG and NOx emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respi ratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

However, it should be noted that, since construction emissions are temporary in nature, the potential for substantial health impacts due to project construction activities is typically much less than for project operational activities.

3.3 -54 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PARTICULATE MATTER

Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, PM can cause major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's d efense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.

Small particulate pollution has health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed. The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children.

Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that every 1 microgram per cubic meter reduction in PM

2.5 results in a one percent reduction in mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017). Long -term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis – and even premature death. Additionally, depending on its composition, both PM 10 and PM2.5 can also affect
water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019c).

Operational Emissions

F
uture development projects in the Plan Area would generate emissions of PM during project operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-9. Although the exact effects of such emissions on local health are not known, it is likely that the increases in PM generated by the proposed project would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based o n the size of the project in comparison the Fresno County and the wider region as a whole. Instead, the increases in PM generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing PM emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Nevertheless, if a health risk assessment is warranted for a specific facility within the Specific Plan Area, it would be prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure s 3.3-7 and 3.3-8.

Construction Emissions

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Am
bient levels of construction particulate matter emissions are likely to decrease in the future, based on current and future implementation of federal and/or state regulatory requirements, such as improvements to the statewide vehicle fleet over time (including the long- term replacement of internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles in coming decades). Furthermore, based on the short -term nature of construction activities in comparison to operational activities, the Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-55

potential for substantial health impacts due to particulate matters emissions during project construction is limited.

DISCUSSION
As previously discussed, the magnitude and locations of any potential changes in ambient air quality, and thus health consequences, from these additional emissions cannot be quantified with a high level of certainty due to the dynamic and complex nature of pollutant formation and distribution (e.g., meteorology, emissions sources, sunlight exposure), as well as the variabilities in the receptors that reside in a particular area. Additionally, the SJVAPCD has not established any methodology or thresholds (quantitative or qualitative) for assessing the health effects from criteria pollutants. The City of Fresno is not aware of any air district in California that has an established methodology for correlating project-generated criteria pollutant emissions to health end points. From a qualitative perspective, it is well documented from scientific studies that criteria pollutants can have adverse health effects. The federal and state governments have established the NAAQS or CAAQS as an attempt to regionally, and cumulatively, assess and control the health effects that criteria pollutants have within Air Basins. It is anticipated that public health will continue to be affected by the emission of criteria pollutants, especially by those with impaired respiratory systems in the city of Fresno and the surrounding region so long as the region does not attain the CAAQS or NAAQS. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by future development under the Specific Plan are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the project in comparison to Fresno County and the wider region as a whole. Instead, the increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Ar ea.

Separately, localized construction activities are temporary in nature, and therefore, do not pose a threat to human health in the same manner as ongoing, chronic, lifetime exposure from projects during their operational phase.

CONCLUSION

3.3 AIR QUALITY
The increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed Specific Plan when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

Construction emissions would be temporary in natur e, while the operational activities of a project would be most likely to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, since ongoing, chronic, and lifetime exposure to criteria pollutants are key in the level of health impact. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the health-based NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the Plan Area in comparison the Fresno County and the wider region as a whole.

For these reasons, with implementation of the mitigation measures contained under the previous impacts (i.e. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-9, the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact related to this topic.

3. 3-56 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AIR QUALITY 3.3
See Impact 3.3-4 (previous) for a more detailed discussion of the potential risks from toxic air contaminants and carbon monoxide hotspots by the proposed Specific Plan.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-9.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-57

3.3 AIR QUALITY
This page left intentionally blank.

3.3-58 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
This section describes the geomorphic provinces/bioregions, vegetation, wildlife, soils, hydrogeomorphic features, wetlands, special-status species, regulatory setting, and impacts that are expected related to biological resources. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007); and
• Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).

One comment was received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) . The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

GEOMORPHIC PROVINCE AND BIOREGION
The city of Fresno is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The Great Valley Province is a broad structural trough bounded by the tilted block of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the complexly folded and faulted Coast Ranges on the west. The Stanislaus River, located north of the city, is a tributary of the San Joaquin River, which drains the Great Valley Province into the San Joaquin Delta to the north, ultimately discharging into the San Francisco Bay to the northwest.

The city of Fresno is located within the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which is comprised of Kings County, most of Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Stanislaus counties, and portions of Madera, San Luis Obispo, and Tulare counties. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the third most populous out of ten bioregions in the state, with an estimated 2 million people. The largest cities are Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton. Interstate 5 and State Route (SR) 99 are the major north -south roads that run the entire length of the bioregion.

The bioregion is bordered on the west by the coastal mountain ranges. Its eastern boundary joins the southern two-thirds of the Sierra bioregion, which features Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks. At its northern end, the San Joaquin Valley bioregion borders the southern end of the Sacramento Valley bioregion. To the west, south, and east, the bioregion extends to the edges of the valley floor.

Habitat in the bioregion includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Historically, millions of acres of wetlands flourished in the bioregion, but stream diversions for irrigation dried all but about five percent.

Remnants of the wetland habitats are protected in this bioregion in publicly owned parks, reserves, and wildlife areas. The bioregion is considered the state's top agricultural producing region with the abundance of fertile soil.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-1

LOCAL SETTING
Location
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan” or “West Area” or “Plan Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the city of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the 11 square miles within the Plan Area,

6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of SR 99. It is bounded on the south by W. Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to SR 99.

Topography
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near SR 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level.

Climate
The city of Fresno is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, which has a Mediterranean climate that is subject to cool, wet winters (often blanketed with fog) and hot, dry summers. The average annual precipitation is approximately 13.81 inch es. Precipitation occurs as rain most of which falls between the months of November through April, peaking in January at 2.85 inches. The average temperatures range from December lows of 37.5 F to July highs of 94.3 F.

Existing Uses
A significant amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized/underdeveloped parcels. According to the State Department of Conservation, the Plan Area has approximately 3,070 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built-Up, 2,357 acres of agricultural, and 1,650 acres of vacant, disturbed, or rural residential land.

Agricultural land is scattered throughout the Plan Area, but mainly in the southern, western, and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Irrigation ditches are also located throughout the Plan Area near these active agricultural lands. D eveloped uses are mainly in the northern, eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Plan Area. Undeveloped vacant land previously used for agricultural uses is also scattered throughout the Plan Area.

Surrounding Uses

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Surrounding land uses include SR 99, the communities of Herndon, Highway City, and Muscatel, and incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the north (including mostly industrial uses), incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the east (also including mostly industrial uses), unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

3. 4-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Vegetation

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Most agricultural activity on-site and in the immediate vicinity has consisted of cultivation of various types of row crops. Non-cultivated portions of the Specific Plan Area are vegetated with various common non -native annual grassland species, such as ripgut brome ( Bromus diandrus ), wild oat (Avena fatua), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Trees are also scattered throughout the developed and undeveloped portions of the Specific Plan Area , m ost of which are ornamental landscaping trees or residual trees from agricultural land.

Wildlife
The developed areas in the Plan Area typically provide habitat for common species that are accustomed to human disturbance, such as California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American robin (Turdus migratorius ), northern mockingbird ( Mimus polyglottos), house finch ( Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow ( Passer domesticus ), raccoon ( Procyon lotor) , squirrel ( Sciurus spp.), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus).

Opportunistic species that may occur in agricultural lands in the Plan Area include side -blotched lizard ( Uta stansburiana), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos ), California scrub -jay, yellow - billed magpie (Pica nuttalli), house finch, small mammals, and raptors that prey on them. The edges of fields and orchards where stands of weeds, blackberry brambles, and brush are left undisturbed may provide protective cover for wildlife and food for birds. Burrowing animals such a s California ground squirrels and gophers may be actively discouraged because of damage these animals can cause to irrigation systems, although their presence may be more likely in fallow fields.

The vacant lots and areas previously used for agricultural uses in the Plan Area are typically comprised of disturbed annual grassland species such as ripgut brome ( Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Wildlife that may occur and forage in disturbed annual grasslands as described include desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) , California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) , deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), western harvest mouse ( Reithrodontomys megalotis), side- blotched lizard, western fence lizard ( Sceloperus occidentalis), gopher snake ( Pituophis catenifer), and southern pacific rattlesnake ( Crotalis oreganus helleri). California horned larks ( Eremophila alpestris actia) and burrowing owls ( Athene cunicularia) may use disturbed grassland habitat for foraging and nesting, and red -tailed hawks ( Buteo jamaicensis ), Swainson’s hawks ( Buteo swainsoni), American kestrel ( Falco sparverius), and common raven ( Corvus corax) may soar over and forage in the grasslands, depending on the size and location of the habitat patch relative to other habitat types.

The irrigation ditches in the Plan Area associated with the agricultural uses appear to be largely devoid of riparian vegetation and are generally isolated, surrounded by agricultural fields, disturbed annual grasslands, parklands, or developed areas. The aquatic habitats may provide some limited habitat for wildlife such as waterfowl, red-winged blackbird ( Agelaius phoeniceus ), and western pond turtle ( Emys marmorata). These habitats likely lack persistent emergent vegetation, but surrounding vegetation may include hydrophytic plants and grasses.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-3

CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS SYSTEM
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly-occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. When first published in 1988, the classification scheme had 53 habitats. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System: 27 tree , 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 non - vegetated.

Figure 3.4 -1 shows the CWHR designations in the Plan Area. Table 3.4 -1 summarizes the designations in the Plan Area.

TABLE 3.4-1: CWHR LAND COVER TYPES

LAND COVER TYPE ACRES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
Annual Grassland 132.17
Barren 34.41
Deciduous Orchard 2,083.69
Dryland Grain Crops 22.68
Evergreen Orchard 12.68
Irrigated Grain Crops 1.33
Irrigated Hayfield 382.62
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 872.82
Lacustrine 3.78
Pasture 11.79
Riverine 7.76
Urban 3,100.36
Vineyard 348.66

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SOURCES: CALFIRE FVEG15_1, 2015; FRESNO COUNTY; CITY O F FRESNO. MAP DATE: JULY 25, 2019.

Below is a brief description of these CWHR habitats.

DEVELOPED COVER TYPES
Deciduous Orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns usually touch, and are usually in a linear pattern.

Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low -growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such a s along tree rows. Deciduous orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. Though some deciduous orchards are nonirrigated, most are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but many deciduous orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards

3.4-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most deciduous orchards are in valley or foothill areas, with a few, such as, apples and pears, up to 3,000 feet elevation. Within the West Area, there are 2,083.69 acres of Deciduous Orchard habitat.

Evergreen Orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns often do not touch, and are usually in a linear pattern. Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low-growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows.

Evergreen orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but most evergreen orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most evergreen orchards are in valley or foothill areas. Except for olive, most evergreen orchard trees are not very frost tolerant. Within the West Area, there are 12.68 acres of Evergreen Orchard habitat.

Vineyards are composed of single species planted in rows, usually supported on wood and wire trellises. Vines are normally intertwined in the rows but open between rows. Rows under the vines are usually sprayed with herbicides to prevent growth of herbaceous plants. Between rows of vines, grasses and other herbaceous plants may be planted or allowed to grow as a cover crop to control erosion. Vineyards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Most vineyards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of vineyards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most vineyards are in valley or foothill areas. Within the West Area, there are 348.66 acres of Vineyard habitat.

Dryland Grain Crops are composed of vegetation in the dryland (nonirrigated) grain and seed crops habitat includes seed producing grasses, primarily barley, cereal rye, oats, and wheat. These seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted by drilling in rows which produce solid stands, forming 100 percent canopy at maturity in good stands. They are normally planted in fall and harvested in spring. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in late spring. Within the West Area, there are 22.68 acres of Dryland Grain Crop habitat.

Irrigated Grain Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Field corn can reach ten feet tall while dry beans are only several inches tall. Most irrigated grain and seed crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have signific ant bare areas between rows. All seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months) or they may be irrigated, and then harvested in the late spring. Within the West Area, there are 1.33 acres of Irrigated Grain Crop habitat.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-5

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Irrigated Hayfield normally has a 2 to 6 months initial growing period, depending on climate, and soil, this habitat is dense, with nearly 100 percent cover. Average height is about 0.46 m. (1.5 feet) tall. Planted fields generally are monocultures (the same species or mixtures or a few species with similar structural properties). Structure ch anges to a lower stature following each harvest, grows up again and reverts to bare ground following plowing or discing. Plowing may occur annually, but is usually less often. Layering generally does not occur in this habitat. Unplanted "native" hay fields may contain short and tall patches. If not harvested for a year, they may develop a dense thatch of dead leaves between t he canopy and t he ground. Within the West Area, there are 382.62 acres of Irrigated Hayfield habitat.

Irrigated Row and Field Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Cotton and asparagus can be three or four feet tall while others may be a foot or less high. Most irrigated row and field crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may ha ve significant bare areas between rows. Most are annuals, while others, such as asparagus and strawberries are perennial. The annuals are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in the late spring. In some areas of southern California three crops may be grown in a year. Within the West Area, there are 872.82 acres of Irrigated Row and Field Crop habitat.

Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished: downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily -developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs.

There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. Within the West Area, there are 3,100.36 acres of Urban habitat.

HERBACEOUS COVER TYPES
Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Climatic conditions are typically Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, hot summers. The length of the frost - free season averages 250 to 300 days. Annual precipitation is highest in northern California. Within the West Area, there are 132.17 acres of Annual Grassland habitat.

Pastures are planted on flat and gently rolling terrain. Flat terrain is irrigated by the border and check method of irrigation, except on sandy soils or where water supplies are limited. Pastures established on sandy soils or hills are sprinklered. Hilly lands also use wild flooding; that is, ditches that follow the grade along ridges and hillsides, where water is released at selected points along the ditch. Climate influences the length of the growing season. For example, pastures at higher elevations or in the north have a shorter growing season. Within the West Area, there are 1 1.79 acres of Pasture habitat.

3.4-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

AQUATIC COVER TYPES

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Riverine habitats can occur in association with many terrestrial habitats. Riverine habitats are found adjacent to many rivers and streams. Riverine habitats are also found contiguous to lacustrine and fresh emergent wetland habitats. This habitat requires intermittent or continually running water generally originating at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge. Velocity generally declines at progressively lower altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease, and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy. Within the West Area, there are 7.76 acres of Riverine habitat.

Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water.

Riverine habitats are found in association with any terrestrial habitats, riverine, and fresh emergent wetlands. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not.

Within the West Area, there are 3.78 acres of Lacustrine habitat.

OTHER COVER TYPES
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation. Any habitat with <2% total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and <10% cover by tree or shrub species is defined this way. The physical settings for permanently barren habitat represent extreme environments for vegetation. An extremely hot or cold climate, a near -vertical slope, an impermeable substrate, constant disturbance by either human or natural forces, or a soil either lacking in organic matter or excessively saline can each contribute to a habitat being inhospitable to plants. Within the West Area, there are 34.41 acres of Barren habitat.

Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates the presence of 12 soil types occurring within the Specific Plan Area . Table 3.4-2 identifies the soils found in the Specific Plan Area.

TABLE 3.4-2: USDA SOIL SERIES INFORMATION

NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-7

NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0%

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2024.

Exeter series. The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 11 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 64 degrees F. The Exeter series includes but is not limited to the ‘Exeter loam’, ‘Exeter sandy loam’, and the ‘Exeter sandy loam, shallow’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.

Hanford series . The Hanford series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans and have slopes of 0 to 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 12 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 63 degrees F. The Hanford series includes but is not limited to the ‘Hanford gravelly sandy loam’, and the ‘ Hanford sandy loam, benches’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.

Hesperia series. The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 8 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 6 4 degrees F. The Hesperia series includes but is not limited to the ‘Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep’ soil, which is present within the Plan Area.

Pollasky series. The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep d issected terraces under annual grasses and forbs.

They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as annual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.

San Joaquin series. The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 15 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 61 degrees F. The San Joaquin series includes but is not limited to the ‘San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes’, San Joaquin loam,

3.4-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
shallow, 0-3% slopes’, ‘San Joaquin sandy loam, 0 -3% slopes, MRLA 17’, and ‘San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.

Hydrogeomorphic Features
Fresno County is located in the San Joaquin River watershed. The San Joaquin River is about 300 miles long. It begins in the Sierra Nevada mountain range on California’s eastern border. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra and flows roughly northwest through the Central Valley, to where it meets the Sacramento River at the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, a 1,000-square-mile maze of channels and islands that drains more than 40 percent of the state’s lands (SJRGA 2013).

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the city, as well as a large area beyond the city’s boundaries. The c ity’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by Fresno Irrigation District (FID) and then conveyed away from the municipal area.

The city of Fresno is located in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek. The city has hot dry summers and cool mild winters, with temperatures of mid -90°F in the summer and 60°F in the winter. The precipitation averages 11 inches per year and occurs almost entirely in the fall, winter, and spring.

Regionally, the city is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Redbank- Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200 -year storm event. Major facilities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two -year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided i nto over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-9

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The Plan Area is drained by 15 drainage watersheds, six of which are fully within the Plan Area, and nine of which drain to areas immediately south or west of the Plan Area. There are seven existing retention basins within the Plan Area and an additional five that serve the Plan Area. An additional basin is planned to serve the drainage shed in the far southwestern corner of the Plan Area.

SPECIAL -S TATUS SPECIES
The following discussion is based on a background search of special -status species that are documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) endangered and threatened species lists. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within a 12-quadrangle area (including the following U.S.

Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Madera, Gregg, Lanes Bridge, Friant, Biola, Herndon, Fresno North, Clovis, Kerman, Kearney Park, Fresno South, and Malaga ). Table 3.4-3 provides a list of special -status plants and Table 3.4-4 provides a list of special- status animals that are found in the regional vicinity.

3.4-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE 3.4-3: SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA STATUS
SPECIES (FED./CA/
CNPS)

HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
--/--/1B.2 Meadows and seeps, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools. Alkaline, vernally mesic.

Sinks, flats, and lake margins. 1-915 m. March-May.

California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
E/E/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon and juniper woodland. Sandy soils. 65-1860 m.

February-May.

California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
--/--/2B.1 Coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian scrub, mojavean desert scrub, meadows and seeps (alkali), riparian scrub. Mesic sites, alkali seeps, riparian areas. 3-1495 m. September- May. caper-fruited tropidocarpum
Tropidocarpum capparideum
--/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline clay. 0-360 m. March-April. dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
--/--/2B.2 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic sites), vernal pools. Vernal lake and pool margins with a variety of associates. In several types of vernal pools. 1-490 m. March-May.

Greene’s tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
E/R/1B.1 Vernal pool. Vernal pools in open grasslands. 25-1325 m.May-July. hairy Orcutt grass
Orcuttia pilosa
E/E/1B.1 Vernal pools. 25-125 m. May-September.

Hartweg's golden sunburst
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
E/E/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. Clay soils, often acidic. Predominantly on the northern slopes of knolls, but also along shady creeks or near vernal pools. 60-170 m. March-April. heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
--/--/1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils, chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (sandy). April- October.

Hoover's calycadenia
Calycadenia hooveri
--/--/1B.3 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. On exposed, rocky, barren soil.

September.
60-260 m. July-
lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
--/--/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland. In alkali sink and grassland in sandy, alkaline soils. 0- 225 m. May-October.

Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
--/--/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Dry slopes; often on decomposed granite in woodland. 80-1645 m. April-May.
palmate-bracted bird's-beak
Chloropyron palmatum
E/E/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Usually on Pescadero silty clay which is alkaline, with Distichlis, Frankenia, etc. 5-155 m. May-October.
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
--/--/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. On alkaline soils; often in valley saltbush or valley chenopod scrub. 3-790 m. March-June.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
T/E/1B.1 Vernal pool. 10-755 m. April-September.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

STATUS
SPECIES (FED./CA/
CNPS)

HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
--/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps. In standing or slow-moving freshwater ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0-605 m. May- October (November).
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
--/--/1B.2 Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland. Some sites on clay soil of granitic origin; vernal pools, within grassland. 15-1270 m. April-June.
succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta
T/E/1B.2 Vernal pools. Moist places, often in acidic soils. 20-705 m. (March) April-May.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
NOTES:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

R = RARE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
1B = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE. 2 = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA, BUT MORE COMMON ELSEWHERE. 3 = A REVIEW LIST – PLANTS ABOUT WHICH MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED. 4 = PLANTS OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION – A WATCH LIST .1 = SERIOUSLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (OVER 80% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED -HIGH DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT).
.2 = FAIRLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (20-80% OCCURRENCES THREATENED). .3 = NOT VERY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (<20% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED).

3.4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE 3.4-4: SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND FISH SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

SPECIES STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

INVERTEBRATES
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
FT/-- Stream side habitats below 3,000 feet throughout the Central Valley
Riparian and oak savanna habitats with elderberry shrubs; elderberries are the host plant.
californicus dimorphus
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
--/-- It has been documented on most land forms,
geologic formations and soil types supporting vernal
pools in California, at altitudes as high as 1,150
meters (3,770 ft) above sea level. Most common in
the Central Valley.

Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Water in the pools has very low alkalinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids.
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
mesovallensis
--/-- Extending from Stillwater Plain in Shasta County through most of the length of the Central Valley to
Pixley in Tulare County and along the central Coast
Range from northern Solano County to Pinnacles
National Monument in San Benito County.

Vernal pools with tea-colored water, most commonly in grass or mud bottomed swales, or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands.
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT/-- Central Valley, central and south Coast Ranges from Tehama County to Santa Barbara County. Isolated
populations also in Riverside County
Common in vernal pools; they are also found in sandstone rock outcrop pools.

AMPHIBIANS
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
FT/CT Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada foothills, up to approximately 1,000 feet, and coastal region from
Butte County south to northeastern San Luis Obispo
County.

Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties DPS federally listed as endangered. Need underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
--/SSC Found along the coast and coastal mountain ranges of California from Marin County to San Diego County
and in the Sierra Nevada from Tehama County to
Fresno County
Permanent and semi-permanent aquatic habitats, such as
creeks and cold-water ponds, with emergent and submerge vegetation. May estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during periods.
nt
dry
BIRDS
black-crowned night
heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
--/-- Throughout California Colonial nester, usually in trees, occasionally in tule patches.

Rookery sites located adjacent to foraging areas: lake margins, mud-bordered bays, marshy spots.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-13

SPECIES STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
--/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including the Central Valley, northeastern plateau, southeastern deserts,
and coastal areas. Rare along south coast.

Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground squirrel.

California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia
--/SSC Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County to San Diego County. Also main part of San Joaquin Valley
and east to foothills.

Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.
double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
--/WL Nonbreeding California habitat located along coastal California and the Central Valley. Migrates
throughout California.

Colonial nester on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of the state. Nests along coast on sequestered islets, usually on ground with sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake margins.
great egret
Ardea alba
--/-- Throughout California Colonial nester in large trees. Rookery sites located near marshes, tide-flats, irrigated pastures, and margins of rivers and lakes.

Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE/CE Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms.

Found below 2000 ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.
snowy egret
Egretta thula
--/-- Found mostly throughout North, Central, and South America. Breeds in coastal and inland wetlands. Their
range has been limited over time due to habitat
destruction and hunting. A migratory species that
relocates from the United States and Canada to
Prefer shallow water inlets for feeding such as salt-marsh pools, tidal channels, and bays. Mostly along coastal areas and islands.

During winter time they migrate and roost in the mangroves of the Caribbean.

Mexico, Central America, South America, and the
West Indies.

Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
--/CT Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the
Klamath Basin, and Butte Valley. Highest nesting
densities occur near Davis and Woodland, Yolo
County.

Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, & agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

SPECIES STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
--/C (SSC) Permanent resident in the Central Valley from Butte County to Kern County. Breeds at scattered coastal
locations from Marin County south to San Diego
County; and at scattered locations in Lake, Sonoma,
and Solano Counties. Rare nester in Siskiyou, Modoc,
and Lassen Counties.

Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony.
western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT/CE Nests along the upper Sacramento, lower Feather, south fork of the Kern, Amargosa, Santa Ana, and
Colorado Rivers
Wide, dense riparian forests with a thick understory of willows for nesting; sites with a dominant cottonwood overstory are preferred for foraging; may avoid valley oak riparian habitats where scrub jays are abundant
FISH
hardhead
Mylopharodon
conocephalus

--/SSC Tributary streams in the San Joaquin drainage; large tributary streams in the Sacramento River and the
main stem
Resides in low to mid-elevation streams and prefer clear, deep pools and runs with slow velocities. They also occur in reservoirs.

MAMMALS
American badger
Taxidea taxus
--/SSC Badgers are found primarily in the Great Plains region of North America. Badgers occur north through the
central western Canadian provinces, in appropriate
habitat throughout the western United States, and
south throughout the mountainous areas of Mexico.

They have expanded their range since the turn of the
20th century and are now found as far east as
Ontario, Canada.

Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis
FE/CE Western Fresno County. Alkali sink-open grassland habitats. Bare alkaline clay-based soils subject to seasonal inundation, with more friable soil mounds around shrubs and grasses.

Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
--/-- Occur in all 50 states. Rare in the eastern United States and northern Rockies. Found mainly in the
Pacific Northwest and California, Arizona, and New
Mexico.

Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-15

SPECIES STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Pallid Bat
Antrozous pallidus
--/SSC Associated with oak woodlands in coastal California.

Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.

Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
FE/CT Western Kern County, San Luis Obispo County, and Contra Costa County
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base.

San Joaquin Pocket
Mouse
Perognathus inornatus
--/-- Found in the southern Sacramento Valley, Salinas Valley, San Joaquin Valley and adjacent foothills,
south to the Mojave Desert.

Grassland, oak savanna and arid scrubland. Associated with fine-textured, sandy, friable soils.
spotted bat
Euderma maculatum
--/SSC Distributed across large areas of western North America from southern British Columbia to the
central Mexican state of Queretaro.

Occupies a wide variety of habitats from arid deserts and grasslands through mixed conifer forests. Feeds over water and along washes. Feeds almost entirely on moths. Needs rock crevices in cliffs or caves for roosting.
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
--/SSC Widespread in the southern United States and the northern part of Mexico. Occur at elevations to 2,600
meters.

Day roosts occur in crevices of cliffs and rocky canyons as well as trees. Roost areas need to be elevated and have a 2 meter drop off for take off area. Can live in chaparral, coastal and desert shrubs, and forests and wetland habitats.

REPTILES
blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
Gambelia sila
FE/CE Distributed across eastern California Resident of sparsely vegetated alkali and desert scrub habitats, in areas of low topographic relief. Seeks cover in mammal burrows, under shrubs or structures such as fence posts; they do not excavate their own burrows.

California glossy snake
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
--/SSC Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of San Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley, and the
Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, south to
Baja California.

Generally reported from a range of scrub and grassland
habitats, often with loose or sandy soils.
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
--/SSC Found at elevations from sea level to 8,000 ft. (2,438 m).

Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

SPECIES STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS northern California --/-- California legless lizards are found in California and Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Soil legless lizard Mexico. They are found from western central moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a high moisture Anniella pulch ra California (San Joaquin and the coastal regions), content. through northwestern Baja California, and as far
south as Colonia Guerrero, Mexico.
western pond turtle --/SSC Occurs from the Oregon border of Del Norte and A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams Emys marmorata Siskiyou Counties south along the coast to San and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below Francisco Bay, inland through the Sacramento Valley, 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks and on the western slope of Sierra Nevada. or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.31 miles from water for egg-laying.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
NOTES:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PE = PROPOSED FOR ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PT = PROPOSED FOR THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

D = DELISTED FROM FEDERAL LISTING STATUS.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

FP = FULLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE.

SSC = SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.

Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-17

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This page left intentionally blank.

3.4-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4

3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the natural resources of the state and nation including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW), USFWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These agencies often respond to declines in the quantity of a particular habitat or plant or animal species by developing protective measures for those species or habitat type. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), provides protection to plant and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. In general, USFWS has jurisdiction over terrestrial and fresh-water species, while NMFS has jurisdiction over ocean-going species.

Section 9 of FESA generally prohibits all persons from causing the "take" of any member of a listed species. (16 U.S.C. § 1538.) This prohibition applies mainly to animals; it only extends to plants in areas “under federal jurisdiction” and plants already protected under state law. (Id., subd. (a)(2)(B); see also Northern Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 1075.) “Take” is defined in statute as, "... to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).) Harass is defined in regulation as "...an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." (See 50 CFR § 17.3.) Harm is defined in regulation as "...significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” (Id.) Despite the general prohibition against take, FESA in some circumstances permits “incidental take,” which means take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. (16 U.S.C. § 1539(a).) Under section 10 of FESA, persons seeking permission to engage in actions that could result in such incidental take can obtain such permission through the approval of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) by either USFWS or NMFS. (16 U.S.C., § 1539(a).)
Proposed federal actions that would result in take of a federal -listed or proposed species require consultation with USFWS or NMFS under section 7 of FESA. (Id., § 1536.) The objective of consultation is to determine whether the proposed federal action would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Where such an outcome would not occur, USFWS or NMFS must still impose reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the effects of the incidental taki ng. Where such an outcome could occur, USFWS or NMFS must Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-19

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that, if implemented, would avoid such an outcome. (Id.)
Compliance with ESA can be achieved under Section 7 or 10 of FESA depending on the involvement of the federal government. Section 7 requires federal agencies to make a finding on all federal actions, including the approval by an agency of a public or private action, such as the issuance of a “404 permit” for filling wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), on the potential of the action to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species impacted by the action or to result in the destru ction or adverse modification of such species’ critical habitat. Provisions of Section 10 are implemented when there is no federal involvement in a project except compliance with FESA. A take not specifically allowed by federal permit under Section 7 or Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA is subject to enforcement through civil or criminal proceedings under Section II of the FESA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
To kill, posses, or trade a migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg is a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989), unless it is in accordance with the regulations that have been set forth by the Secretary of the Interior.

Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provide regulations to protect bald and golden eagles as well as their nests and eggs from willful damage or injury.

Clean Water Act – Section 404
Section 404 of the CWA regulates all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.

Discharges of fill material includes the placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dir t, or other material for its construction; site - development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §328.2(f)].

Waters of the U.S. include lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The O HWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].

Clean Water Act – Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires an applicant who is seeking a 404 permit to first obtain a water quality certification from the RWQCB. To obtain the water quality certification, the RWQCB must indicate that the proposed fill would be consistent with the standards set forth by the state.

3. 4-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

The Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The Act r equires authorization from the USACE for any excavation or deposition of materials into these waters or for any work that could affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of rivers or harbors.

STATE
Fish and Game Code §2050-2097 - California Endangered Species Act

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect fish and wildlife resources. Principal of these is the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.), which regulates the listing and take of state endangered and threatened species, as well as candidate species. Under Section 2081 of CESA, CDFW may authorize take of an endangered and/or threatened species, or candidate species, by an incidental take permit or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for scientific, educational, or management purposes. In approving an incidental permit, CDFW must ensure, among other things, that “[t]he impacts of the authorized take shall be minimized and fully mitigated.” Further, “[t]he measures required to meet this obligation shall be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized taking on the species. Where various measures are available to meet this obligation, the measures required shall maintain the applicant's objectives to the greatest extent possible. All required measures shall be capable of successful implementation.” To be consistent with Federal regulations, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare" animals into the Act as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants , as previously designated under the California Native Plant Protection Act (discussed below). Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threat ened, and endangered. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission.

Fish and Game Code §2800 -2835 – Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act

The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act is set forth in Fish and Game Code Sections 2800–2835. The intent of the legislation is to provide for conservation planning as an officially recognized policy that can be used as a tool to eliminate conflicts between the protection of natural resources and the need for growth and development. In addition, the legislation promotes conservation planning as a means of coordination and cooperation among private interests, agencies, and landowners, and as a mechanism for multispecies and multi-habitat management and conservation. The development of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) is an alternative to obtaining take authorization under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code.

Fish and Game Code §1900-1913 – California Native Plant Protection Act

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
In 1977 the State Legislature passed the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in recognition of rare and endangered plants of the state. The intent of the law was to preserve, protect, and enhance Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-21

endangered plants. The NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants. The NPPA includes provisions that prohibit the taking of plants designated as "rare" from the wild, and a salvage mandate for landowners, which requires notification of the CDFW 10 days in advance of approving a building site.

Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3800 – Predatory Birds Under the California Fish and Game Code, all predatory birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes in California, generally called “raptors,” are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a reduction or loss in a reproductive effort is considered a take. This generally includes construction activities.

Fish and Game Code §1601-1603 – Streambed Alteration
Under the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any lake or stream.

Private landowners or project proponents must obtain a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” from CDFW prior to any alteration of a lake bed, stream channel, or their banks. Through this agreement, the CDFW may impose conditions to limit and fully mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife resources.

Fish and Game Code §3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050 – Fully Protected Species
Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050 pertain to fully protected wildlife species (birds in Sections 3511 and 3513, mammals in Section 4700, and reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050) and strictly prohibit the take of these species. CDFW cannot issue a take permit for fully protected species, except under narrow conditions for scientific research or the protection of livestock, or if an NCCP has been adopted.

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15380 – Unlisted Species Worthy of Protection

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The CEQA Guidelines provide that a species that is not listed on the federal or State endangered species list may nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species meets certain criteria. (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) Species that are not listed under FESA or CESA, but are otherwise eligible for listing (i.e. candidate, or proposed) may be protected by the local government until the opportunity to list the species arises for the responsible agency.

Species that may b e considered for r eview are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern,” developed by the CDFW. Additionally, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a nongovernmental organization, maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low populations, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. List 1A contains plants that are believed to be extinct. List 1B contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California

3. 4-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

and elsewhere. List 2 contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.

California Wetlands Conservation Policy

In August 1993, the Governor announced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy.” The goals of the policy are to establish a framework and strategy that will:
• Ensure no overall net loss and to achieve a long- term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship, and respect for private property.
• Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and federal wetland conservation programs.
• Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts the primary focus of wetland conservation and restoration.

The Governor also signed Executive Order W -59-93, which incorporates the goals and objectives contained in the new policy and directs the Resources Agency to establish an Interagency Task Force to direct and coordinate administration and implementation of the policy.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code, § 13000 et seq.) is California’s primary water quality control statute. But its protections extend to wetlands, and in some instances wetlands that are not subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Under the Porter-Cologne Act definition, waters of the state are “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” (Wat. Code, § 13050[e].) Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the reverse is not necessarily true.

Therefore, California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, discharges to receiving waters more broadly than the CWA does.

Waters of the state fall under the jurisdiction of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Under Porter-Cologne, each RWQCB must prepare and periodically update water quality control basin plans. Each basin plan sets forth water quality st andards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to control nonpoint and point sources of pollution. California Water Code Section 13260 requires any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements [WDRs]) with the applicable RWQCB. Construction activities that may discharge wastes into the waters of the state must meet the discharge control requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan), adopted by the C entral Valley RWQCB in 1998, identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies and provides Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-23

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
water quality objectives and standards for waters of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, including the Delta.

State and federal laws mandate the protection of designated “beneficial uses” of water bodies. State law defines beneficial uses as “domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Water Code Section 13050[f]). Additional protected beneficial uses of the San Joaquin River include groundwater recharge and fresh water replenishment. Major issues and the general conditions of existing beneficial uses in the San Joaquin River are as follows:
• Water Supply: The San Joaquin River is not currently a source of municipal water supply for the City of Fresno and is not identified as a source for the proposed Project, although some farms in the region use the river as a source of water for irrigation. The City uses groundwater, water from the Kings River through an agreement with FID, and Class 1 water from the Central Valley Project through a water supply contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
• Agricultural Supply: Extensive use is made of San Joaquin River and Delta waters for agricultural purposes. Annual water diversions from the Delta by the State Water P roject (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) for agriculture are estimated to reach 4.3 million acre-feet (MAF) per year by 2030. In addition, about 2,000 privately owned agricultural water supply diversions are scattered throughout the Delta, generally consisting of riverside pumping stations.
• Recreation: Water-dependent recreation uses of the San Joaquin River and the Delta include swimming, wading, waterskiing, sport fishing, and a variety of other activities that involve contact with the water. Noncontact (water -enhanced) recreation uses incl ude picnicking, camping, pleasure boating, hunting, bird watching, education, and aesthetic enjoyment. • Groundwater Recharge: Water from the San Joaquin River and the Delta recharges the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin. Recharge serves to maintain salt balance in the soil column, prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, and provide for wate r supplies. Groundwater is replenished through deep percolation of streamflow, precipitation, and applied irrigation water. Groundwater quality is generally adequate throughout the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta, although at shallow depths within the Delta the water is often saline and contains high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and dissolved minerals. Enforceable TDS standards do not exist for drinking water. The need for treatment generally depends on consumer acceptance.
• Fish and Wildlife: The San Joaquin River and the waterways of the Delta provide important habitat for a diverse variety of aquatic life and terrestrial wildlife. This includes temporary habitat and migration routes for anadromous and other migratory species, as well as permanent habitat for resident species. Fish dependent on the Delta as a migration corridor, nursery, or permanent residence include Chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, striped bass, American shad, sturgeon, catfish, largemouth bass, and numerous other estuary and freshwater species. The amount and quality of water flowing through the Delta greatly influences the overall productivity of the area on an annual basis.

Fresno City CouncilOctober 16, 2025

Fresno City Council
October 16, 2025