Exhibit Q - Resolution Certifying the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR

Exhibit Q
Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report
SCH. No. 2019069117
RESOLUTION NO. ---

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO,

CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH
NO. 2019069117 AS RELATED TO THEWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN, RELATED PLAN AMENDMENTS P22-01351, P22-
01352, P22-01353, AND RELATED REZONE P22-01353; ADOPTING

FINDINGS OF FACT AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE SECTION 21081(A) AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15091, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081.6
AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15097, ADOPTING THE

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE SECTION 21081(8) AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15093, AS RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE WEST AREA

NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN, RELATED PLAN

AMENDMENTS, AND RELATED REZONES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-4902-8, the Council of the city of Fresno adopted Resolution 2019-140 initiating the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan: corresponding amendments to the Fresno General Plan, and the repeal of the West Area Community Plan and approximately 455 acres of the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the above actions shall be described collectively as the "West Area Specific Plan Actions" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Development determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared for the West Area Neighborhoods Plan Actions, and the City contracted with a professional environmental consultant to conduct the requisite studies and analyses of the potential environmental impact and proposed mitigation measures, as applicable, for the Fresno General Plan; and 1 of 15
Date Adopted:

Date Approved:

Effective Date:

City Attorney Approval: \Le- Resolution No. ----

Exhibit Q - Attachment 1:

Final EIR

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
SEPTEMBER 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
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
SEPTEMBER 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
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-1

FINAL EIR
Chapter Page Number
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ES-1

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

1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR ...................................................................1.0-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process...............................................................................1.0-2

1.3 Organization of the Final EIR ..................................................................................1.0-3

2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses ..............................................................................2.0-1

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................2.0-1

2.2 List of Commenters.................................................................................................2.0-1

2.3 Comments and Responses......................................................................................2.0-1

3.0 Revisions..............................................................................................................................3.0-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR .......................................................................................3.0-1

4.0 Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..........................................................4.0-1

4.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program......................................................4.0-1 Tables Page Number
Table 2.0-1: List of Commenters on the Draft EIR .....................................................................2.0-1 Table 4.0-1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.....................................................4.0-2

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-1

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

The program-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed Project as a whole.

The Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) 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 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.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a brief summary and overview of the Project. Chapter 2.0 of the RDEIR includes a detailed description of the 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 Project.

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 refines the General Plan’s land use 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 land use plan would allow for the future development of up to 83,015 dwelling units (DU) (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 details of the proposed Specific Plan.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE 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 significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the Specific Plan. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the Specific Plan:
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Additional Annexation Alternative;
• Community Parks Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.

A comparative analysis of the Project and each of the Project alternatives is provided in Table ES-1 in Chapter ES of the RDEIR. As shown in Table ES-1, 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.

COMMENTS RECEIVED
The RDEIR addressed environmental impacts associated with the Project that are known to the City, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised during preparation of the RDEIR. The RDEIR discussed potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
ES-3 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan During the NOP process, several comments were received related to the analysis that should be included in the RDEIR. These comments are included as Appendix A of the RDEIR, and were considered during preparation of the RDEIR.

The City received eight comment letters regarding the RDEIR from public agencies and other parties. These comment letters on the RDEIR are identified in Table 2.0-1 of this Final EIR. The comments received during the RDEIR review processes are addressed within this Final EIR.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-1 This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The City of Fresno (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and has the principal responsibility for approving the Project. This Final EIR assesses the expected environmental impacts resulting from approval of the Project and associated impacts from subsequent development and operation of the Project, as well as responds to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR).

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
This Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that a Final EIR consist of the following:
• the Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
• comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary;
• a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process; and
• any other information added by the lead agency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by reference into this Final EIR.

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 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, and an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.

PURPOSE AND USE
The City, as the lead agency, has prepared this Final EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project. Responsible and trustee agencies that may use the EIR are identified in Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 of the RDEIR.

The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the 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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all aspects of construction and operation of the Project. The details and operational characteristics of the Project are identified in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the RDEIR (March 2025).

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

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY (2019)
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 the Draft EIR.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR (2022)
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 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. 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. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR (2025) 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 INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-3 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.

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, and traffic noise modeling.

As noted previously, 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 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 nonresidential uses. The Specific Plan analyzed in the (2024) Recirculated Draft EIR allows for the future development of up to 83,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category) and 59,777,271 SF of nonresidential uses.

The original (2022) Land Use Map did not have dual designations assigned erroneously; the dual designations have been assigned 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, to 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.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
The City received eight comment letters regarding the RDEIR from public agencies and a private group. These comment letters on the RDEIR are identified in Table 2.0-1, and are found in Chapter

2.0 of this Final EIR.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the written comments received on the Draft EIR, as required by CEQA. This Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions. This document, as well as the Draft EIR as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The Fresno Planning Commission and City Council will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City Council finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA and City environmental review procedures and codes. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified 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 which intelligently take account of environmental consequences.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the Project. A decision to approve the Project, for which this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described below, would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during Project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR has been prepared consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which identifies the content requirements for Final EIRs. This Final EIR is organized in the following manner:

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-5 CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, agency, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.

CHAPTER 2.0 – COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written and electronic comments made on the Draft EIR (coded for reference), and responses to those written comments.

CHAPTER 3.0 – REVISIONS
Chapter 3.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the Draft EIR.

CHAPTER 4.0 – FINAL MMRP
Chapter 4.0 consists of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is presented in a tabular format that presents the impacts, mitigation measure, and responsibility, timing, and verification of monitoring.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

COMMENT ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION
No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan), were raised during the comment period. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or add “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.d
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 states that: New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Final EIR include information that has been added to the EIR since the close of the public review period in the form of responses to comments and revisions.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 2.0-1 lists the comments on the RDEIR that were submitted to the City of Fresno (City) during the 45-day public review period for the RDEIR. The assigned comment letter or number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed.

Letters received are coded with letters (A, B, etc.).

TABLE 2.0-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT EIR

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR

SIGNATORY

AFFILIATION DATE
A Annalisa Schilla California Air Resources Board 4-28-25 B Dave Kereazis California Department of Toxic Substances Control 4-24-25 C David Padilla California Department of Transportation 4-9-25 D Arianna Brown County of Fresno Department of Public Works and Planning 5-1-25 E Laurence Kimura Fresno Irrigation District 4-30-25
F Denise Wade Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 4-28-25 G N/A Fresno Naturalist 4-27-25
H Mark Montelongo San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 4-24-25

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments on the Draft EIR that regard an environmental issue. The written response must address the significant environmental issue raised and provide a detailed response, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, the written response must be a good faith and reasoned analysis. However, lead agencies need only to respond to significant

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by the commenter, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts of the project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the project, and that commenters provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the DEIR be noted as a revision in the DEIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR identifies all revisions to the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan RDEIR.

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the RDEIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
• Each letter is lettered or numbered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-3 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-5

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-7

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-9

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-11 Response to Letter A: California Air Resources Board
Response A-1: This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. Responses to specific comments are provided below. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-2: An analysis of Table 3 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan has been added to Section 3.7:

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy of the FEIR. Refer to the expanded version of Table 3.7-5 within Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy of the FEIR. As shown in the additional Table, the Project is consistent with many of the policies contained within Table 3 of Appendix D of Scoping Plan. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-3: CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. As discussed in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the RDEIR, 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.

The Draft EIR does not evaluate an option that guides residential and commercial development outwards to undeveloped portions of the city and county. The Lower Density Alternative, as noted above, aims to preserve the rural areas along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area.

It is also noted that the proposed Project, when compared to the existing General Plan land uses, rearranges land uses to have more intensity along the main transportation corridors in the Plan Area. This will, in turn, make transit planning along these main corridors more feasible. For example, Shaw Avenue has the most housing capacity for the Project, which is along a transit corridor.

Response A-4: This comment is noted. Firstly, it should be noted that California’s new building codes will require EV chargers in most new overnight parking spots starting in 2026. The new California building codes will require that at least one parking space per unit in multifamily developments, such as apartments and condos, be “EV Ready.” An EV Ready space must have a 240V/20A outlet or a charger (such as NEMA 6-20, 14-30, or 14-50 or a J1772 or NACS charger). In cases where parking spaces are shared, the new codes allow powersharing systems, as long as each unit can still receive a minimum of 3.3kW simultaneously.

If a unit has its own dedicated space, it must be wired separately to that unit’s electrical panel, “when feasible.” In addition, if there are more parking spaces than units, at least 25% of the extra spaces must also be EV ready.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The new rules don’t just apply to residential developments, but also extend to hotels and non-residential parking lots. New hotels must have 65% of their parking spaces EV ready, with the option for cities to increase this to 100%. For commercial, office, or retail parking lots, 20% of spaces must be EV ready, with a potential increase to 30% or 45%, depending on local regulations. Property owners can install DC fast charging stations to gain “extra credit” and reduce the number of lower-powered spaces needed.

The regulations will also apply to renovations or expansions of existing developments, meaning older buildings will gradually be required to add EV charging infrastructure when they make changes to their parking facilities. This includes new solar canopy parking projects, which must also incorporate EV chargers, though retrofitting existing parking lots for Level 1 charging is exempt from certain power requirements.1 Although these state-level requirements are not at the level of the most ambitious voluntary standards (Tier 2), it should be noted that the more appropriate place to require achieving Tier 2 CalGreen standards for EV charging would be at the individual project level. This would provide the maximum level of flexibility. Moreover, since impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions were found to be ‘less than significant’ for the proposed Project, mitigation measures such as requiring providing EV charging infrastructure to meet the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code for single-family, multi-family, and commercial uses, would not be appropriate or required, from a CEQA perspective. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-5: Although the Project as a whole may not be considered an “infill” site, many of the individual development projects within the Plan Area would be considered infill development. As stated in Chapter 2.0: Project Description of the RDEIR, vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods. It is also noted that the proposed Project, when compared to the existing General Plan land uses, rearranges land uses to have more intensity along the main transportation corridors in the Plan Area. This will, in turn, make transit planning along these main corridors more feasible. For example, Shaw Avenue has the most housing capacity for the Project, which is along a transit corridor.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3.14-1 within the RDEIR requires large employers (greater than 100 employees) within the Plan Area to implement feasible Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in order to decrease daily commute vehicle trips by 9% compared to standard trip generation. Further, Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 requires the City of Fresno to expand local transit networks by modifying, adding, or extending existing transit services to enhance the service within the Specific Plan Area. Moreover, it is noted that individual development projects within the Plan Area may implement additional mitigation measures that would reduce VMT further than that as identified 1 https://evinfo.net/2024/12/ca-to-require-ev-charging-for-all-new-residential-units-in-2026/ COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-13 with the RDEIR. Lastly, it is worth mentioning that the City of Fresno received a Measure C TOD Planning grant to create a study that includes multimodal streetscapes, a trail system, and development feasibility for the mixed-use town center along West Shaw Avenue (a future High-Frequency Transit corridor). As of June 2025, work on this study is just getting started and directly implements Policy LUH 1.4 of the Specific Plan. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-6: The Project will reduce the net loss or conversion of natural and working lands through Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, which requires project proponents to 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. In addition, the Specific Plan includes Policy LUH 5.2, which supports the City’s current efforts to prepare a Farmland Preservation Program. The Program is required to consider mechanisms to prevent the premature loss of the State’s Important Farmland, including, but not limited to, the incorporation of agrihoods into new development, 1:1 (or greater) conservation easements, or other methods to conserve farmland. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-7: This comment is noted. Portions of the Project site are already currently served by several transit (e.g., Fresno Area Express [FAX]) routes. Furthermore, additional transit routes are anticipated to be added as the Plan Area develops over time. It should also be noted that the Specific Plan attempts to place more density along transit-served corridors (which feature mixed use [MX] zones with no density limits and Urban Neighborhood [16-30 du/ac] and High Density [30-45 du/ac]). The Specific Plan also contains policies relating to shuttle and micro-transit services. Specifically, refer to Specific Plan Policies IPR 1.8 and IPR 1.18. Policy IPR 1.8 states: “Expand transit services in the West Area as development occurs, by locating routes near or adjacent to civic centers, schools, public parks, and retail centers and explore feasibility to create a West Area-Downtown Connector Route.” Policy IPR 1.18 states: “Encourage the use of micromobility in the West Area, consider it when designing or retrofitting transportation-related infrastructure, and explore potential for integration with public transit.” No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-8: This comment is noted. The Specific Plan includes a policy relating to reducing parking requirements. Specifically, Policy IPR 1.20 requires reducing minimum parking requirements for projects that exceed CalGreen standards for ZEV-ready spaces, that provide enhanced active transportation options, or that are located within ½ mile of a transit stop. Additionally, individual development projects have leeway to require even more stringent reduced parking requirements. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-9: This comment is noted. The Project would not ban natural gas connections. However, it should be noted that the California Energy Commission (CEC) has adopted updated

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan building standards that encourage the use of electric heat pumps and all-electric appliances in new homes, aligning with the state’s climate goals. These new standards are expected to take effect on January 1, 2026. However, this does not technically ban natural gas heat pumps, as they will still be allowed. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-10: This comment is noted. The sample table provided by the commentor is flawed and incomplete. An analysis of the Project’s consistency with Table 3 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan has been added to Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy, of the RDEIR. Refer to Chapter 3 of this FEIR for detail. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response A-11: This comment provides conclusory comments. No further response to this comment is warranted.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-15

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-17

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-19

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response to Letter B: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Response B-1: This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. No further response is necessary.

Response B-2: This commenter summarizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) sites discussed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. The commenter discusses four sites: West Shields Elementary School, Golden State Ranch Property, Parc West Development, and Diamond Cleaners.

The West Shields Elementary School site is located at 4108 Shields Avenue, and is a part of the DTSC – Site Cleanup Program. The cleanup status is active as of January 4, 2017. A Phase 1 assessment was completed on this site on January 4, 2017. Past uses that caused contamination are not specified. The Potential materials (e.g. soil, water, etc.) affected were also not specified.

The Golden State Ranch Property site is located at Ashlan Avenue and Grantland Avenue, and the DTSC is the oversight agency for this site. The cleanup status is active as of February 27, 2002. Past uses that caused contamination include agricultural – row crops.

No contaminants were found at this site.

The Diamond Cleaners site operated as a dry cleaner in a mixed-use area of Fresno, Fresno County, approximately from 1989 to 1996. The D&E Program conducted a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) at the Site due to potential use of PCE and a distance of less than 50 feet to a residence. PCE is a manufactured chemical that was widely used in dry-cleaning operations as a solvent since the 1930s and was to be phased out in California by January 1, 2023. Results of the Phase I ESA Report warranted a Discovery Investigation workplan. Access was obtained by the authorized agent on August 23, 2024.

Discovery Investigation Field Work Activities were conducted by DTSC contractor AECOM Technical Services, Inc. between January 13 to 17, 2025. DTSC was present during Discovery Investigation Field Work activities. Soil vapor, sub-slab vapor, and indoor/outdoor air samples were collected. Preliminary Laboratory Analytical Data for the samples was reviewed and evaluated by DTSC. Results of the Discovery Investigation Field work and Preliminary Laboratory Analytical Data are summarized in the Discovery Investigation Report. Based on the results, DTSC has determined that concentrations of the chemicals found during the DI do not currently pose an imminent and/or substantial endangerment to human health and the environment at the Site. The Discovery Investigation Report concluded and recommended that a secondary sampling event will be conducted.

The Parc West Development site was previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development (Westlake). A Draft EIR was completed for the Parc West Development Project in June 2020. The Draft EIR for the Parc West Development Project includes Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 which address potential hazardous materials impacts. Additionally, Section 3.8 of the RDEIR for the proposed West Area COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-21 Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10 which address potential hazardous materials impacts.

Response B-3: Phase II and III of the Parc West (formerly Westlake) development will require a new EIR, which will need to address potential soil hazards on the site. The parties interested in developing the property have been made aware of this letter and may wish to enter a VCA with DTSC in order to assure that any contaminants of potential concern are addressed.

Response B-4: As discussed on page 3.8-22 of Section 3.8, “Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage.

Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. […]
The transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP). Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project is limited. Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in the Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures

3.8-1 through 3.8-10 would reduce potential impacts that could occur due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with construction activities within the Plan area to a less than significant level.”
The relevant Mitigation Measures which pertain to proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides are included below:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to 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 and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of 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 extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-6: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be 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 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-23 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 3.8-10: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.

Response B-5: Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR includes the following mitigation measure, which requires that imported soil be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the DTSC or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.

Response B-6: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-25

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response to Letter C: California Department of Transportation Response C-1: The commenter correctly summarizes the location of the Plan Area, and incorrectly summarizes the development potential that could result from buildout of the Plan. Table

2.0-3 in Chapter 2.0 of the Recirculated Draft EIR 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 development of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses.

This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. See Responses C-2 and C3.

Response C-2: This comment is acknowledged by the City. Future development projects in the Plan Area would be reviewed by the City of Fresno, particularly those which have the potential to impact State right-of-way. As noted in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR, the future roadway improvements that would result with implementation of the Specific Plan would be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Fresno. An evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features would be needed. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with the City’s Circulation Plan, roadway functional design guidelines, and would have to meet design guidelines such as the accessibility requirements of Title 24 (California Building Code), ADA standards, California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual.

Response C-3: This comment is acknowledged by the City. The commenter states that they have completed their review of the Recirculated Draft EIR and no further comments are provided.

Response C-4: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-27

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-29 Response to Letter D: County of Fresno Department of Public Works and Planning Response D-1: This comment is noted. This comment serves as an introduction to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

Response D-2: The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) will be consulted regarding any requirements they may have for future development in the Plan Area.

Response D-3: Any transportation studies associated with future developments within the Plan Area which will impact County roads will be provided to the County of Fresno Road Maintenance & Operation Division. Transportation studies will evaluate impacts to County roads, circulation, and roadway classification consistency.

Response D-4: As noted previously, any transportation studies associated with future developments within the Plan Area which will impact County roads will be provided to the County of Fresno Road Maintenance & Operation Division. The City will also coordinate with County transportation agencies. Transportation studies will evaluate roadway capacity, traffic flow, and multimodal transportation options to support anticipated growth. The City will include the County Transportation Planning Unit in their review process for future transportation studies in the Plan Area.

Response D-5: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-31

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-33

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-35

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-37

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-39

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-41

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-43

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-45

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-47

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-49

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-51

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-53

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-55

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-57

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-59

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-61

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-63

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-65

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-66 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-67

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-68 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-69

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-70 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-71

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-72 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-73 Response to Letter E: Fresno Irrigation District
Response E-1: The commenter provides an introduction to the comment letter, and states that the former (2019 and 2022) comments on the DEIR still apply. The commenter’s former figure and text corrections were made in the RDEIR. See Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the RDEIR.

Response E-2: Impacts related to water supply are discussed in Impact 3.15-4 in Section 3.15, Utilities, of the RDEIR. As discussed on page 3.15-26, the projected water demand for future buildout of the proposed Specific Plan is based on the calculations described in the Water Supply Assessment (the “Water Supply Assessment” or “WSA”) developed by West Yost Associates for the proposed Specific Plan. Table 3.15-7 summarizes the projected availability of the City’s existing and planned future potable water supplies and the City’s projected water demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years through 2045. As shown in Table 3.15-7, demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2025 and 2045.

The WSA completed for the West Area Specific Plan demonstrates that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045, under all hydrologic conditions.

Impacts related to water supply were determined to be less than significant.

Additionally, as described in the WSA, the City’s 2020 UWMP addressed the sufficiency of the City’s groundwater supplies, in conjunction with the City’s other existing and additional water supplies, to meet the City’s existing and planned future uses. Based on the information provided above and that included in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City’s groundwater supply, together with the City’s other existing and additional planned future water supplies, is sufficient to meet the water demands of the proposed Specific Plan, in addition to the City’s existing and planned future uses.

Further, the Cooperative Agreement discussed by the commenter is discussed on page

3.15-15 of Section 3.15 of the RDEIR. As discussed, as the City incorporates new land area into its service area, the percentage of FID supply increases. However, the 2016 FID Agreement sets the maximum percentage as 29.0 percent, although the City’s service area is anticipated to expand and encompass more than 29.0 percent of FID’s service area between 2025 and 2030. In 2020, the City’s percentage of overall FID Kings deliveries was

25.79 percent. The supply projections in this plan limit the City’s FID supply with the 29.0 percent cap, but if the agreement were revised in the future the City’s FID allocation percentage could grow beyond 29.0 percent as the water service area expands (City of Fresno 2020 UWMP).

It is noted that the City’s water supply capacity has increased with surface water treatment plants coming online. The City will continue to re-evaluate their water supply availability in future UWMPs.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-74 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response E-3: This comment is noted. The RDEIR analyzes impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. As noted by the commenter, the City’s Water Master Plan is currently being updated. Because these draft Water Master Plan improvements are not proposed as part of the Project, it would be incorrect to analyze impacts in the RDEIR. The City will complete a separate environmental clearance for the Water Master Plan.

Response E-4: See Response E-3.

Response E-5: Specific Plan policies that may apply generally to FID’s comments:

IPR 2.9 Plant locally appropriate, drought-tolerant landscaping and, where possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.

IPR 3.1 Encourage the incorporation of water conservation methods in new development, such as greywater systems, drought-resilient landscaping, and reduction of nonporous surfaces.

IPR 3.3 Continue to set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that water resource facilities are in place prior to construction and building occupancy.

IPR 3.4 Continue to plan for, install, and operate recycled water systems to benefit the West Area and to support local resource conservation goals.

IPR 3.8 Plan for a groundwater recharge greenway, with an incorporated Class 1 trail, near the western edge of the West Area boundary.

Response E-6: As noted in Response E-2, the WSA completed for the West Area Specific Plan demonstrates that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045, under all hydrologic conditions. Impacts related to water supply were determined to be less than significant.

Response E-7: Impacts related to groundwater recharge are discussed in Impact 3.9-3 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the RDEIR. As discussed, the Specific Plan would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Plan may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The Specific Plan includes park, open space, and ponding basin areas which would allow for infiltration of groundwater on-site. Existing City and FMFCD regulations require development in the Plan Area to address water quality and changes to the drainage pattern through BMPs and low impact development (LID) measures. LID measures and COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-75 strategies can be used to meet the FMFCD’s development standards and include use of bioretention/infiltration landscape areas, disconnected hydrologic flow paths, reduced impervious areas, functional landscaping, and grading to maintain natural hydrologic functions that existed prior to development, such as interception, shallow surface storage, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge. Further, Recharge Fresno, a City program to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that will capture, treat and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Groundwater-related objectives of Recharge Fresno include: improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge, maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno, and ensure a safe and reliable water supply. These guiding documents and requirements would ensure that stormwater quality treatment measures are implemented and maintained throughout the life of the Specific Plan.

Further, the required stormwater BMPs and retention basins would be designed to reduce runoff below that which occurs currently during storm events and ensure groundwater recharge from the Plan Area to the extent possible. Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040, and the Plan would not conflict with the FARGMP. Further, the Specific Plan includes policies, listed above in Response E-5, which would encourage nonporous surfaces for groundwater recharge and other design strategies to maximize recharge and conserve water. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Response E-8: This comment is noted. Impacts related to stormwater are discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities, of the RDEIR. As stated, the FMFCD has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the city, as well as a large area beyond the city’s boundaries.

Installation of storm drainage infrastructure would occur during the construction phases of individual future projects within the Plan Area. There is significant storm drainage infrastructure remaining to be constructed to serve the Plan Area. About 32 miles of additional drainage pipelines is anticipated to be constructed to meet buildout needs. The proposed land use plan also includes 124.5 acres of Open Space – Ponding Basin land uses within the Plan Area.

Response E-9: Policy RC-6-I is a City General Plan policy, not a proposed Specific Plan policy. As such, revisions to a General Plan policy cannot be made as part of the proposed Specific Plan.

Response E-10: Specific Plan policies that relate to groundwater recharge include:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-76 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan IPR 3.1 Encourage the incorporation of water conservation methods in new development, such as greywater systems, drought-resilient landscaping, and reduction of nonporous surfaces.

IPR 3.3 Continue to set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that water resource facilities are in place prior to construction and building occupancy.

IPR 3.4 Continue to plan for, install, and operate recycled water systems to benefit the West Area and to support local resource conservation goals.

IPR 3.8 Plan for a groundwater recharge greenway, with an incorporated Class 1 trail, near the western edge of the West Area boundary.

Impacts related to groundwater recharge are discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the RDEIR. As discussed on pages 3.9-22 and 3.9-23, the current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, and the San Joaquin River, but is operated and maintained to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Future development would include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering existing surface water courses and existing storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible. Consequently, infiltration into the groundwater aquifers will be maximized to the extent possible through the storm drainage design.

Additionally, future development projects in the Plan Area may result in new rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge with the development of new pervious surfaces and maintenance of existing pervious surfaces. The Specific Plan incorporates best practices to support sustainable development including bioswale/run-off collection and large permeable green surfaces (i.e., park and open space areas) that would reduce new impervious surfaces, rainwater infiltration, and support groundwater recharge. Future development would include storm water quality BMPs designed to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces entering existing storm drains and surface water courses. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible.

Further, the City’s Recharge Fresno Program is intended to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that will capture, treat, and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This program has the following objectives: ensure a reliable and sustainable water supply for Fresno’s present and future prosperity by increasing the available water supply; bring new, treated surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to our community; improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge; maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno; and ensure a safe and reliable water supply.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-77 Response E-11: The City of Fresno currently works, and will continue to work, with FID at the project level regarding trails.

Response E-12: The commenter provides a conclusion to the comment letter. This comment letter, and all other comment letters, have been forwarded to the City for consideration.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-78 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-79

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-80 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-81

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-82 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-83

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-84 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-85

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-86 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-87

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-88 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-89

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-90 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-91

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-92 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-93

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-94 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-95

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-96 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-97

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-98 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-99

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-100 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-101

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-102 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-103

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-104 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-105

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-106 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-107 Response to Letter F: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Response F-1: As stated by the commenter, drainage fees would be paid prior to approval of any final maps and/or issuance of building permits.

Impacts associated with operational runoff (including to FMFCD facilities) are discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. See pages 3.9-18 through

3.9-22. As discussed, “The majority of development allowed under the Specific Plan would be within areas currently developed with urban uses, and the amount and type of runoff generated by various future development and infrastructure projects would be similar to existing conditions. However, new development and infrastructure projects on lands that are used for agricultural operations, or are vacant and undeveloped, have the potential to result in increases in the amount of impervious surfaces throughout the Plan Area. The undeveloped and underdeveloped lands which do not contain impervious surfaces are scattered throughout the Plan Area, but are mainly located along the western and southern fringes. Future increases in impervious surfaces would result in increased urban runoff, pollutants, and first flush roadway contaminants, as well as an increase in nutrients and other chemicals from landscaped areas. These constituents could result in water quality impacts to onsite and offsite drainage flows to area waterways.” Additionally, as discussed on page 3.9-20, “Due to future development and implementation of new infrastructure anticipated by the Specific Plan, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the FMFCD drainage system is not adequately designed, Specific Plan buildout could result in localized higher peak flow rates. Localized increases in flow would be significant if increases exceeded system capacity or contribute to bank erosion. Each future development and infrastructure project is required to prepare a detailed project specific drainage plan and a SWPPP that will control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. If the project involves the discharge into surface waters, the project proponent will need to acquire a Dewatering permit, NPDES permit, and Waste Discharge permit from the CVRWQCB.”
In order to address runoff resulting from future development of the Plan Area, the City is required to implement a range of measures and procedures when reviewing new development and infrastructure projects. For example, Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose and intent of Article 7 is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and to protect the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal CWA by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater, discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and by effectively prohibiting non‐stormwater discharges to the storm drain system. Further, the grading plan check process is a review process that requires anyone who develops property:

1. Properly grade their property in accordance with the CBC.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-108 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

2. Submit a grading plan showing the proposed grading of the development.

3. Obtain approval of the FMFCD indicating conformance of the grading plan with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

4. Obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and comply with the requirements of the permit, including developing an erosion control site plan.

In order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations due to increased peak stormwater runoff, the FMFCD requires future development projects to be designed in conformance to the FMFCD’s Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan to ensure storm drainage facilities are adequately designed and that the storm drain system has adequate storage capacity for additional stormwater runoff generated by the Specific Plan. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. The FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years. Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the various development sites within the overall Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains and FMFCD facilities. Additionally, future development of the proposed Specific Plan would minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces by runoff entering ditches and storm drains designed in conformance to FMFCD standards.

It is also noted that the proposed Specific Plan includes policies which would further ensure that water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are not violated during operation of future projects in the Plan Area. For example, adequate stormwater and flooding infrastructure would be required for new development. Through compliance with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan policies, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to operational runoff.

Response F-2: The incorrect street labels referrenced by the commenter have been corrected. See Chapter 3.0, Revisions, of this Final EIR for the revised figures.

Response F-3: The City has removed the dual designation for the existing pond referenced in the comment. See Chapter 3.0, Revisions, of this Final EIR for the revised figure.

Response F-4: The reference to Figure 3.15-2 in Section 3.5 of the RDEIR has been removed. See Chapter

3.0, Revisions, of this Final EIR for the revised text.

Response F-5: The requested revision to page 4.0-15 of the RDEIR has been made. See Chapter 3.0, Revisions, of this Final EIR for the revised text.

Response F-6: As noted in Section 3.15, Utilities, of the RDEIR, the Central Valley RWQCB issued a regionwide MS4 Permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040) covering the entire Central Valley RWQCB COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-109 Region, and covering storm drainage systems in cities as small as 10,000 population, in June 2016.

The City will adopt the Program EIR for the proposed Specific Plan and use the EIR when considering approval of future discretionary actions.

Response F-7: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-110 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-111

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-112 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-113

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-114 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-115

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-116 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-117 Response to Letter G: Fresno Naturalist
Response G-1: Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 was revised to address the recommendations in this comment.

The revisions are shown below and in Chapter 3.0, Revisions, of this Final EIR.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: Prior to construction in undisturbed areas, disturbed irrigation channels, golf ponds, and/or disturbed creeks, 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.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-118 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-119

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-120 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-121

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-122 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-123

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-124 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-125

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-126 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-127

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-128 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-129

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-130 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response to Letter H: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Response H-1: The commenter provides an introduction to the comment letter, and summarizes the project description of the proposed project. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-2: This comment is noted. Given that a VERA is a “Voluntary Agreement,” the feasibility of entering into such an agreement cannot be measured because the terms of the agreement and the party’s willingness to “agree” to such terms is not known. A “voluntary agreement” cannot be mandated through CEQA because it cannot be guaranteed that the terms of the agreement would be agreeable to both parties. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that a VERA is one method that can be used to try to reduce emissions to a net zero level through implementing a variety of programs for onsite and offsite mitigation, or to levels below the SJVAPCD’s regulatory requirements/thresholds. The City can educate applicants on the benefits of a VERA, and recommend consulting with the Air District to see if such “voluntary agreement” can be reached, but the City has not adopted a policy that mandates projects reduce air emissions to net zero or to levels below the SJVAPCD’s regulatory requirements/thresholds. The SJVAPCD has established “thresholds” that are not net zero.

It should also be noted that developers of individual projects would be subject to CEQA on the individual project level. A VERA could be appropriate for individual development projects, at the time of further CEQA analysis at such a level. However, a VERA at the level of a Specific Plan level is not appropriate. Nevertheless, additional discussion describing what a VERA is has been added to the setting section of Section 3.3: Air Quality of the RDEIR. Refer to Chapter 3.0: Revisions of this FEIR, for further detail.

Separately, it is noted that the Project is required to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9510. Rule 9510 is a regulation that is imposed by the SJVAPCD to collect fees for emissions that exceed the threshold of significance established by the SJVAPCD after all calculated onsite and offsite mitigation, from construction and operation of the building/end user, can be calculated and is applied. The proposed Project is subject to the SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review [ISR] rule), which could result in substantial mitigation of emissions beyond what is reflected in the modeling outputs provided in the EIR. The reductions are accomplished by the incorporation of measures into individual projects and/or by the payment of an Indirect Source Rule fee for any required reductions that have not been accomplished through Project mitigation commitments. The actual calculations will be accomplished by the SJVAPCD and project applicants through the regulatory permitting process as the Project (i.e. or portions of the Project) are brought forward for approval under Rule 9510. The Project applicant would be required to pay the ISR fee to the SJVAPCD at that time. Ultimately, the SJVAPCD utilizes the fees to fund offsite projects that reduce emissions to at, or below, the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD. The performance-based metric for each individual case, is actual emissions compared to the threshold.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-131 Furthermore, it should also be noted that Mitigation Measure 3.3-6 requires development project applicants for individual projects within the Plan Area to 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 is required to 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 will 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. The identified measures are required to be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Refer to RDEIR Section 3.3: Air Quality, for further detail. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-3: Health risk screening/assessment would be addressed at the individual project level. As provided in Section 3.3: Air Quality, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 ensures that new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have 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, are required to submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City Planning and Development Department. The HRA must 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 is 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.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3.3-8 requires that developers of individual projects 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 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 below the applicable thresholds for TACs, as feasible must be identified and approved by the City.

Therefore, as provided above, health risk screening/assessment is required to be conducted at the individual project level, which is the appropriate level to conduct health risk screening/assessment. Such analyses would comport with Air District requirements

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-132 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and recommendations, including those identified by the commentor. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-4: The commentor recommends that an AAQA be performed for any future development projects that that may be approved under implementation of the Project with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

This comment is noted. An additional mitigation measure has been added to Section 3.3:

Air Quality of this FEIR, to require individual future development projects approved under implementation of the Project to conduct an AAQA for those future individual developments that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. The AAQA is required to be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. If the results of the AAQA identify that any emissions are determined to have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Planning and Development Department would require the applicant to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the applicable air pollutant emissions to ensure such that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as feasible. Refer to FEIR Chapter 3.0 for further detail. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-5: The commentor states that, in the event that the City determines that a project be approved as an allowed use not requiring a project-specific discretionary approval, the District recommends the RDEIR include language requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment, in consultation with the District, to determine if additional analysis and/or mitigation is required.

This comment is noted. Section 3.3 includes nine mitigation measures to address potential impacts to air quality. For example, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 requires the applicants of future discretionary projects to prepare technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. Similarly, Mitigation Measure

3.3-6 requires the applicants of future discretionary projects to prepare technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-related air quality impacts. See Chapter 4.0 of this Final EIR for all of the measures.

Response H-6: The Project does not include any heavy industrial development. Rather, there is one existing light industrial development (a personal storage facility) within the Plan Area that would not change. There are also two areas adjacent to Highway 99 in the southeast portion of the Plan Area that are designated for light industrial and are currently being used for commercial truck parking. To address future uses that may induce truck traffic, Policy LUH 6.5 will, consistent with AB 98, consider updating the Development Code to address potential impacts from commercial truck parking, and other uses that generate truck traffic, in order to protect the safety and health of residential and other sensitive areas.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-133 Response H-7: In contrast to the commentor’s claim, the Project does not include industrial development. Rather, there are existing light industrial developments within the Plan Area that would not change. That is, there are no new industrial land uses proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this comment does not apply to the Project. Additionally, it should be noted that Specific Plan Policy IPR 1.14 requires reducing the impacts of freight trucks through a) examining truck routes in the West Area to provide a strategy to alter any routes that utilize lower-intensity residential roads or are near K-12 schools and b) reviewing the Development Code for potential improvements that will help mitigate health impacts from freight-related uses. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-8: This recommended mitigation measure would be more appropriate to apply at the individual future development project level. Furthermore, Policy LUH 6.5 will address impacts from trucks by considering an update of the Development Code, consistent with AB 98, to address potential impacts from commercial truck parking, and other uses that generate truck traffic, in order to protect the safety and health of residential and other sensitive areas. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-9: This recommended mitigation measure would be more appropriate to apply at the individual future development project level. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-10:This recommended mitigation measure would be more appropriate to apply at the individual future development project level. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-11:This recommend mitigation measure would be more appropriate to apply at the individual future development project level. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes various policies relating to vegetative barriers and urban greening. Specifically, Policy IPR

2.3, which requires building on the Highway 99 Beautification Master Plan and create attractive gateways from Highway 99 to the West Area; Policy IPR 2.10, which requires increasing tree canopy coverage in the West Area, with prioritization for areas that a) currently have minimal tree coverage, b) have a high level of pedestrian activity (ex. near schools, commercial centers, etc.) and c) are disproportionately exposed to pollution; Policy LUH 3.8, which requires implementation of a plan for a groundwater recharge greenway, with an incorporated Class 1 trail, near the western edge of the West Area boundary. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-12:This recommend mitigation measure would be more appropriate to apply at the individual future development project level. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-13:This recommend mitigation measure would be more appropriate to apply at the individual future development project level. No further response to this comment is warranted.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-134 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response H-14:The commenter provides a list of Air District rules and regulations that may be applicable to individual projects within the overall proposed project. The following non-exhaustive and non-exclusive list of Air District rules and regulations identified by the Air District in this comment letter is as follows: District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources; District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review); District Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters); District Rule 4002 – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; District Regulation VII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions; Other District Rules and Regulations; Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

This comment is noted. Individual projects within the overall proposed project would be required to follow all applicable Air District rules and regulations, which may include those listed within this comment. For example, consistent with the recommendation included within this comment, for individual projects subject to permitting by the District, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 would be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-15:The commenterstates that individual developments within the Specific Plan Area that will undergo CEQA review should include a project summary detailing, at a minimum, the land use designation, project size, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, within referral documents. This comment is noted. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response H-16:The commenter provides contact information. No further response to this comment is warranted.

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-1 This section includes minor edits and changes to the RDEIR. These modifications resulted from responses to comments received during the public review period for the RDEIR, as well as City staff-initiated edits to clarify the details of the project.

Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, nor do they alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the RDEIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Other minor changes to various sections of the RDEIR are also shown below. These changes are provided in revision marks with underline for new text and strike out for deleted text.

3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following changes were made to page ES-4 of the RDEIR:

The Specific Plan land use plan would allow for the future development of up to 83,12983,015 dwelling units (DU) (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 square feet (SF) of nonresidential 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.

The following changes were made to page ES-21 of the RDEIR:

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.

The following changes were made to pages ES-14 through ES-15 of the RDEIR:

Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Prior to future discretionary project approval for projects within the Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, development project applicants for individual projects within the Plan Area shall prepare and submit an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for those individual projects within the Plan Area with construction and/or operational emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day for any criteria air pollutants. An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An acceptable analysis shall include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The analysis shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. If any emissions are determined to have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Planning and Development Department shall require that the applicant(s) for such new development projects (i.e. individual projects) incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the applicable air pollutant emissions to ensure such that the development project would not cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as feasible

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: 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 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.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 through Mitigation Measure 3.3-10

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following changes were made to page 1.0-3 of Chapter 1.0 of the RDEIR:

As noted previously, 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 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 nonresidential uses. The Specific Plan analyzed in this (2024) Recirculated Draft EIR allows for the future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category) and 59,777,271 SF of nonresidential uses.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following changes were made to page 2.0-7 of Chapter 2.0 of the RDEIR:

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 development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 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 Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

The following changes were made to pages 2.0-10 and 2.0-11 of Chapter 2.0 of the RDEIR:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-3 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 71.9191.02 8,7218,835 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 49,355241
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 1,297,483.60 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 83,12983,015 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 483369 DU (including a 10,596 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 nonresidential 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 following changes were made to page 2.0-12 of Chapter 2.0 of the RDEIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The quantifiable objective of the proposed Specific Plan includes the future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category) and 59,777,271 SF of non-residential uses.

The dual designation of Medium Low Density on the southwest corner of Dakota and Garfield in Figure 2.0-6 was removed. Additionally, Figures 2.0-3 through 2.0-7 had incorrect street name labels for Garfield and Grantland. Further, Figures 2.0-6 and 2.0-7 were updated to correct a land use designation for a property owned by Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. The corrected figures are included below:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-5

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-7

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-9

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
The following changes were made to page 3.1-11 of Section 3.1 of the RDEIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 483369 DU and increase the nonresidential 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 visual 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.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 had incorrect street name labels for Garfield and Grantland. The corrected figures are included below:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-11

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

3.3 AIR QUALITY
The following changes were made to page 3.3-31 of Section 3.3 of the RDEIR:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-13 Assembly Bill 617
In 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.

Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
A Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) is a clean air measure by which the project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District would enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs. Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient HHD trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.

The following changes were made to page 3.3-36 of Section 3.3 of the RDEIR:

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 83,12983,015 dwelling units (including 339 dwelling units in the commercial category, 49,355241 dwelling units in the residential category and 33,436 dwelling units in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 square feet of nonresidential 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.

The following changes were made to page 3.3-46 of Section 3.3 of the RDEIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

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. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 requires individual projects within the Specific Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, for development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have 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, would require a Health Risk Assessment (HRA). Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3.3-8 requires developers of individual projects to locate sensitive land use 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). Further, Mitigation Measure 3.3-9 requires development project applicants for individual projects within the Plan Area shall prepare and submit an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for those individual projects within the Plan Area with construction and/or operational emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day for any criteria air pollutant.

The following changes were made to page 3.3-48 of Section 3.3 of the RDEIR:

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.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Prior to future discretionary project approval for projects within the Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, development project applicants for individual projects within the Plan Area shall prepare and submit an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for those individual projects within the Plan Area with construction and/or operational emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day for any criteria air pollutants. An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An acceptable analysis shall include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The analysis shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. If any emissions are determined to have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Planning and Development Department shall require that the applicant(s) REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-15 for such new development projects (i.e. individual projects) incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the applicable air pollutant emissions to ensure such that the development project would not cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as feasible.

The following changes were made to page 3.3-49 of Section 3.3 of the RDEIR:

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 construction-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 3.3-910, as applicable. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-910, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.

The following changes were made to pages 3.3-52 to 3.3-53 of Section 3.3 of the RDEIR:

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 10 would ensure that the project would not generate a significantnan odors impact. Therefore, operation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant objectionable odors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-9110, 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 intersections 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 3.3-10, 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.

The following mitigation measures would ensure that each future business is assessed for TACs in accordance with the requirements of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 3.3-910: 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 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.

The following changes were made to pages 3.3-56 of Section 3.3 of the RDEIR:

CONCLUSION
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 nature, 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 3.3-910, the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact related to this topic.

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 3.3-910.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following changes were made to page 3.4-37 of Section 3.4 of the RDEIR:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-17 Figure 3.4-1 had incorrect street name labels for Garfield and Grantland. The corrected figure is included below:

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan No changes were made to Section 3.5 of the RDEIR.

3.6 GEOLOGY,SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Figure 3.6-1 had incorrect street name labels for Garfield and Grantland. The corrected figure is included below:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-19

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY
The following changes were made to page 3.7-39 through 3.7-41 of Section 3.7 of the RDEIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.7-5: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2022 SCOPING PLAN TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX D OF THE SCOPING PLAN

POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY

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

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

VMT REDUCTION
Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards
No Conflict. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual residential or commercial development
project, the Project is implementing neighborhood
design improvements such as pedestrian network
improvements and traffic calming measures.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would enable
walkable development. Moreover, Mitigation
Measures 3.14-1 through 3.14-7, as provided in Section

3.14: Transportation and Circulation of this Draft EIR, would further reduce Project VMT through a variety of
measures.

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

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

BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes
for residential and commercial uses No Conflict. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual residential or commercial development
project, the Project would be consistent with the
applicable Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards, which ensure highly energy efficient
development. Additionally, the proposed Project
would utilize electricity from PG&E, which has been
increasing its overall supply of renewable energy as
part of its overall energy portfolio, consistent with the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. More detail is
provided under Impact 3.7-2, below.

Adopt policies and incentive programs to
implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing
buildings, such as weatherization, lighting
upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive
appliances and equipment with more efficient
systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment
and equipment controllers)
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify
all appliances and equipment in existing buildings
such as appliance rebates, existing building reach
codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances
REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-21 Facilitate deployment of renewable energy
production and distribution and energy storage
on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit
streamlining, information sharing)
Deploy renewable energy production and energy
storage directly in new public projects and on
existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic
systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on
canopies in public parking lots, battery storage
systems in municipal buildings)
TABLE 3 OF APPENDIX D OF THE SCOPING PLAN

POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY

TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION
Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary
standard in the California Green Building
Standards Code at the time of project approval
Conflict. This Project would not require meeting the
most ambitious voluntary standard in the California
Green Building Standards Code at the time of project
approval. However, the Project would be consistent
with the California’s new building code, taking effect on January 1st, 2026, which would require electric vehicle (EV) chargers in most new overnight parking spaces.

Additionally, the Project would not hinder individual
development projects within the Plan Area from
including such requirements. Nevertheless, since this
stringent voluntary standard would not be required for
all individual projects within the Plan Area, the Project is not considered consistent with this policy.

VMT REDUCTION
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by
existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops
previously undeveloped or underutilized land that
is presently served by existing utilities and
essential public services (e.g., transit, streets,
water, sewer)
No Conflict. Although the Project as a whole is not an
“infill” development, the Project contains many
individual infill sites surrounded by existing urban uses.

The Project also redevelops previously undeveloped
and underutilized land. Refer to Chapter 2.0: Project
Description for detail.

Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural
and working lands
No Conflict. Approximately 11.9 percent or 720.30
acres in the Plan Area contain open space or
agricultural land. However, the Project would
implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, which requires
project proponents to 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.

Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum
of 20 residential dwelling units per acre), or
No Conflict. The proposed Project would not disrupt an
existing transit facility or service, and would not
interfere with the implementation of future transit

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a
half mile), or
Satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria
specified in the region’s SCS
service that would be within ½ mile of the Plan Area.

Portions of the Project site are currently served by
several transit (e.g., Fresno Area Express (FAX)) routes Additionally, more transit stops and routes would be
added as the Plan Area develops over time.

Additionally, the Project includes Specific Plan Policy IPR 1.20, which providesallows for reduced parking
ratios. Lastly, it should be noted that the proposed
Project’s High Density and RMX residential land uses
require a minimum densitiesy of 30 dwelling units per
acre, consistent with this policy. Refer to Chapter 2.0:

Project Description, for further detail.

Reduces parking requirements by: Eliminating
parking requirements or including maximum
allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking
spaces to residential units or square feet); or
Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of
less than one parking space per dwelling unit; or
For multifamily residential development, requiring
parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent
or own a residential unit.

Conflict. Specific Plan Policy IPR 1.20 requires reducing minimum parking requirements for individual projects
that exceed CalGreen standards for ZEV-ready spaces,
that provide enhanced active transportation options, or that are located within ½ mile of a transit stop. It
should also be noted that individual development
projects within the Plan Area may require even more
stringent reduced parking policies. However, since
these reduced parking requirement may not be
sufficiently stringent for all individual projects as this policy, the Project as a whole is considered to conflict with this policy.

BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
Uses all-electric appliances without any natural
gas connections and does not use propane or
other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating,
or indoor cooking
Conflict. The Project would not ban natural gas
connections. However, it should be noted that the
California Energy Commission (CEC) has adopted
updated building standards that encourage the use of
electric heat pumps and all-electric appliances in new
homes, aligning with the state’s climate goals. These
new standards are expected to take effect on January 1, 2026. However, this does not technically ban natural
gas heat pumps, as they will still be allowed.

SOURCE: 2022 SCOPING PLAN, TABLE 1 AND TABLE 3, APPENDIX D.

It should be noted that, in reference to Table 3 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan, as stated on page 23 and 24 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan:
“Lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting evidence that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes [within Table 3 of Appendix D] are consistent with the State’s climate goals.” The proposed Project implements several of the key project attributes that are consistent with the State’s climate goals, specifically relating to VMT reduction (refer to the policy analysis for Table 3 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan, in Table 3.7-5, above). Therefore, based on this, as well as additional evidence provided throughout this analysis, the proposed Project is considered consistent with the State’s climate goals. Moreover, it should be noted that the Project includes Mitigation Measure 3.14-1, which requires large employers (greater than 100 employees) within the Plan Area to implement feasible Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-23 order to decrease daily commute vehicle trips by 9% compared to standard trip generation.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 requires 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.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No changes were made to Section 3.8 of the RDEIR.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following changes were made to page 3.9-7 of Section 3.9 of the RDEIR:

The Plan Area is drained by 15 drainage watersheds, six of which are fully within the Plan Area, and nine of which drain to areas immediately south or west of the Plan Area. There are seven existing retention basins within the Plan Area and an additional five that serve the Plan Area. An additional basin is planned to serve the drainage shed in the far southwestern corner of the Plan Area. The Plan Area’s storm drain system is shown on Figure 3.15-2 in Section 3.15, Utilities.

Figures 3.9-1 through 3.9-3 had incorrect street name labels for Garfield and Grantland. The corrected figures are included below:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-25

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
No changes were made to Section 3.10 of the RDEIR.

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-27

3.11 NOISE
No changes were made to Section 3.11 of the RDEIR.

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The following changes were made to page 3.12-9 of Section 3.12 of the RDEIR:

The Specific Plan would allow for the future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area including schools, fire stations, and places of worship. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would allow for approximately 338.95 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

Based on the General Plan Housing Element estimate of approximately 2.96 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Specific Plan is estimated to accommodate 246,061245,724 total residents in the city of Fresno at buildout. Population growth by itself is not considered a significant environmental impact. However, development of housing, infrastructure, and facilities and services to serve this growth can have significant environmental impacts through land conversion, commitment of resources, and other mechanisms.

The following changes were made to page 3.12-10 of Section 3.12 of the RDEIR:

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 483369 DU (including a 10,596 DU reduction in the residential category, a 339 DU increase in the commercial category, and an 10,630 DU increase in the mixed-use category). The proposed Specific Plan could increase the amount of non-residential SF by 13,286,281 SF (including a 832,432 SF decrease in the commercial category, a 3,799,793 SF increase in the employment category, and a 10,318,921 SF increase in the mixed use category). See Table 2.0-1 of Chapter 2.0 for the existing General Plan land use acreages for the Plan Area.

The following changes were made to page 3.12-11 of Section 3.12 of the RDEIR:

The proposed Specific Plan sites where new development is focused are mostly vacant and would not result in significant displacements of residents or the loss of existing dwelling units. Even though several sites may be razed, redeveloped or converted as a result of new development, the addition of homes at all market levels will offset the loss of the few homes that exist. The proposed Specific Plan would also focus new development onto infill and vacant sites located throughout the Plan Area. New development in the Plan Area could result in the loss of a limited number of dwelling units as future sites are redeveloped to a more efficient mixed use or residential project.

However, any loss of existing units that may occur as a result of future infill development is not expected to be significant. Overall, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could result in the development of 83,12983,015 additional residential units in the proposed specific Plan Area, primarily complementary in nature to existing single family residential currently existing in the Plan

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Area. Overall, construction and operation of the proposed Specific Plan would not remove a substantial number of existing housing units within the city of Fresno, and would not displace substantial numbers of residents. Therefore, this impact is considered a less than significant.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The following changes were made to page 3.13-30 of Section 3.13 of the RDEIR:

As shown in Table 2.0-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools and churches.

The following changes were made to page 3.13-31 of Section 3.13 of the RDEIR:

Fresno General Plan Policy PU-1-g sets forth the following plan for optimum services: “Create and adopt a program to provide targeted police services and establish long-term steps for attaining and maintaining the optimum levels of service—1.5 unrestricted officers per 1,000 residents.” As noted above, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. Based on the California Department of Finance’s estimate of approximately 2.96 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Specific Plan is estimated to accommodate 246,061245,724 total residents in the city of Fresno at buildout. To keep current staffing levels throughout the city, the addition of 246,061245,724 residents would require an additional 483369 unrestricted officers, based upon the

1.5 officers per 1,000 residents standard.

The following changes were made to page 3.13-32 of Section 3.13 of the RDEIR:

As shown in Table 2.0-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The increase in population would result in the introduction of additional students to the CUSD.

The following changes were made to page 3.13-34 of Section 3.13 of the RDEIR:

For the purposes of extracting and collecting fees to mitigate for increase park demands (Quimby Act), the California Government Code Section 66477 states: The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density, which shall be determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available federal census or a census taken pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 40200) of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. As noted, the Quimby Act population should be based on the most recent available federal census. According the most recent U.S. Census (2018-2022) estimate, the average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in the city of Fresno is 2.99. As noted above, the proposed land use map for the Plan Area would result in the addition of up to REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-29 83,12983,015 new residential units at project build-out. Using this most recently available federal Census figure of 2.99 persons per household and the potential maximum buildout of 83,12983,015 units, the Quimby Act population would be 248,555 persons.4 This Quimby Act population would require 1,242.8 acres of parkland in order to meet the City’s parkland dedication standard of three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city.
4 The Quimby Act Population was calculated pursuant to California Government Code Section 66477 using the most recently available federal census figure of 2.99 persons per household and the potential maximum buildout of 83,12983,015 units.

Figure 3.13-1 had incorrect street name labels for Garfield and Grantland. The corrected figure is included below:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
No changes were made to Section 3.14 of the RDEIR.

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-31

3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No changes were made to Section 3.15 of the RDEIR.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
The following changes were made to page 4.0-15 of Chapter 4.0 the RDEIR:

In order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations due to increased peak stormwater runoff, the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the city, as well as a large area beyond the city’s boundaries. The FMFCD requires future development projects to be designed in conformance to the FMFCD’s Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan to ensure storm drainage facilities are adequately designed and that the storm drain system has adequate storage capacity for additional stormwater runoff generated by the Specific Plan. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. The FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years. Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the various development sites within the overall Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains and FMFCD facilities. Additionally, future development of the proposed Specific Plan would minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces by runoff entering parallel storm drains and/or on-site retention facilities ditches and storm drains designed in conformance to FMFCD standards.

The following changes were made to page 4.0-21 of Chapter 4.0 the RDEIR:

As described in Section 3.12, the proposed Specific Plan accommodates future growth in the Plan Area, including new businesses and new residential uses. Infrastructure and services would need to be extended to accommodate future growth. At full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 246,061245,724 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately 110,727110,575 jobs.

The following changes were made to page 4.0-29 of Chapter 4.0 the RDEIR:

The Specific Plan would result in the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities within the city of Fresno. As discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, at full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 246,061245,724 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 110,727110,575 jobs. The Specific Plan would foster economic and population growth through the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities for a variety of income levels.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following changes were made to page 5.0-3 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

The quantifiable objective of the proposed project includes the future development of up to 83,12983,015 dwelling units (DU) (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses.

The following changes were made to page 5.0-6 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) require consideration of a no project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan. The existing General Plan land use designations for the Plan Area could result in up to 82,646 dwelling units (DU) and up to 44,298,591 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses within the Plan Area. Comparatively, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. As such, compared to the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would decrease the residential development potential by 483369 DU and decrease the non-residential development potential by 15,478,680.15 SF. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.

The following changes were made to page 5.0-9 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:
decrease. Mobile source (largely from vehicles) emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. Buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 82,646 new residential units. Based on the estimate of approximately 2.96 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 214,879 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 83,12983,015 new residential units, resulting in approximately 246,061245,724 new residents. Therefore, under this alternative, less residential development would be allowed, resulting in a lesser increase in the number of residents, which would generate fewer daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in decreased levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have decreased impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative.

The following changes were made to page 5.0-10 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. As described previously, buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 82,646 new residential REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-33 units. Based on the estimate of approximately 2.96 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 214,879 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 83,12983,015 new residential units, resulting in approximately 246,061245,724 new residents
The following changes were made to page 5.0-13 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

Under this alternative, noise associated with vehicle trips is expected to slightly decrease due to the decrease in population and employment, while other on-site noise sources would likely be comparable to those generated by the proposed Specific Plan. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in an decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483369, resulting in approximately 1,4291,0921,092 fewer residents. Additionally, the decrease in non-residential development potential by 15,478,680.15 SF would result in fewer employees.

The following changes were made to page 5.0-14 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. Compared to the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in a decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483369 units, resulting in approximately 1,4291,0921,092 fewer residents. Currently, the city, and the state as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness. The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. In response to an increase in housing stock under this alternative, it would be anticipated that City would not need to look to other undeveloped areas of the region to supply housing stock to meet the regional demand and the State’s directive. This assumption is based entirely on the fact that California, and the city of Fresno, is having a housing shortage and an appropriate response to a shortage is to provide additional housing supply. Despite the decrease in residential uses under this alternative compared to the Specific Plan, the overall land use mix would still meet the minimum number of residential units and layout required for New Urbanism principals that are established in the General Plan for the Plan Area. Overall, because the population growth under this alternative would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would have a reduced impact when compared to the proposed project.

The following changes were made to page 5.0-15 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in a decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483369 units, resulting in approximately 1,4291,0921,092 fewer residents. Therefore, under this alternative, there would be a decreased demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Future development of schools and parks within the proposed Specific Plan was determined to contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2- 1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), transportation and circulation (Impact 3.14- 3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). These unavoidable impacts associated with construction of schools and parks under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would still occur. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would have a decreased impact to public services and recreation.

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The following changes were made to page 5.0-16 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. However, this Alternative anticipates a decrease in the number of housing units by approximately 483369 units, resulting in approximately 1,4291,0921,092 fewer residents when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the overall demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, and storm drainage would be decreased under this alternative. As discussed in Section 3.15 (Utilities), the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan.

The following changes were made to pages 5.0-34 and 5.0-35 of Chapter 5.0 the RDEIR:

The Community Parks Alternative would meet the primary project objectives and would satisfy the policy guidance outlined in the City’s General Plan for West Area; however, it would not meet the quantifiable objective future development of up to 83,12983,015 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355241 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category) and 59,777,271 SF of non-residential uses in the Plan Area. Therefore, the Community Parks Alternative would satisfy the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

Figures 5.0-1 through 5.0-4 had incorrect street name labels for Garfield and Grantland. The corrected figures are included below:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-35

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-37

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

6.0 REPORT PREPARERS
No changes were made to Chapter 6.0 of the RDEIR.

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-39

7.0 REFERENCES
No changes were made to Chapter 7.0 of the RDEIR.

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-1 This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Project). This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed Specific Plan because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.

The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the Draft EIR.

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR.

The City of Fresno will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the Specific Plan.

The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.1-4: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to result in light and glare
impacts.

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 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 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-3

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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

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.

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.

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
initiation of
grading
activities

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan
implementation would conflict
with or obstruct implementation
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, City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Prior to the
issuance of
building

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
of the applicable air quality plan. 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.

Department permits for
new
development
projects within
the Plan Area
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.

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 submit 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
During
construction
activities
Prior to future
discretionary
project
approval of
individual
development
projects within
the Plan Area
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
• 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 trackout) 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.

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).

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
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)
During
construction
activities for
individual
projects within

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
a. 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.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
c. 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. d. 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.
e. 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.
f. 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.
g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. the Plan Area,
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.

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 activities to below the applicable SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance, as feasible. The City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to future
discretionary
project
approval
within the Plan
Area
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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
Regulations [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.

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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) have 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to future
discretionary
approval for
individual
projects within
the Specific
Plan Area that
require
environmental
evaluation
under CEQA
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Prior to future discretionary project approval for projects within the Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, development project applicants for individual projects within the Plan Area shall prepare and submit an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for those individual projects within the Plan Area with construction and/or operational emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day for any criteria air pollutants. An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An acceptable analysis shall include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The analysis shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. If any emissions are determined to have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Planning and Development Department shall require that the applicant(s) for such new development projects (i.e. individual projects) incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the applicable air pollutant emissions to ensure such that the development project would not cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as feasible.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to future
discretionary
project
approval
within the Plan
Area
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: 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 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans
Impact 3.3-5: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 through Mitigation Measure 3.3-10 See Mitigation Measure 3.3-1
through
Mitigation
Measure 3.3-10
See Mitigation
Measure 3.3-1
through
Mitigation
Measure 3.3-10

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: Specific Plan
implementation could directly or
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure City of Fresno
Planning and
Prior to and
during

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.
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 workers to recognize the species, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status amphibian and reptile species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area.
• If California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-11

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Prior to any ground disturbance in areas which may support suitable breeding or nesting habitat for burrowing owl, a preconstruction survey of the parcel(s) to be developed shall be completed for burrowing owl in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 installation of one-way doors in burrow entrances.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Prior to any ground disturbance conducted during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15) in areas which may support suitable habitat for Swainson Hawk, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Prior to and
during
construction
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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), doublecrested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for active nests of black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), 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 disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

If a 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to 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 may have to be excavated when, in the judgement of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on bats:
• If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e. buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark.
• If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities.

The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity.

No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until the end of the pupping season (August 1) or until a qualified biologist confirms the maternity roost is no longer active.

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

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
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.

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

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
If a proposed
project will
result in the
significant
alteration or fill
of a federally
protected
wetland
If a proposed
project will
result in the
significant
alteration or fill
of a federally
protected
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-17

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
wetland
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.

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

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

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
defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5, or a significant tribal
cultural resource, as defined in
Public Resources Code §21074.

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).

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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to any
ground
disturbance
activity
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
Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan
implementation may disturb
human remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries.

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 contacted as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Fresno County
Coroner
If human
remains are
found during
ground
disturbance
activities
associated with
implementatio
n of the Specific
Plan
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-19

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 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 AND SOILS
Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan
construction and
implementation has the potential
to result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that 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 straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
Prior to
clearing,
grading, and
disturbances to
the ground
such as
stockpiling, or
excavation for
each phase of
the Project
Impact 3.6-3: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of Specific Plan
implementation, and potentially
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to earthmoving activities associated with future development activities within the Plan Area, a certified geotechnical engineer, or equivalent, shall be retained to perform a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 related to expansive soils and other soil conditions. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
earthmoving
activities
associated with
future
development
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
result in landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.

California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation shall include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures, including threats from liquefaction or lateral spreading. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation.
within the Plan
Area
Impact 3.6-4: The Specific Plan
would not be located on
expansive soil creating
substantial risks to life or
property.

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

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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
If any
paleontological
resources are
found during
grading and
construction
activities

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 through the
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well Fresno County
Environmental
Health Division
Fresno County
Environmental
Prior to
bringing
hazardous
materials
onsite
Prior to
initiation of any
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
environment. contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from Fresno County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Fresno County Environmental Health Department.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.8-5: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Health
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
ground
disturbance
activities
within 50 feet
of a well
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
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
In the event the
findings and

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.

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, sitespecific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
conclusions of
the Phase II
ESA reveal the
presence of
significant
concentrations
of hazardous
materials
warranting
further
investigation
If the findings
and
conclusions of
the Phase II
ESA(s), site
characterizatio
n and/or risk
assessment
demonstrate
the presence of
concentrations
of hazardous
materials
exceeding
regulatory
threshold
levels
Prior to the
issuance of a
building permit
for an
individual
property within
the Plan Area
with residual
environmental
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

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

Mitigation Measure 3.8-9: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos, lead based paint (LBP), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestoscontaining 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
contamination
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
In the event of
planned
renovation or
demolition of
residential
and/or
commercial
structures on
the subject site

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to the
import of a soil
to a particular
property within
the Plan Area
as part of that
property’s site
development
NOISE
Impact 3.11-1: Specific Plan
implementation could potentially
substantially increase mobile
noise levels at existing and
proposed receptors.

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 September 30, 2020), or as identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on the target acceptable noise levels set in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).

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

The aforementioned measure is not exhaustive and alternative designs may City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans for
projects which
involve
residential or
other noise
sensitive uses
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-25

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
During
construction
activities
Impact 3.11-3: Specific Plan
implementation would not
substantially increase noise
vibration association with
construction activities.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-4: For future projects which would require the use of highly vibratory equipment in the Plan Area, 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
For future
projects which
would require
the use of
highly
vibratory
equipment in
the Plan Area
Impact 3.11-4: Specific Plan
implementation would not
substantially increase stationary
noise at sensitive receptors.

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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
noise-sensitive land uses;
• Apply noise level performance standards provided in Table 9-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR) to proposed new noise producing uses; and
Require new noise-sensitive uses in near proximity to noise-producing facilities include mitigation measures that would ensure compliance with noise performance standards in Table 9-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).

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

Mitigation Measure 3.11-6: 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 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-27

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
interior spaces.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-1: Large employers (greater than 100 employees) within the Plan Area shall implement feasible Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in order to decrease daily commute vehicle trips by 9% compared to standard trip generation. Specific potential TDM strategies include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Implement subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees. Employment developments should be accessible within 1 mile of high-quality transit service, 0.5 mile of local or less frequent transit service, or along a designated shuttle providing last-mile connections. This is consistent with the West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan (WANSP) which recommends large employers (having 100 or more employees) consider providing subsidized transit passes for employees. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-9
estimates that implementing subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees could reduce VMT generated by employee vehicles accessing the sites by up to 5.5 percent.
• Provide bicycle facilities at land uses that would generate more than 500 daily person trips. Facilities may include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-10 estimates that provision of end-of-trip bicycle facilities can reduce commute VMT by up to 4.4 percent depending on the existing propensity for commuters to use bicycles. • Price workplace parking to increase the cost of parking on site.

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

Alternative modes of transportation that are convenient and have City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans for
projects which
are large
employers
(greater than
100
employees)

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 nonmotorized connections. Characteristics of street network connectivity include short block lengths, numerous three and fourway intersections, and minimal dead-ends (cul-de-sacs). Street connectivity helps to facilitate shorter vehicle trips and greater numbers of walk and bike trips and thus a reduction in VMT. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-17 uses increased vehicle
intersection density as a proxy for street connectivity improvements. The CAPCOA 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.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-29

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
• 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 mode split and travel distance for home-based work trips, and/or the implementation of

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 mitigation measure is consistent with WANSP Policy IPR 1.8, which states that expanding transit services into the Fresno West Area as development occurs helps improve access, movement, and safety for all transportation modes in the West Area.

This can be also achieved by exploring the transit connectivity options near business districts to create a West Area-Downtown Connecter Route. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-25 estimates that an improved transit network can reduce VMT produced in the project site by up to 4.6 percent.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Throughout the
lifetime of the
Project
Exhibit Q - Attachment 2:

Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations

FINDING OF FACT / STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH: 2019069117)
SEPTEMBER 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
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm

FINDING OF FACT / STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH: 2019069117)
SEPTEMBER 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
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-1

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Section Page Number
I. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 II. General Findings and Overview.......................................................................................... 2 III. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............ 8 IV. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Impacts Which Are Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level ............................................................................................. 32 V. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Those Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or Less Than Cumulatively Considerable ........................................................ 52 VI. Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 53 VII. Statements of Overriding Considerations Related to the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Findings........................................................................................................ 59

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1

FINDINGS FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN

REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) requires the City of Fresno (City), as the CEQA lead agency, to: 1) make written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified, and 2) identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.)
This document explains the City’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan or Project) and the City decision-makers’ ultimate determinations of the feasibility of the project alternatives considered in the EIR. The statement of overriding considerations in Section VII, below, identifies the economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that the City decision-makers have determined should override any significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment.

The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR [RDEIR]) for the Project, examined the proposed Project and several alternatives to the Project including: (1) No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative; (2) Regional Park Alternative; and Lower Density Alternative.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the City Council, as the City’sfindings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis, substantial evidence, and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project, as well as the overriding considerations, which in this City Council’s view, justify approval of the Project, despite its environmental effects.

CEQA FINDINGS
2 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW
Project Overview
The following provides a brief summary and overview of the proposed project. Chapter 2.0 of the RDEIR includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including maps and graphics. The reader is referred to Chapter 2.0 of the RDEIR for a more complete and thorough description of the components of the proposed project.

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

The Specific Plan land use plan would allow for the future development of up to 83,129 dwelling units (DU) (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses.

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 RDEIR Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a more complete description of the details of the proposed Specific Plan.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Notice of Preparation Public Circulation (2019): 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

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3 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 the Draft EIR. The commenting individuals and agencies are provided below.

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 Floor 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) Notice of Availability and Draft EIR (2022): 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.

Notice of Availability and Recirculated Draft EIR (2025): The City received nine written comments on the 2022 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.

CEQA FINDINGS
4 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

As noted previously, 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 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.

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.

Upon completion of the RDEIR, the City published a public NOA for the RDEIR on March 12, 2025 inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5 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 47-day public review period for the RDEIR began on March 12, 2025 and ended on April 28, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.

During the 2025 RDEIR comment period, the City received eight comment letters regarding the RDEIR from public agencies and other parties. All of these comment letters are identified in Table

2.0-1 of the Final EIR document.

Final EIR: The City of Fresno received eight comment letters on the Draft EIR during the public review period. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the Final EIR responds to the comments received during the public review period. The Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions.

The comments received did not provide evidence of any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:
• The NOP, comments received on the NOP, and all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Project (e.g., NOA).
• The Draft EIR, RDEIR, and Final EIR, including comment letters, and technical materials cited in the documents.
• All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City and consultants in relation to the EIR.
• Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings held by the City.
• Staff reports associated with City Council meetings on the Project. • Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e).

The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the City of Fresno Planning & Development, 2600 Fresno St., Rm. 3043, Fresno, CA 93721 or online at:
https://www.fresno.gov/westareaplan.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code § 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Further, the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation

CEQA FINDINGS
6 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Id.) Section 21002 also provides that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles established by the Legislature in Public Resources Code § 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement in Public Resources Code § 21081 that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required.

CEQA Guidelines § 15091 provides the following direction regarding findings:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(See also Public Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(1)-(3).) As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1) [determining the feasibility of alternatives].) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400 [court upholds findings rejecting a “reduced herd” alternative to a proposed dairy as infeasible because the alternative failed to meet the “fundamental objective” of the project to produce milk]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1508 [agency decision-makers, in rejecting alternatives as infeasible, appropriately relied on project objective articulated by project applicant].) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982)

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 7 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001-1002.)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the project’s benefits outweigh its significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b).)
CEQA Guidelines § 15093 provides the following direction regarding a statement of overriding considerations:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to § 15091.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Project and, if the Project is approved, will be adopted concurrently with these Findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
In adopting these Findings, this City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to this City Council, the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, this City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the

CEQA FINDINGS
8 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Final EIR. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City.

SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT

AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
A. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

1. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings is discussed on pages 3.1-10 and 3.1-11 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant. (b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. 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 of 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 existing General Plan or contain existing urbanized land uses.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 9 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 approximately 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 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 urbanized 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.

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.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to degradation of visual character or quality of the

CEQA FINDINGS
10 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan site and its surroundings, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE CUMULATIVE DEGRADATION OF THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE REGION. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region is discussed on pages 4.0-5 and

4.0-6 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the Fresno General Plan would result in changes to the visual character of the Fresno General Plan Planning Area and result in impacts to localized views as new development occurs within the City and the General Plan Planning Area.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would change the visual character of the Specific Plan Area by facilitating the development of urban uses within an area largely comprised of undeveloped sites. Regional growth has and will continue to result in a cumulative aesthetic effect by converting undeveloped land into developed and occupied areas and increasing overall levels of nighttime lighting.

Cumulative development entails grading/landform alteration, the development of structures, and the installation of roadways and other infrastructure that has altered and will continue to permanently alter the region's existing visual character.

As described in Section 3.1, compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s development regulations would reduce visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the proposed Plan would permanently convert undeveloped rural, agricultural, and open space areas to urbanized uses.

According to the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would result in the permanent alteration of the visual character of the City of Fresno’s General Plan Planning Area from a more rural setting to a setting that is characterized by suburban or urban uses (i.e., streets, residences, and community commercial shopping centers). In addition, buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts. Consequently, even with implementation of the policies and implementation programs identified in the City’s General Plan, as well as adopted City regulations to enhance the City’s current community character and preserve open space, development of the General Plan area was determined in the General Plan EIR to result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to aesthetics. Although the proposed project would

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 11 comply with all applicable standards and regulations, impacts related to a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, degradation of the existing visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding area, and creation of new sources of light or glare would still occur. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan EIR conclusion, the proposed Specific Plan’s incremental contribution towards cumulative aesthetic impacts would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts related to cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.2-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD CONVERT IMPORTANT FARMLANDS TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND USES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to convert Important Farmlands to nonagricultural land uses is discussed on pages 3.2-11 and 3.2-12 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.2-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. 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 agricultural land or lands zoned for agricultural uses, primarily within the County of Fresno limits. Although the Specific Plan anticipates

CEQA FINDINGS
12 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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-agricultural 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-agricultural uses, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would be required.

While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce the aboveidentified 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. Consistent with the Fresno General Plan EIR, 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.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conversion Important Farmlands to non-agricultural land uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 3.2-2: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USE, OR A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract is discussed on page 3.2-12 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.2-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. According to the latest statewide data (2023), there are approximately 28.63 acres within the Plan Area under a

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 13 Williamson Act contract. 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 nonagricultural 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
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

CEQA FINDINGS
14 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

3. IMPACT 4.2: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses is discussed on page 4.0-6 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Cumulative development anticipated in the City and County of Fresno, including growth projected by adopted general plans and those being updated, will result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, including important farmlands, significant farmlands, land under Williamson Act contracts, and other farmlands.

As described in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, there are no forest lands or land designated or zoned as forest land within the Plan Area or surrounding area; therefore, cumulative development would not contribute to the conversion of some forest lands or timber lands. However, there are approximately 285.65 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 509.39 acres of Unique Farmland, and 1,562.82 acres of Farmland of Local Importance within the proposed Specific Plan Area.

Additionally, under the proposed Specific Plan, the approximately 28.63acres of Williamson Act Contract land are proposed for Low Density, Medium Low Density, and Medium Density Residential development where agricultural uses are no longer a permitted use. Consequently, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in revisions to the zoning ordinance resulting in a significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural uses because non‐agricultural uses, such as low, medium low density, and medium density residential would be allowed on the existing Contract land.

Agricultural land is a limited resource and the cumulative loss of this land is considered significant. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would require the future annexation and development of land into the City. If future annexation and development would involve the loss of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would be required. While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 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. Therefore, impacts on Williamson Act contracts, and important or significant farmlands and forest resources remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 15 (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts to agricultural land and uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

C. AIR QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.3-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan is discussed on pages 3.3-35 through

3.3-38 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.3-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The proposed Specific Plan would generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVPACD)’s regional construction-phase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB)’s nonattainment designations. In addition, 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 Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).

As discussed 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

CEQA FINDINGS
16 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT). However, despite furthering the regional transportation and planning objectives, as stated, buildout of the proposed Plan would represent a substantial increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional operational and construction-related significance thresholds. As a result, the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the assumptions in the Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) and would not be considered consistent with the AQMPs. Therefore, impacts are considered significant.

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. No further measures to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions are available beyond the applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, the proposed Specific Plan goals and policies, and the additional mitigation measures provided under Impact 3.3-2 and Impact 3.3-3. 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. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 17 (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for 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 is discussed on pages 3.3-38 through 3.3-41 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.3-2 through 3.3-5.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As shown in Table 3.3-8 in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR, construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the SJVAPCD regional thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic compounds (ROG), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 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 NOx 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 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

CEQA FINDINGS
18 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

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 Plan, 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 all of the mitigation measures provided below for construction-related emission.

However, even with implementation of the 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. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact associated with exposure of 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 during construction, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 19

3. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for 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 is discussed on pages 3.3-42 through 3.3-48 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.3-6 through 3.3-8.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As shown in Table 3.3-9 in Section 3.3, 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 the 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 designations.

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.

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 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.

CEQA FINDINGS
20 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact related to exposure of 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 during operation, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

4. IMPACT 4.3: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON THE REGION'S AIR QUALITY.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on the region’s air quality is discussed on pages 4.0-7 and 4.0-8 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-8.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. In accordance with SJVAPCD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include new development and general growth within the Plan Area. The greatest source of emissions within the SJVAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SJVAB); SJVAPCD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional emissions thresholds. No significant cumulative impacts were identified with regard to CO hotspots.

As shown in Table 3.3-7 in Section 3.3, construction emissions associated with the proposed Plan would exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional construction emissions thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 21 For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SJVAPCD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As discussed, SJVAPCD Rules 9510 and 9410 would contribute to reducing emissions of NOx and particulate matter associated with future individual projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan and may reduce impacts for these individual development projects to a less than significant level. In addition, the planned improvements, and goals and policies under the proposed Specific Plan, would generally support a more sustainable development pattern for the Plan Area. Creation of more complete neighborhoods in addition to improving the public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle networks and infrastructure would contribute to the overall reduction in vehicle trips and VMT, which would reduce mobile-source emissions. However, as shown in Table 3.3-9, operation of future projects at buildout would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 at buildout. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan’s air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.

The mitigation measures provided within the air quality discussion (refer to Section

3.3) have been designed to be consistent with the guidance as promulgated by the SJVAPCD, where applicable. As is currently proposed, the Specific Plan is expected to be built out under a staged approach, and all mitigation would be applicable to each stage. However, even with the application of mitigation measures, operational and constructions emissions levels for the aforementioned criteria pollutants would remain above the defined thresholds of significance. Exceedance of the threshold within an area designated as nonattainment would be a cumulatively considerable impact. As such, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a cumulatively considerable contribution and a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the region’s air quality.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts to the region’s air quality, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

CEQA FINDINGS
22 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

1. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts is discussed on pages 3.13-33 and 3.13-34 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As shown in Table 2.0-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan land use would allow for the future development of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category), and 59,777,271.15 SF of non-residential uses. The increase in population would result in the introduction of additional students to the CUSD.

According to the CUSD Facilities Master Plan (2021), 0.725 students are generated from each residential unit. Using this factor, future buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 60,269 additional students for the CUSD. It is also important to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction. However, even where applicants have agreed to pay school impact mitigation fees, if the proposed development requires the construction or expansion of additional facilities that would cause other physical environmental impacts, then those physical impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA (Gov. Code § 65995(i)).

Currently, as shown in Figure 3.13-1, seven schools are located within the Plan Area, including four elementary schools, one middle school, and two high schools. The proposed land use map includes an additional 10.0 acres of Elementary School land uses from what is shown in the Fresno General Plan Planned Land Use Map. This additional 10.0 acres for future development of an elementary school is located at

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 23 the northwestern corner of the N. Brawley Avenue and W. Shields Avenue intersection. This elementary school would be part of the CUSD. In addition to this

10.0-acre elementary school site, there are also proposed and not yet built school sites in the Plan Area, including the following: an elementary school off Shields Avenue and west of Hayes Avenue, an elementary school at the northwest corner of Grantland and Dakota Avenues, and an elementary school off Dakota Avenue and east of Hayes Avenue.

Physical impacts from future construction of this 10.0-acre elementary school site within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). Furthermore, sitespecific environmental review would be required for this future school by the CUSD prior to approval of a design for the facility and would consider any site-specific impacts unknown at this time.

It is noted that future development of residential uses would be required to pay the applicable school fees mandated by SB 50 to the CUSD and provide documentation of said payment to the City.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to school facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts is discussed on pages 3.13-34 and 3.13-35 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified.

CEQA FINDINGS
24 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. The proposed Specific Plan land use map includes a total of 214.44 acres of park and open space uses, including parks (8.94 acres), neighborhood parks (76.9 acres), community parks (66.3 acres), and open spaces (62.3 acres). The proposed project would increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities based on the future maximum population growth, and the amount of parkland and open space provided within the Plan Area does not meet the City’s General Plan parkland dedication standard outlined in Policy POSS-1-a.

Future development within the Plan Area would be subject to the Park Facilities Fee outlined in Article 4.7 of the City’s Municipal Code.

The City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development. The City also reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis for new development. Payment of the applicable impact fees by future project applicants, and ongoing revenues that would come from, property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by future buildout of the Plan Area, would ensure that project impacts to park facilities are reduced to the extent feasible.

Specific Plan implementation may result in effects on parks, or has the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impact. Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of park and other recreational facilities within the Plan Area are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of future development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. Each future park, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. Further, as detailed plans for future parks and recreational facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities would be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting. It is noted, however, that future development of 214.44 acres of park space within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing new park facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 25 identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to park facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

3. IMPACT 3.13-5: THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN MAY RESULT IN, OR HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO

REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES WHICH MAY CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts is discussed on pages 3.13-35 and 3.13-36 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Future buildout of the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed land use map would increase demand for other public facilities within the city of Fresno, such as libraries, and community/recreation buildings. The proposed land use map includes two land use designations that could be developed with other public facilities: Public Facilities – Public Facilities, and Public Facilities – Church.

Future buildout of the Specific Plan may include construction and/or expansion of existing places of worship (currently ~68.55 acres), ponding basins(currently ~124.5 acres), and other public facility uses (currently ~22.84 acres) in the Plan Area, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.

Potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the proposed land use map, including the places of worship, ponding basins, and other public facility uses, are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. These future places of worship and public facility use, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. Further, as detailed plans for other public facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities would be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA.

CEQA FINDINGS
26 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Project implementation may result in effects on other public facilities. The Specific Plan would result in new demand for other public facilities, including library facilities, ponding basins, and recreational facilities. Although a specific public facility use is not currently proposed by the Specific Plan, the future development of public facility uses are anticipated by the proposed Plan. Future development would be responsible for paying the applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues from the Specific Plan would be generated from property taxes, sales taxes, and other appropriate fees/payments.

Future development of public facility uses within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing other public facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project associated with impacts related to other public facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

4. IMPACT 4.13: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MAY CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SERVICES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on public services is discussed on pages 4.0-22 and 4.0-23 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. The cumulative setting would include all areas covered in the service areas of the City of Fresno Police Department, Fresno Fire Department (FFD), City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS) Department, the CUSD, and the Fresno County Public Library System. This geographic area was chosen because these service providers would be required to serve the Plan Area as well as the entire service area. Therefore, future development within the Plan Area along with past, present, and probably future

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 27 projects within the service area, has the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan.

Under cumulative conditions future local and regional growth will result in increased demand for schools, police protection, fire protection, parks/recreation, and library services. The City and its associated service providers must continue to evaluate the levels of service desired and the funding sources available to meet increases in demand.

Under cumulative conditions, future development of the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan land use map may result in the construction of public facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. The impact fees developed and reviewed by the City will recover future development’s proportionate share of City-related capital asset costs. Fees, as applied only to new development, represent future development’s proportionate share of public services and facilities capital costs.

The construction and operation of future public facilities required to serve cumulative development (including the Plan Area) could potentially cause significant impacts. Cumulative development including additional parks and schools within the city and service area would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that have been identified within this EIR related to: aesthetics and visual resources (Section 3.1), agricultural resources (Section 3.2), air quality (Section 3.3), noise (Section 3.11), public services and recreation (Section 3.13), and utilities (Section 3.15). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in the Draft EIR, cumulative impacts related to the construction of public facilities needed to meet future demand are considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts related to public services, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

CEQA FINDINGS
28 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan E. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. IMPACT 3.15-1: THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED WASTEWATER FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for proposed Specific Plan to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, is discussed on page 3.15-8 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. The Specific Plan does not trigger a need to expand the Regional Facility. There would be a network of sewer collection infrastructure installed throughout the Plan Area to serve the uses identified in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan wastewater collection system will include future construction of sewer improvements and replacements of existing lines, some of which are now over 75 years old. Approximately 11.25 miles of public and privately-owned (i.e., homeowner’s responsibility) sewer system drainage lines are proposed to serve the Plan Area at buildout.

Physical impacts from future construction of the wastewater infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).

The construction of the new wastewater facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the wastewater system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout the EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future wastewater infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in the EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in the EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of wastewater infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 29

3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in the Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 3.15-3: THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD REQUIRE OR RESULT IN

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED WATER FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OR RELOCATION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for proposed Specific Plan to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, is discussed on pages 3.15-25 and 3.15- 26 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. The provision of public services and the construction of onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements will be required to accommodate future development consistent with the Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan would likely require extension of offsite water infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area for water service. All offsite water piping improvements would be in or adjacent to existing roadways, thereby limiting new environmental impacts.

More than 15 percent (42 wells out of 270) of the City’s wells were constructed prior to 1960 (over 60 years ago) and almost 40 percent (98 of 270) were constructed prior to 1970 (over 50 years ago). According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, it has been recommended that the wells be replaced after 45 to 50 years; thus, about 40 percent of the City’s wells are overdue for replacement. Also, mechanical and electrical well component upgrades are

CEQA FINDINGS
30 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan required about every 20 to 25 years. Therefore, it is anticipated that significant well installations, replacements, and upgrades may be needed to these systems in the near future to maintain existing groundwater supply capacity and meet increased water demands.

One of the greatest challenges facing the City’s water distribution system is conveying water from areas of high-water production to areas of high-water demand. The water production and distribution system historically has been a distributed system whereby groundwater wells would be constructed on an asneeded basis in the area where the water was needed. This distributed water system does not require large diameter transmission mains to convey water from one portion of the City to another.

Physical impacts from future construction of the water infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).

The construction of the new water facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the water system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future water infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of water infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts

3.13-3 through 3.13-5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in the Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 31 (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

3. IMPACT 3.15-5: THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for proposed Specific Plan to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, is discussed on pages 3.15-36 and 3.15-37 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Stormwater represents a water supply opportunity that the City is currently leveraging with its extensive recharge basin system. Infiltration of captured stormwater allows groundwater to be recharged, improves overall water quality, and reduces the need for additional other water supplies.

Since the system is designed to handle approximately a two-year event within the underground drainage system, a significant amount of drainage is conveyed in the streets or through “major storm breakover” conveyances to detention/retention flood basins. This tends to result in shallow flooding over significant areas during larger events, but coupled with large regional flood control projects, the system can handle up to a 200-year, 30-day event.

Physical impacts from future construction of the storm drainage infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).

CEQA FINDINGS
32 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The construction of the new on-site stormwater drainage facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the stormwater system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future storm drainage infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of storm drainage infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in the Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT

IMPACTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL
A. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.1-4: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause substantial adverse health effects on human beings from elevated pollutant concentrations, either directly or indirectly is discussed on page 3.1-12 through 3.1-14 of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 33 (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-2.
(c) Findings. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would introduce new sources of light and glare into 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 systems 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 residential 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 adherence 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 nighttime sky.

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

CEQA FINDINGS
34 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

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.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to cause substantial adverse health effects on human beings from elevated pollutant concentrations, either directly or indirectly will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

B. AIR QUALITY

1. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people is discussed on page 3.3-48 through 3.3-53 of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 35 (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.3-9.
(c) Findings. 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, shortterm construction-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.

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 subject 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.

CEQA FINDINGS
36 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.3-9 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.3-5: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly is discussed on page 3.3-53 through 3.3-57 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-9.
(c) Findings. Future development projects in the Plan Area would generate emissions of PM during project operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-9 in Section 3.3. 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 on 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 Measures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8.

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 nature, 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

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 37 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.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-9 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to 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, is discussed on pages

3.4-28 through 3.4-37 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 through 3.4-9.
(c) Findings. A background search was completed for the Plan Area vicinity using 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 in Section 3.4 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. Figure 3.4-2 in Section 3.4 shows all occurrences within the 12-quadrangle area.

CEQA FINDINGS
38 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Approval of the proposed Specific Plan would not directly approve or entitle any development or infrastructure projects. However, implementation of the Specific Plan and Land Use Map would allow and facilitate future development in the Plan Area, which could result in adverse impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as sensitive natural habitat or wildlife movement corridors. Potentially significant impacts would result related to invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and plants.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of specialstatus plants and animals, including habitat. The Specific Plan includes numerous policies intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development of the Plan Area has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected special-status plants and animals, including habitat, the implementation of the policies listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would reduce impacts to these resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 through 3.4-9 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. The measures pertain to special-status invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and plants. Preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures would be required.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 through

3.4-9 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to 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, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project 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 is discussed on pages 3.4-37 through 3.4-39 of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 39 (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and 3.4-11.
(c) Findings. The Plan Area does not contain any natural hydrologic features. The Plan Area contains an internal network of agricultural ditches along the margins of the farm fields.

The ditches in proximity to active agricultural areas of the Plan Area are regularly maintained to control/collect irrigation runoff from the fields. These features are manmade and are fed only by local irrigation water during the irrigation season or rainfall during the winter/spring season.

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

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and

3.4-11 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project 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 will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. 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.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to 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 is discussed on pages 3.4-39 and 3.4-40 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.4-12 through 3.4-14.

CEQA FINDINGS
40 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (c) Findings. The records search revealed the presence of the following sensitive natural communities within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Sycamore Alluvial Woodland. None of these community types are found in the Plan Area. Riparian habitat is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found within the Plan Area. The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium.

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

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.4-12 through 3.4-14 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to 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 will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

D. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.5-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MAY CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE

CHANGE TO A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN CEQA GUIDELINES §15064.5, OR A SIGNIFICANT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21074.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074 is discussed on pages 3.5-17 and 3.5-19 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 41 (c) Findings. The majority of the historic built resources within the Plan Area are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue. However, as full buildout of the Specific Plan would occur over several years, there is the potential for other buildings to reach 45 years old during implementation of the Specific Plan. Any future development within the Plan Area with the potential to impact a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be required to comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding determining significant impacts to historic resources, and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Project specific mitigation measures would be required to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to historical resources. However, future development in proximity to a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be reviewed for the potential to generate vibration that could result in damage to a historic resource pursuant to CEQA.

Potential impacts to historic resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Although no prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area. Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of the Teague School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of SR 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area. No other archaeological resources have been identified in the Plan Area. Ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area could result in impacts to currently unknown archaeological resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2 requiring ground disturbance activities to be halted, a qualified archaeologist to be retained, and mitigation measures for the handling of any resource to be implemented, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

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

CEQA FINDINGS
42 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5- 2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074 will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.5-2: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MAY DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, is discussed on pages 3.5-19 and 3.5-20 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.5-3.
(c) Findings. There are no human remains or known burial sites identified in the Plan Area.

Additionally, there are no human remains or known burial sites that have been identified in the Plan Area on maps and files maintained by the SSJVIC. There have been 36 previous cultural resource studies that examined portions of the Plan Area and no human remains or known burial sites were documented. In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources (e.g., NRHP, CRHR, CHRI, CHL, and CPHI) were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area, and no human remains or known burial sites were identified within the Plan Area.

It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to human remains or known burial sites given that none are believed to be present. If during ground disturbance activities human remains are discovered, activities would be halted in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 and appropriate steps taken to identify the remains and proper treatment.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 43 E. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY

1. IMPACT 3.6-2: SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is discussed on pages 3.6-15 and 3.6-16 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-1.
(c) Findings. The future construction activities that would occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). Construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan, would be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency.

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

CEQA FINDINGS
44 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.6-3: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE LOCATED ON A

GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE, OR THAT WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE AS A RESULT

OF SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION OR COLLAPSE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Specific Plan implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is discussed on pages 3.6-17 and 3.6-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-2.
(c) Findings. The Plan Area does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, or soil collapse. There is a potential for liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, and lateral spreading. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Specific Plan implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.6-5: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource is discussed on page 3.6-19 of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 45 (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-3.
(c) Findings. Although no paleontological resources have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

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

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. 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 THROUGH THE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is discussed on pages 3.8-21 through 3.8-26 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10.
(c) Findings. Implementation of the Specific Plan could involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future construction and/or remediation activities. The transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if

CEQA FINDINGS
46 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP).

Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project is limited. Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in the Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10 would reduce potential impacts that could occur due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with construction activities
Implementation of the Specific Plan will allow for the development of a wide variety of land uses, including Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, Recreation Commercial, General Commercial, Regional 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.

Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. There could be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by Fresno County Environmental Health Division and the FFD. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires that, prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. This would further reduce the potential for a significant impact to this topic.

Implementation of the mitigation measures in Section 3.8 will ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through

3.8-10 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 47 G. NOISE

1. IMPACT 3.11-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COULD POTENTIALLY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE MOBILE NOISE LEVELS AT EXISTING AND PROPOSED RECEPTORS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase mobile noise levels at existing and proposed receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-20 through 3.11-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-1.
(c) Findings. Vehicle traffic generated noise associated with SR 99 will continue to be the dominant noise source in the eastern portion of the Plan Area with ADTs ranging between 77,000 and 107,000 adjacent to the Plan Area. Although most noise sensitive land uses adjacent to SR 99 are shielded by existing sound walls, topography or buildings, there are still some noise sensitive land uses where existing plus project plus cumulative noise levels will exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn noise standard.

As shown in Table 3.11-10 in Section 3.11, existing plus project plus cumulative traffic conditions will result in significant increases in ambient noise levels along the following road segments:
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shaw Avenue are expected to range between 69 to 82 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 4 to 10 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Ashlan Avenue are expected to range between 63 and 74 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 and 13 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between 65 to 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 to 7 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Clinton Avenue are expected to range between 61 and 79 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 3 to 11 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along N. Grantland Avenue are expected to range between 67 and 76 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 2 to 11dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along N. Bryan Avenue are expected to range between 64 to 72 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 8 to 11 dBA CNEL.

CEQA FINDINGS
48 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Traffic noise levels along N. Hayes Avenue are expected to range between 64 to 72 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 9 to 12 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Polk Avenue are expected to range between 71 to 75 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 6 to 9 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Cornelia Avenue are expected to range between 66 to 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 2 to 5 dBA CNEL.

For these reasons, future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement mitigation measures that are specifically intended to ensure compliance with the City of Fresno noise standards and minimize the impact associated with the substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would require the implementation of performance standards based on project-specific acoustical analysis for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to significant exterior community noise levels from transportation, which may include noise walls and/or berms, or setbacks. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would reduce traffic noise levels to a less-than-significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase mobile noise levels at existing and proposed receptors will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.11-2: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase noise levels associated with construction and demolition activities is discussed on pages 3.11-28 through 3.11-31 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-2.
(c) Findings. Future development projects in the Plan Area are expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor grader, and water and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to reach between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for the grading phase. The maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be approximately 87 dBA

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 49 Lmax at 50 feet from the scraper in operation. Each bulldozer would also generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. The worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. Noise reduction potential will be project and site specific.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during grading phase. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes the use of a grader, a dozer, and two (2) excavators, two (2) backhoes and a scrapper operating at 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unmitigated noise levels at 50 feet have the potential to reach 90 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower and range between 85 to 90 dBA. For this reason, the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study identifies Mitigation Measure 3.11-2 to minimize construction noise impacts associated with the buildout of the Specific Plan, which has been incorporated as a mitigation measure. It is also noted that construction within the Plan Area would be subject to the City’s Municipal Noise Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.11-2 would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to the Plan Area would not be subject to construction noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase noise levels associated with construction and demolition activities will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.11-3: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE NOISE VIBRATION ASSOCIATION WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. (b) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase noise vibration association with construction activities is discussed on pages 3.11-31 and 3.11-32 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-3.

CEQA FINDINGS
50 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (c) Findings. Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. Typical development projects in the Plan Area would not likely require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. For example, the primary vibration source during most future construction may be from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet, which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage. As shown in Table 3.11-9, a PPV of 0.20 is the threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal dwellings. It also the level at which ground-borne vibration are annoying to people in buildings. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in ground-borne vibration of 0.20 inches per second PPV or higher at sensitive receptors.

For buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, the distance of the construction equipment would likely be at least 10 feet or more from any existing structure. At a distance of 10 feet, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.244 inches per second PPV which may be perceptible for short periods of time during site preparation of the southeastern corner of the project site, but no damage is expected. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 would further reduce construction related groundborne vibration.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase noise vibration association with construction activities will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

4. IMPACT 3.11-4: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE STATIONARY NOISE AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
(c) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase stationary noise at sensitive receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-32 and 3.11-33 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-4.
(c) Findings. Due to the suburban/rural nature of the Plan Area, future development of the Plan Area will result in a substantial increase in existing ambient noise conditions.

Increases in ambient noise levels associated with existing and future stationary noise impacts may result in potentially significant impacts. However, enforcement of the Sections 10-105 through 10-109 of the City’s Noise Ordinance and analysis of noise producing projects, along with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, would

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 51 ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to the Plan Area would not be subject to stationary noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase stationary noise at sensitive receptors will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

5. IMPACT 3.11-5: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE AMBIENT INTERIOR NOISE AT FUTURE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
(d) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase ambient interior noise at future sensitive receptorsis discussed on pages 3.11-37 and 3.11-38 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-6.
(c) Findings. As discussed in Impact 3.11-1, the existing and future traffic noise levels anticipated from implementation of proposed Specific Plan would result in exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA, which could result in the interior noise levels at future land uses exceeding the City’s interior noise level standards of 45dBA, as presented in

3.11-5. To reduce the interior noise impacts, site-specific noise analyses will be required for future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.11-5. The site-specific noise analyses will be required to fine-tune and finalize noise reduction features and must demonstrate the interior noise level will not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise limit. Potential noise reduction features may include a “windows closed” condition and possibly upgraded windows with increased STC ratings for doors and windows.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 would ensure that the future land uses within the Specific Plan would not be subject to interior noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase ambient interior noise at future sensitive receptors will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
52 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS

WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN

CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE
Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than significant as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1-1 and 3.1-2.

Agricultural Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.2-3 and 3.2-4.

Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:

3.4-4, 3.4-5, and 3.4-6.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.6-1 and 3.6-6.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.7-2.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5 and 3.8-6.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.9-4, 3.9-5 and 3.9-6.

Land Use: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.10-1 and

3.10-2.

Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.11-6.

Population and Housing: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.12-1 and 3.12-2.

Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.13-1 and 3.13-2.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.14-1. 3.14-2, 3.14-4, and 3.14-5.

Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.15-2, 3.15- 4, and 3.15-6.

The Project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 53 Biological Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.4.

Cultural and Tribal Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.5.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.6.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.7.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.8.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.9.

Land Use and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.10.

Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.11. Population and Housing: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.12.

Utilities: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.15. The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the following reasons:
• The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project; • The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact; or
• The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.

VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional

CEQA FINDINGS
54 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1).) 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.

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

Transportation
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecking exists. • Accommodate planned transit services in the West Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • 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 in the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.
• Increase the tree canopy to improve air quality 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.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 55 Retail
• Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the West Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants (other than fast food), and boutiques.
• Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores. • Encourage the development of retail establishments along commercial corridors.

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

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

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

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

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

B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN EIR
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact levels of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental analysis for each of the alternatives is included in Chapter 5.0.

CEQA FINDINGS
56 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

1. NO PROJECT (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) ALTERNATIVE:

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-6, and 5.0-8 through

5.0-16 of the Draft EIR. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction or slight reduction of impacts to air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, climate change and energy, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities. The remaining resources areas would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not fully satisfy the project objectives because this alternative would not fully implement the community’s refined vision for the future growth, development, and conservation of open space and resources within the Specific Plan in a manner consistent with the quality of life desired by residents and businesses. An 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations to the draft land use map and guiding principles based on input received from community members. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not be consistent with the revisions to the core goals provided in the General Plan for the West Area, which calls for the development of the West Shaw Avenue Town Center and Catalytic Corridors in the West Area. While the No Project Alternative would generally meet the project objectives and specific plan guiding principles, it would not be as effective as the proposed Specific Plan.

For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

2. COMMUNITY PARKS ALTERNATIVE:

The Community Parks Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-6, 5.0-7, and 5.0-16 through 5.0-25 of the Draft EIR. Under the Community Parks Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide 59.48-acres of additional Community Parks within the Plan Area near the intersection of Shaw Avenue and Hayes Avenue, including an 18.36-acre Community Park on the north side of Shaw Avenue and a 41.12-acre Community Park on the south side of Shaw Avenue. These Community Parks would include components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees, and would include public art that exhibits the

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 57 Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry. The park areas would not be designated by the City for dual land uses. The proposed land use for these park areas would be Open Space (Community Park).

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the slight reduction of impacts to air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, climate change and energy, public services and recreation, and utilities. The remaining resources areas would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.

On balance, the alternative is less desirable than the Project and does not lessen the overall environmental impacts nor provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of this alternative, this alternative would not achieve all of the Project objectives. The Community Parks Alternative would meet the primary project objectives and would satisfy the policy guidance outlined in the City’s General Plan for West Area; however, it would not meet the quantifiable objective future development of up to 83,129 DU (including 339 DU in the commercial category, 49,355 DU in the residential category and 33,436 DU in the mixed use category) and 59,777,271 SF of non-residential uses in the Plan Area.

Therefore, the Community Parks Alternative would satisfy the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

On balance, the minor environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed, independently and separately, by the reasons described above, and the failure of this alternative to provide the same level of benefits as the Project.

For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

3. LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:

The Lower Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-7, and 5.0-25 through 5.0-33 of the Draft EIR. Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue.

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction or slight reduction of impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology, soils and seismicity, greenhouse gas, climate change, and energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation,

CEQA FINDINGS
58 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan transportation and circulation, and utilities. The remaining resources areas (land use, and population and housing) would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.

On balance, the alternative is less desirable than the Project and does not provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. This alternative would not achieve all of the Project objectives. Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue. The land use mix under the Lower Density Alternative would not encourage a variety of housing styles and types and would not encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options. Instead, this alternative would encourage the development of lower density single-family homes and ranch style homes. As such, this alternative would cause an overall reduction in housing stock in the Plan Area. Therefore, this alternative would satisfy the project objectives related to housing to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, although this alternative would encourage development of retail along commercial corridors, the amount of retail and jobgenerating uses would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the retail-related project objectives.

The Lower Density Alternative would accommodate and improve roadways and transit in the area, and would provide a complete roadway network. This alternative would achieve all of the transportation related objectives. This alternative would also result in creation of parks and trails in the Plan Area, and would incorporate elements of agriculture and agri-tourism ventures. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the project objectives.

For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

6. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE:

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 59 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.

As shown on Table 5.0-1 of the Draft EIR (on page 5.0-34), 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. It should be noted that none of alternatives meet all of the project objectives.

The Lower Density Alternative does not meet all of the Project objectives. This alternative would provide fewer residential units, which would result in fewer opportunities for Fresno residents to buy or rent. This would also reduce the property tax and sales tax revenue generation as compared to the Project. While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the Lower Density Alternative, this alternative would not result in the mix of residential and non-residential uses that are identified in the Project objectives under full buildout of the Project site.

For the reasons provided above, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

VII. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable impacts could 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. • Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to nonagricultural land uses. • Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
• Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable

CEQA FINDINGS
60 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b) – VMT per employee for non-residential uses.
• Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region.
• Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses.
• Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality
• Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.
• Impact 4.14: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network.

The adverse effects listed above, and described in detail in Section III, are substantive issues of concern to the City. However, the City finds that the Project would have the following economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits:

1. Consistency with the General Plan. The City of Fresno has a General Plan that provides for an array of land uses throughout the City that are intended to accommodate the City’s needs for growth over the foreseeable future. The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the Plan Area, per the General Plan’s direction (see Chapter 3, Section 3.4). The proposed Specific Plan would continue to carry forward and implement

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 61 policies and objectives from the City’s existing General Plan that were intended for environmental protection and would not remove or conflict with City plans, policies, or regulations adopted for environmental protection. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan and has been designed to encourage implementation of the General Plan’s primary objectives, including the sequencing of development as directed by Figure IM-2. The General Plan’s overarching land use objective for the Growth Areas includes Objective UF-13 that calls for the City to locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas (including the West Development Area), which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed-use centers; or along future BRT corridors. As discussed throughout the proposed Specific Plan, the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan holds firm to the goal of achieving Complete Neighborhoods.

The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan will serve as an implementation tool to support the General Plan’s goals and objectives as well as a vital instrument for much needed comprehensive planning, to improve area-wide connectivity, housing opportunities, recreation, services and infrastructure improvements.

2. Consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan includes certain development regulations and standards that are intended to be specific to the Specific Plan Area. Where there is a matter or issue not specifically covered by the Specific Plan development regulations and design standards, the Fresno Zoning Code would apply. Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code, the Zoning Code would prevail.

The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Plan Area. The land use, development standards, and design guidelines are provided to ensure that all proposed developments remain consistent with the vision established by the Specific Plan as the Project is built over time. The Specific Plan development concepts, design guidelines, and standards are in accordance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Ordinances, and City Specifications. The Specific Plan shall be used to review, process, and approve development proposals for the Project site including but not limited to site specific development applications and site improvement plans.

The City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the City which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The proposed Specific Plan would require modifications to the City’s Zoning Map to provide consistency between the General Plan and zoning; however, these modifications

CEQA FINDINGS
62 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan will not remove or adversely modify portions of the Fresno Municipal Code that were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect.

The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would not apply to the parcel.

3. Consistency with the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR contemplates environmental impacts of developing land throughout the General Plan planning area. Where the General Plan EIR identifies impacts, mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the impacts. In some cases, the impacts of development were anticipated to be significant and unavoidable and the City adopted a statements of overriding consideration. There are Project specific impacts associated with the proposed Project that are the same as those that were anticipated under the General Plan, and there are others that vary from what was anticipated. For instance, the physical environmental impacts associated with converting the Project site from vacant undeveloped property to an urban developed property is not unique or different with the proposed General Plan amendment. Instead, the physical environmental impacts from this land conversion is the same under the proposed Project and the General Plan EIR. However, as it relates to environmental topics such as air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, etc., the environmental impacts are more closely related to the actual use, density, and intensity of development as opposed to the environmental footprint of the site. Under these environmental topics, the impacts would vary from what was anticipated under the General Plan EIR, and are very specific to the Project characteristics. Nevertheless, each environmental topic was analyzed in light of the anticipated impacts under the General Plan, and the actual environmental impacts caused by the General Plan amendment, the project characteristics, and the physical characteristics of the Project site. The DEIR for this Project, and these Findings, incorporate, either expressly or by reference, such impacts, mitigation measures and statements of overriding consideration that are applicable to the Project.

4. General Plan Policies. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the relevant General Plan policies, including:
• Future Planning to Require Design Principles. Require future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element. (UF-13-1) • Provision of Public Facilities and Services. Promote orderly land use development in pace with public facilities and services needed to serve development. (LU-1-c) • Scale and Character of New development. Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 63 new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes. (LU-5-g)
• Circulation Plan Diagram Implementation. Design and construct planned streets and highways that complement and enhance the existing network, as well as future improvements to the network consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, as shown on the Circulation Diagram (Figure MT-1), to ensure that each new and existing roadway continues to function as intended. (MT-1-b) • Integrate Land Use and Transportation Planning. Plan for and maintain a coordinated and well integrated land use pattern, local circulation network and transportation system that accommodates planned growth, reduces impacts on adjacent land uses, and preserves the integrity of established neighborhoods. (MT-1-d) • Bicycle Safety, Awareness, and Education. Promote bicycle ridership by providing secure bicycle facilities, promoting traffic safety awareness for both bicyclists and motorists, promoting the air quality benefits, promoting non-renewable energy savings, and promoting the public health benefits of physical activity. (MT-4-k) • 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. (MT-5-b) • Path and Trail Design Standards. Designate and design paths and trails in accordance with design standards established by the City that give consideration to all path and trail users (consistent with design, terrain and habitat limitations) and provide for appropriate widths, surfacing, drainage, design speed, barriers, fences, signage, visibility, intersections, bridges, and street cleaning. (MT-6-i) • Path and Trail Buffers. Use landscaping with appropriate and adequate physical and visual barriers (e.g., masonry walls, wrought iron, or square-tube fencing) to screen path and trail rights-of ways and separate paths and trails from mining operations, drainage facilities, and similar locations as warranted. (MT-6-k) • Environmentally Sensitive Path and Trail Design. Develop paths and trails with minimum environmental impact by taking the following actions: (MT-6-m) o Surface paths and trails with materials that are conducive to maintenance and safe travel, choosing materials that blend in with the surrounding area; o Design paths and trails to follow contour lines where the least amount of grading (fewest cuts and fills) and least disturbance of the surrounding habitat will occur; o Beautify path and trail rights-of-way in a manner consistent with intended use, safety, and maintenance;
o Use landscaping to stabilize slopes, create physical or visual barriers, and provide shaded areas; and
o Preserve and incorporate native plant species into the landscaping. • Emergency Vehicle Access along Paths and Trails. Provide points of emergency vehicle access within the path and trail corridors, via parking areas, service roads, emergency access gates in fencing, and firebreaks. (MT-6-n)

CEQA FINDINGS
64 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City. (PU-3-f)
• System Extension and Cost Recovery. Pursue enlargement or extension of the sewage collection system where necessary to serve planned urban development, with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between the existing users and new users. (PU-4-c)
• Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long-range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses. (PU-8-g)
• Link Land Use to Transportation. Promote mixed-use, higher density infill development in multi-modal corridors. Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system and plan future transportation investments in areas of higherintensity development. Discourage investment in infrastructure that would not meet these criteria. (RC-2-a)
• 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. (RC-4-c)
• Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts. (RC-4-d)
• SCS and CAP Conformity Analysis. Ensure that the City includes analysis of a project’s conformity to an adopted regional Sustainable Community Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), and any other applicable City and regional greenhouse gas reduction strategies in effect at the time of project review. (RC-5-d)
• Ensure Compliance. Ensure ongoing compliance with GHG emissions reduction plans and programs by requiring that air quality measures are incorporated into projects’ design, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. (RC-5-e) • Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to use computer models such as those used by SJVAPCD to evaluate greenhouse gas impacts of plans and projects that require such review. (RC-5-g)
• Land Use and Development Compliance. Ensure that land use and development projects adhere to the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of existing and future customers through 2025. (RC-6-c)
• Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to protect areas of beneficial natural groundwater recharge by preventing uses that can contaminate soil or groundwater. (RC-6-g) • Project Development. Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 65 professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy. (HCR-2-c)
• Archaeological Resources. Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources. (HCR-2-f) • Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 9-2 and 9-3 to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 9-2 and 9-3 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

Noise mitigation measures may include:
o The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
o Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; o Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; o Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and o Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding. (NS-1-i)
• Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB LDN or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update. (NS-1-j)
• Proposal Review. Review all new public and private development proposals that may potentially be affected by or cause a significant increase in noise levels, per Policy NS-1- i, to determine conformance with the policies of this Noise Element. Require developers to reduce the noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means. (NS-1-k)
• Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportationrelated stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City’s adopted standards for noise sensitive land uses. (NS-1-m)
• Soil Analysis Requirement. Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan

CEQA FINDINGS
66 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa water. (NS-2-b)
• New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project. (NS-3-i) • Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development. (NS-4-c)
• Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable. (NS-4-e) • Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance. (NS-6-f)

5. Consistency with Smart Growth Principles. The Specific Plan is generally consistent with commonly accepted principles of Smart Growth supporting the development of mixedincome communities; supporting a range of housing types as well as social diversity; promoting the use of existing infrastructure investments, and encouraging efficient land development and proximity to activity centers. The Plan Area is located in an area with existing community streets, and the Specific Plan includes a proposed layout for new public streets to serve the Plan Area is buildout occurs. The proximity of the Project to retail uses, schools and employment centers will encourage and accommodate the use of alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian modes, and encourage the reduced reliance on the automobile as a travel mode. (American Planning Association (APA), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).)

6. Create Employment Opportunities for Local Residents. The proposed Project has been designated with land uses that are intended to generate jobs and tax revenue for the City, while providing public and recreational facilities, retail opportunities, and housing opportunities. The proposed Project would provide an increase in local jobs that could be filled by the citizens of Fresno, which could reduce the number of citizens commuting to areas outside of the City. Implementation of the proposed Project would provide job growth to the area. It is anticipated that local employment would be increased to provide administrative, management, visitor-serving areas, and retail services. The proposed Project is expected to require both full-time and part-time employees. Additionally, future development consistent with the Specific Plan would provide short-term employment

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 67 opportunities within the construction, engineering, and design field, among others. The actual number of jobs would vary by the actual businesses and types of businesses that locate within the Project site.

7. Contribute to and Fund Needed Infrastructure Improvements. Future development of the Plan Area will be required to contribute to needed transportation infrastructure improvements by paying its fair share towards infrastructure improvements. The Project will also construct or contribute to funding other infrastructure improvements that will benefit additional development projects and City residents and visitors.

8. Generate Economic Benefits from Taxes. Future development of the Plan Area will provide increased sales tax and property tax revenue to the City, local schools and other agencies.

These revenues will benefit the City and other local governmental agencies, and their residents and constituencies, by providing needed revenue for the provision of required services and amenities.

9. Expansion of the City's Housing Stock. The Project would provide housing opportunities for current and future residents. Implementation of the Project would increase and diversify the housing supply in the City, which could spur development, economic growth, and tax generation within the area.

Based on the entire record and the EIR, the City Council has determined that the economic and social benefits of the Project in Fresno outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from future Project implementation as more fully described in Section III, Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The City finds that the Project has been carefully reviewed and that the goals, objectives, and policies included in the Project along with the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have avoided or substantially lessened several environmental impacts, to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, the Project may have certain environmental effects which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. The City has carefully considered all of the environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to an insignificant level. The City has carefully considered the economic, legal, social, and technological benefits of the Project, as well as other considerations. The City has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and, based upon substantial evidence in the record, has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse environmental effects.

The City finds that any one or more of these overriding considerations would have been sufficient to outweigh adverse impacts. As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City of Fresno has carefully reviewed the Project and the alternatives presented in the EIR, and fully understands the Project and Project alternatives proposed for development. Further, this City Council finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and public testimony.

CEQA FINDINGS
68 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

Fresno City CouncilOctober 16, 2025

Fresno City Council
October 16, 2025