Fresno City Council
November 6, 2025

October 3, 2024

Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Room 3043
Fresno CA 93721

Re: 2024091129 Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program Project, Fresno County

Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

AB 52

AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:

Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.

Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).

2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).

3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).

6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).

7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).

8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).

9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).

10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).

11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).

The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf

SB 18

SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf.

Some of SB 18’s provisions include:

1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).

2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).

4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).

Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments

To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.

b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.

4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst

cc: State Clearinghouse

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-1041 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

October 28, 2024

FRE-GEN

CITY OF FRESNO

EIR NOP

VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM
GTS #: FRE-2024-02073

SENT VIA EMAIL

Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721

Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

Caltrans has completed review of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program (Program).

The Program will apply to development within the city limits of Fresno and intends to streamline the Senate Bill (SB) 743 compliance process for development projects while funding future VMT improvement projects. The Program would identify relevant transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to be funded by mitigation fees from developments that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA.

The Program’s intent of reducing citywide VMT includes two major components that can be applied to new development with VMT impacts:
1) an Urban Design Calculator (UDC), which estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements; and 2) a mitigation fee (supported by a nexus study) and mitigation bank, which would be used to fund VMT-reducing projects throughout Fresno.

The Programs potential VMT reducing measures may include:
1) active transportation improvements,
2) multi-modal transportation programs, and
3) improved street connectivity, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. To ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all development projects that utilize the multimodal transportation City of Fresno EIR NOP VMT Reduction Program
October 28, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” network. Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:

1. Caltrans acknowledges the Program’s condition on page 31 under Significance Thresholds for Transportation Projects that,
“For projects on the State highway system, Caltrans will use and will require sponsoring agencies to use VMT as the CEQA metric, and Caltrans will evaluate the VMT that is attributable to the project (Caltrans Draft VMT Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide 2020). Caltrans may review environmental documents for capacity enhancing projects for the City’s analysis of VMT change.”

2. Caltrans agrees with the City’s adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (Guidelines) which indicates on page 24, the method of reducing GHG by 13 percent is to reduce VMT by 13 percent. The State of California recognizes Fresno County’s contribution to the aggregate 15 percent statewide GHG emission reduction is 13 percent. Reduction in GHG directly corresponds to reduction in VMT. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction goal of 15 percent, the City must reduce GHG by 13 percent.

3. Caltrans acknowledges the numerous mitigation measure identified in the Guidelines Appendices from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report on Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA Green Book) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

4. Caltrans concurs with the Guidelines conclusion on page 44, recommending that the City work collaboratively within its regions to ultimately establish fee programs, mitigation banks, and exchanges as the most efficient way to establish a regional mitigation pathway where the projects can contribute. As indicated in the Guidelines, VMT impacts are more regional in nature. Hence, there might be requirements for mitigations outside the control of the City, and without consent from the agency controlling the mitigations, the impacts might remain significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, identification of regional improvements where projects can contribute their fair share to mitigate impacts might prove to be difficult.

If you have any other questions, please call David Deel, Associate Transportation Planner at (559) 981-1041.

Sincerely,

Mr. DAVE PADILLA, Branch Chief,
Local Development Review Branch
Office of Multimodal Transportation Planning
Division of Transportation Planning & Local Programs

October 28, 2024

Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721

Project: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program

District CEQA Reference No: 20241121

Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) from the City of Fresno (City) for the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program. Per the NOP, the project consists of the establishment of a VMT Reduction Program intended to reduce Citywide VMT by establishing mitigation for future development projects in Fresno through developing an Urban Design Calculator that estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements and the use of a mitigation fee which would be used to fund VMT-reducing projects throughout the City (Project). The Project covers development projects in Fresno, California. The Project includes area within one of the communities in the state selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional air quality resources and attention under Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (Garcia) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities. See Figure 1 below.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 8 District Reference No: 20241121
October 28, 2024

Figure 1: Boundaries of the South Central Fresno AB617 Community

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

Ongoing Commitment to Strengthen Working Relationship

The District appreciates the City’s ongoing commitment to strengthen the working relationship with the District, in identifying and mitigating impacts on air quality through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.

Consistent with this cooperative effort and in order to address air quality impacts and concerns prior to future development projects occurring, the District recommends that the City develop administrative mechanisms and policies that ensure consistency in providing the District with information about projects under consideration by the City, such as land use designation, project size, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources. To aid the City in determining a project’s potential impacts, the District recommends the City provide an assessment evaluating potential project construction and operation related to air quality impacts to the District as early as possible. Additionally, the District is available to work with the City and project applicants on future development projects

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 8 District Reference No: 20241121
October 28, 2024

to address air quality impacts and concerns. The District encourages the City to include a section that advises project applicants to reach out and work with the District. The District’s goal is to assist with enhancing project designs in the early stages of the planning process for a better overall project with minimized impact on air quality and early identification of feasible mitigation measures.

Land Use Planning

Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from program-level projects to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards. Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. The District acknowledges that the Project will be incorporating strategies that reduce VMTs and the District recommends that the Project require the cleanest available heavy duty trucks, vehicles, and off-road equipment, including zero and near-zero technologies.

VMTs can be reduced through encouragement of mix-use development, walkable communities, etc. Additional design element options can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf

In addition, the District recommends that the Project incorporate strategies that will advance implementation of the best practices listed in Tables 5 and 6 of California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Freight Handbook Concept Paper, to the extent feasible. This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts as “practices” which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities. The concept paper is available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf

Project Siting

The Project is intended to supplement the blueprint for future growth and provides guidance for the community’s development. Without appropriate mitigation and associated policy, future development projects within the City may contribute to negative impacts on air quality due to increased traffic and ongoing operational emissions. Appropriate project siting helps ensure there is adequate distance between differing land uses, which can prevent or reduce localized and cumulative air pollution impacts from business operations that are in close proximity to receptors (e.g., residences, schools, health care facilities, etc.).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 8 District Reference No: 20241121
October 28, 2024

The Project’s siting-related goals, policies, and objectives should include measures and concepts outlined in the following resources:

• CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The document includes tables with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources (e.g., distribution centers, chrome platers, gasoline dispensing facilities, etc.), and can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/strategy- development/land-use-resources

• CARB’s Freight Handbook Concept Paper: This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts, which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities, and can be found at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf

Assembly Bill 617

AB 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities, like those in which the Project is located.

The South Central Fresno AB 617 community is one of the statewide communities selected by CARB for development and implementation of a CERP.

Following extensive community engagement and collaboration with the Community Steering Committee, the CERP for the South Central Fresno Community was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September 2019 and by CARB in February 2020.

During the development of the CERP, the Community Steering Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community that may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The Community Steering Committee also expressed the desire for more meaningful avenues of engagement surrounding the land-use decisions in the area. As these issues can most effectively be addressed through strong partnerships between community members and local land-use agencies. Furthermore, the District recommends the Project assess the emission reductions measures and strategies included in the CERP and address them in the EIR, as appropriate, to align the City work with the air pollution and exposure reduction strategies and measures outlined in the CERP.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 8 District Reference No: 20241121
October 28, 2024

For more information regarding the CERP approved for South Central Fresno, please visit the District’s website at:
http://community.valleyair.org/selected-communities/south-central-fresno

Project Related Emissions

At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.

As such, the District recommends that the EIR stipulate that future development projects within the Project identify and characterize project construction and operational air emissions. The District recommends the air emissions be compared to the District significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf. The District recommends that future projects be mitigated to the extent feasible, and that future projects with air emissions above the aforementioned thresholds be mitigated to below these thresholds.

The District understands that the Project is a program-level project where future individual project-specific data may not be available at this time. The EIR should include a discussion of policies, which when implemented, will require assessment and characterization of project-level emissions, and subsequently require mitigation of air quality impacts to the extent feasible at the individual project-specific level.

Truck Routing

Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for future development projects within the City, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy- Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 8 District Reference No: 20241121
October 28, 2024

Electric Infrastructure

To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City encourage project proponents to install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/charge-up for more information.

District’s Bikeway Incentive Program

Incorporating design elements (e.g., installing bikeways) within the Project area that enhance walkability and connectivity can result in an overall reduction of VMT and improve air quality within the area. The Bikeway Incentive Program provides funding for eligible Class 1 (Bicycle Path Construction), Class II (Bicycle Lane Striping), or Class III (Bicycle Route) projects. These incentives are designed to support the construction of new bikeway projects to promote clean air through the development of a widespread, interconnected network of bike paths, lanes, or routes and improving the general safety conditions for commuter bicyclists. Only municipalities, government agencies, or public educational institutions are eligible to apply. More information on the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/bike-paths/

Guidelines and Project Eligibility for the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/drpijuw1/bikeway-program-guidelines-62515.pdf

District Rules and Regulations

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)

Future development projects within the City may be subject to District Rule 9510 if upon full buildout, the project would equal or exceed any of the following applicability thresholds, depending on the type of development and public agency approval mechanism:

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 8 District Reference No: 20241121
October 28, 2024

Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds
Development
Type
Discretionary
Approval Threshold
Ministerial Approval /
Allowed Use / By Right
Thresholds
Residential 50 dwelling units 250 dwelling units
Commercial 2,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Light Industrial 25,000 square feet 125,000 square feet Heavy Industrial 100,000 square feet 500,000 square feet Medical Office 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
General Office 39,000 square feet 195,000 square feet
Educational Office 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet Government 10,00 square feet 50,000 square feet
Recreational 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
Other 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet

District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview

The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/forms- and-applications/

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 8 District Reference No: 20241121
October 28, 2024

District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if future development projects will be subject to Rule 9510, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/rule-9410-employer-based-trip-reduction/.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Matt Crow by e- mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-6000.

Sincerely,

Tom Jordan
Director of Policy and Government Affairs

For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
October 29, 2024

Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, California 93721
(559) 621-8062
[email protected]

Subject: City of Fresno Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program (Program)
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
SCH No. 2024091129
Dear Sophia Pagoulatos:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a NOP to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Fresno for the Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Program that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Program that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW respectfully requests that City of Fresno still consider our comments.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, reasonably foreseeable future project’s tiered from this Program may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of reasonably foreseeable future project’s tiered from this Program may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required.

Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened (E, R, or T) on any State or Federal list to be considered E, R, or T under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria for E, R, or T, as specified in the CEQA Guidelines section 15380, CDFW recommends it be fully considered in the environmental analysis for projects tiered from this Program.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Fresno
Objective: The proposed Program aims to establish a VMT Reduction Program with the intent of reducing citywide VMT by establishing mitigation for future development projects in the City of Fresno. The VMT Reduction Program includes two major components that can be applied, individually or in combination, to new development with VMT impacts: an Urban Design Calculator (UDC), which estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements; and a mitigation fee (supported by a nexus study) and mitigation bank, which would be used to fund VMT reducing projects throughout Fresno. The VMT Reduction Program would identify relevant transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and VMT- reducing projects within the City of Fresno to be funded by mitigation fees from developments that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA. Potential VMT-reducing measures may include active transportation improvements, multi-modal Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

transportation programs, and improved street connectivity, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The Program intends to streamline the Senate Bill (SB) 743 compliance process for development projects while funding future VMT improvement projects.

Location: The proposed Program will apply to development within the city limits of Fresno.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Fresno in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Program’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document for this Program.

The NOP indicates that the DEIR for the Program will consider potential environmental effects of the proposed Program to determine the level of significance of the environmental effects and will analyze these potential effects to the detail necessary to make a determination on the level of significance. The DEIR will also identify and evaluate alternatives to the proposed Program. When a DEIR is prepared, the specifics of mitigation measures may be deferred, provided the lead agency commits to mitigation and establishes performance standards for implementation.

Special-Status Species
Based on aerial imagery and species occurrence records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2024), the proposed Program area is known to and/or has the potential to support special-status species, and these resources need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals associated with the Program that would allow ground-disturbing activities. CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to:

The State endangered and fully protected bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the State and federally endangered least bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), the State endangered and federally threatened succulent owl’s clover (Castilleja campestris var. succulenta), the State threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), the State and federally threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), the State candidate burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), the State species of special concern and federally threatened steelhead – Central Valley Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11), the State species of special Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

concern and federally proposed threatened western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), the State species of special concern American badger (Taxidea taxus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2, Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii), and shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians).

Riparian Habitat Proximity: Riparian natural communities along the San Joaquin River and related tributaries within the City of Fresno provide many essential benefits to terrestrial, avian and aquatic species, including, but not limited to thermal protection, cool water refugia, cover, large woody debris, foraging areas, breeding and rearing sites, habitat and connectivity corridors, as well as buffers to sedimentation and runoff from adjacent land uses. Direct and indirect impacts into these habitat types can adversely impact sensitive species including but not limited to bald eagle, least bell’s vireo, Swainson’s hawk, and steelhead - Central Valley DPS as well the San Joaquin River spring run Chinook salmon population, which is currently being restored through implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Project. These impacts can lead to reduction of habitat, reduced reproductive success; reduced health and vigor; nest abandonment; loss of foraging habitat that would reduce nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young); and introduction of debris and/or deleterious materials into river habitats. Narrow riparian buffers are considerably less effective in minimizing the effects of adjacent development than wider buffers (Castelle et al. 1992, Brosofske et al. 1998, Kiffney et al. 2003, Moore et al. 2005). CDFW recommends the Program establish sufficient buffer zones from riparian habitat.

Federally Listed Species

CDFW recommends projects tiered from this Program consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on potential impacts to federally listed species. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground disturbing activities.

Cumulative Impacts

Given that a Program serves primarily as a planning tool and that future project-level CEQA documents are expected to be tiered from it, CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all potential biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the this Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

Program, including those impacts that are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by any future project, even if those impacts are expected to be relatively small (i.e. less than significant). CDFW recommends cumulative impacts be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the project. An appropriate resource study area identified and utilized for this analysis is advised. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA.

California Endangered Species Act
Reasonably foreseeable future projects tiered from this Program may be subject to CDFWs regulatory authority pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). In the event that species listed under CESA are detected during surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid “take,” or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire a State Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), prior to any ground disturbing activities. In addition, CDFW advises that mitigation measures for the CESA listed species be fully addressed in the CEQA document prepared for any future project tiered from this Program.

CDFW therefore recommends that the DEIR for this Program include information related to these requirements and advises that projects tiered from this Program retain a qualified biologist to determine if potential impacts to CESA listed species may require the need to obtain a State ITP.

Lake and Stream Alteration

Reasonably foreseeable future projects tiered from this Program may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Activities that substantially change the bed, bank, and channel of any river, stream, or lake are subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires project proponents to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program at (559) 243- 4593, or [email protected].

Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

CDFW therefore recommends that the DEIR for this Program include information related to these requirements of Fish and Game code and advise that projects tiered from this Program that conduct ground disturbing activities retain a qualified biologist to determine if potential impacts to streams may require the need to obtain a 1600 LSA Agreement.

Botanical Surveys
CDFW recommends that the DEIR for this Program include a measure requiring that each project site for projects implemented within the Program area that include ground disturbance activities be surveyed by a qualified botanist for any possible special-status plants following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities”
(https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline) during biological technical studies completed in support of the future CEQA documents tiered from this Program. CDFW recommends that the plant surveys be floristic and, if necessary, utilize known reference sites for special-status plants in order to provide a high level of confidence in the effort and results. If a State or federally listed plant species is identified during botanical surveys, it is recommended that consultation with CDFW and/or the USFWS be conducted to determine permitting needs.

Nesting birds
CDFW recommends that all projects tiered from this Program that include ground disturbance activities occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground- disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15), each future project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of their project does not result in a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes as referenced above.

To evaluate future project-related impacts on nesting birds, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct an assessment of nesting habitat during biological surveys in support of each project’s CEQA document, and then conduct pre-activity surveys for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected.

CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around each future project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by a project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

detect behavioral changes resulting from each future project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non- listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non- listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction areas would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

CEQA Alternatives Analysis

CDFW recommends that the information and results obtained from the cumulative impacts analysis conducted as part of this Program’s CEQA document be used to develop and modify the Program’s alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources to the maximum extent possible. Please note that for all future projects tiered from this Program, that when efforts to avoid and minimize have been exhausted, remaining impacts to sensitive biological resources may need to be mitigated to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, if feasible.

CNDDB

Please note that the CNDDB is populated by and records voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species.

A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present.

All project’s tiered from this Program that include activities for ground disturbance should adequately assess any potential project-related impacts to biological resources by ensuring biological surveys are conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology as warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the project area.

Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

Environmental Data
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data.

The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

Filing Fees
The Program, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP to assist the City of Fresno in identifying and mitigating this Program’s impacts on biological resources.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols).

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at (559) 580-3194 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager

Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8

Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

ec: CESA [email protected]
LSA [email protected]
FWS [email protected]

State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]

Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
October 29, 2024

REFERENCES

Brosofske, K., J. Chen, R. Naiman, and J. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington.

Ecological Applications 7:1188-1200.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Biogeographic information and observation system (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed 15 October 2024.

Castelle, A., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T.

Erickson, and S. Cooke. 1992. Wetlands buffers use and effectiveness. Adolfson Associates, Inc., Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Pub. No. 92-10.

Kiffney, P., J. Richardson, and J. Bull. 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:1060-1076.

Moore, R., D. Spittlehouse, and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:813-834.

Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4377D1-6622-417C-8EC9-FD1673EE70A8

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ULY 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

APPENDIX C

VMT REDUCING PROJECTS

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ULY 2025

This page intentionally left blank

Project Total Scores / Priortization
Project ID Map
Number Project Name Street  Name From To Project  Description Project Category
Transportation Demand Management Projects
1 Mobile Ticketing and Trip Planning
App Citywide Mobile  Ticketing Trip Planning App  TDM
2 Transit  Marketing Program Citywide Transit  Marketing Program TDM 3 Transportation Demand Management
Coordinator Citywide
Transportation Demand Management
Coordinator TDM
4 Bike/Pedestrian  Trip Trackers Citywide Bike/Ped  Trip Trackers TDM 5 Intermodal  Signage
Citywide
Intermodal Signage to connect transit
and bicycle/pedestrian networks TDM
Transit Projects
T96
6 Frequency  enhancement‐Route 39
Clinton Ave
Route Enhancement: Three new
buses for 15 Minute Frequency on
Route 39 Transit
T39
7 Accessibility  Improvements‐Route 34
Southern Industrial Area
Route Extension: 52 new ADA
compliant stops for Southern
Industrial service expansion‐Route 34 Transit
T102
8 New  route‐Bullard Ave
Bullard Ave Fresno  State
New Route: Four new buses and 72
new stops for Bullard Ave Crosstown
Route Transit
T126
9 New  route‐Church Ave
Church Ave
New Route: Four new buses and 68
new stops for Church Avenue
Crosstown Service Transit
T130
10 New  route‐Willow Ave
Willow Ave Shields
Clovis Community
College
New Route: Four new buses and 68
new stops for service from on Willow
Avenue from Shields and Clovis
Community College Transit
T47
11 Route  Extension, Route 45
Ashlan Ave
Route Extension: 10 new stops to
increase service on Route 45  (Note:
the 2 buses have already been
purchased; the cost of the stop
improvements is still needed) Transit
T42
12 Route  enhancement‐Route 38
Cedar Ave Herndon   Jensen
Route Enhancement on Route 38
Cedar Ave Transit Signal Priority ‐
Adaptive Signal Control on Cedar
from Herndon to Jensen Transit
T45
13 Service  Improvement, Route 32
First Street
Route Enhancement, Frequency? : Six
new buses to increase service on
Route 32 Transit
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects
B17
14 Priority Bikeway Network
Along Herndon No 39
Canal (section on E
Shields Ave) to Mill No
36 Canal (section along E
McKinley Ave) to N Clovis
Ave N  Palm Ave
just north of E Shields
Ave
Priority Bikeway Network/Midotown
Trail Bike
B38
15 Southern Blackstone Improvements
Southern Blackstone
Avenue Smart Mobility
Strategy Dakota  Avenue Highway  180 Class  IV Bikeway Bike PED‐SA5 16 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridor First  Street Dakota  Avenue Ventura  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
PED‐PAA1
17 Pedestrian Activity Areas Downtown  Fresno
South of Divisadero
Street
Northeast of Highway 99,
Northwest of Highway 41 Pedestrian  Activity Areas Pedestrian PED‐UN14 18 Underserved Neighborhood
North Avenue
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
PED‐SA8
19 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridor
Kings Canyon Road/Cesar
Chavez Blvd Cedar  Avenue Clovis  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
PED‐UN7 20 Underserved Neighborhood Florence  Avenue  Chestnut Balderas Elementary
School Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
PED‐PAA2 21 Pedestrian Activity Areas
Tower District ‐ Olive
Avenue Palm  Avenue Van  Ness Avenue Pedestrian  Activity Areas Pedestrian PED‐UN19 22 Underserved Neighborhood
Yosemite Middle School
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
PED‐PAA4 23 Pedestrian Activity Areas
Blackstone Avenue/Abby
Street Divisadero  Street Shaw  Avenue Pedestrian  Activity Areas Pedestrian PED‐UN17 24 Underserved Neighborhood
Scandinavian
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
Back‐Up Projects
PED‐SA9 Chestnut Avenue Tulare  Street Butler  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
T49
Mobility as a Service ‐ Explore and
Implement Rideshare, Car Share, and
Bike Share Transit
PED‐SA3 Shaw Avenue Blackstone  Avenue Maple  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
T38
Veterans Home System Expansion ‐
Expand System to California
Verterans Home Transit
PED‐SA6 Cedar Avenue Dakota  Avenue Belmont  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
B26 S Maple Ave E  McKinley Ave E  Church Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike PED‐SA1 Blackstone Avenue Alluvial  Avenue Sierra  Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
PED‐SA11 Butler Avenue First  Street Chestnut  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
B5
N Millbrook Ave [0.1
miles on E
Bullard Ave] E  Shepherd Ave E  Barstow Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike PED‐PAA5 Ventura Avenue Downtown  Fresno Cedar  Avenue Pedestrian  Activity Areas Pedestrian B18 E Dakota Ave N  Maroa Ave N  Millbrook Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike PED‐SA2 Shaw Avenue Brawley  Avenue Marks  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
B11 E Barstow Ave N  Millbrook Ave N  Fruit Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike B28
N Clovis Ave to Fancher
No 6
Canal to Central No 23
Canal
E McKinley Ave &
N Clovis Ave E  Church Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike B16 N Cornelia Ave W  Gettysburg Ave W  McKinley Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike PED‐SA7 Cedar Avenue Kings  Canyon Road California  Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
PED‐UN9
Hidalgo Elementary
School Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian PED‐UN10
Jane Addams
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
B37 E Church Ave S  Maple Ave S  Peach Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike B13 W Gettysburg Ave N  Veterans Blvd N  Cornelia Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike PED‐SA10 Clovis Avenue Tulare  Street East  Park Circle Drive Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
PED‐UN4
Chestnut/Olive
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
B14
N Valentine Ave to N
Emerson Ave to Herndon
No. 39 Canal W  Barstow Ave N  Palm Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike B9
W Bullard Ave to W
Sierra Ave to
N Dante Ave to W San
Jose Ave Veterans  Blvd N  Valentine Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike PED‐SA4 West Avenue Ashlan  Avenue Shields  Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Pedestrian
B20 N Maple Ave E  Dakota Ave E  McKinley Ave Priority  Bikeway Network Bike B3
W Audubon Ave to W
Nees Ave
to Gravel Haul Rd to W
Alluvial
Ave to Harrison Ave N  Friant Rd W  Herndon Trail Priority  Bikeway Network Bike B4 E Shepherd Ave N  Willow Ave N  Friant Rd Priority  Bikeway Network Bike T1
ADA Bus Stop
Accessibility
Improvements Transit
PED‐UN11 Maple/Church Area Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian T19 Systemwide Traffic‐Signal Priority Transit
PED‐UN13
Norseman Elementary
School Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian PED‐UN18 West of Edison Area Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian PED‐PAA3
Van Ness Avenue ‐ near
Fresno City College Olive  Avenue McKinley  Avenue Pedestrian  Activity Areas Pedestrian PED‐UN3 PW01008 Chestnut/Belmont
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
PED‐UN16
Roeding Park
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
PED‐UN6 Del Mar Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian T87 Blackstone/Shields Queue  Jump Lane Transit
PED‐UN5 Church/Elm Area Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian T31
Right of Way Acquisition ‐ For bus to
achieve ADA compliance of boarding,
alighting and passegner amenities. Transit
T86 Blackstone/Shaw Queue  Jump Lane Transit
PED‐UN8
Herndon/41
Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian
PED‐UN2 Calimyrna Neighborhood Underserved  Neighborhoods Pedestrian T62
Associated Transit Improvements ‐
Implement Passenger Amenity
Improvements for Bus Stations, TIRCP
funds for the high frequency network
as reflected in the FTIP Transit
T16 Passenger Amenities Transit
T48
New/Expanded Bus yard Facilities
Construction ‐ Purchase property for
new bus yard expansion Transit
T50
Real Time Passenger Information ‐
Real Time Bus Arrival and Departure Transit
T55
Back‐Up Energy Storage ‐ Large Scale
Energy Storage for Backup and
Emergency Power for EV Chargers Transit
T57
Ambassador Program ‐ Travel
Training Program for Schools and
other Social Services Transit
T58
Enhanced Marketing Public Outreach ‐
Outreach of Service Expansions Transit
T63 Bike Racks ‐ on FAX Buses Transit
T64
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure ‐  Purchase Zero
Emission Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure to replace current Fleet Transit
T65
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure ‐ Purchase Zero
Emission Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure for transit expansion Transit
T134
Purchase and develop land in support
of revitalization and mixed‐use
development along high
capacity/high frequency transit
corridors. Transit
T69
Transit Security Projects ‐ Implement
Security and Safety Projects on buses
and at transit stations, access control,
video surveillance, lighting, fire
safety, etc. Transit

This page intentionally left blank

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ULY 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

APPENDIX D

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ULY 2025

This page intentionally left blank
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor Jennifer K. Clark
Fresno, California 93721-3604 Director
(559) 621-8277

June 16, 2025

RE: Project Notification Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 for City of Fresno Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program

Dear Chairperson,

The City of Fresno (City) is proposing the program referenced above and invites you to consult with the City pursuant Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). Pursuant to the provisions of AB 52, which are described in more detail below, as the L ead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Fresno hereby extends an invitation to consult on the CEQA review of the proposed City of Fresno Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program in order to assist with identifying and/or preserving and/or mitigating project impacts to tribal cultural resources.

AB 52, which became law January 1, 2015, requires that, as part of the CEQA review process, public agencies provide early notice of a project to California Native American Tribes to allow for consultation between the tribe and the public agency. The purpos e of AB 52 is to provide an opportunity for public agencies and tribes to consult and consider potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), as defined by the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074(a). ¹ Outlined below is the general process for AB 52 compliance:

• Pursuant to AB 52, tribes must formally request to the public agency in writing to be notified of projects within the jurisdiction of that public agency [Public Resources Code Section 5097.4]. Tribe requests in writing to the public agency to be notified of projects for which a Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

• Following receipt of such request, the lead agency shall, within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice [PRC Section 21080.3.1(d)].

¹ PRC Section 21074(a) defines a Tribal Cultural Resource as either of the following:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that area either (1) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (2) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1; or • A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.

• The lead agency shall initiate consultation within thirty (30) days of receiving the request for consultation [PRC Section 21080.3(e)].

• Consultation shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a TCR; or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.²

A summary of the proposed project, including a map of the project area, is included as Exhibit A in this letter.

If you would like to consult with the City Assembly Bill 52, please respond in writing by 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 2025 to Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager at [email protected] or 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, CA 93721- 3604. Please include in your request, at a minimum, (1) name, title, and contact information of the tribal representative(s); (2) suggested dates and location of consultation; (3) any preliminary concerns or questions related to the project (optional).

If you do not wish to consult, please provide in writing that you do not wish to consult on the proposed project. If no written response is received by the aforementioned date, it will be assumed that you have declined consultation. If a request for consultation is received by the date above, the City will follow up to set up a date and location for consultation.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely
,

Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
(559) 621-8062
[email protected]

Attachment: Exhibit A – Project Description and Project Location Map

² If consultation is conducted, the City, as lead agency, shall ensure that, unless provided with written consent by the consulting tribe, information exchanged during consultation will remain confidential for the purposes of preventing looting, vandalism, or damage to tribal cultural resources and shall not disclose third party confidential information regarding tribal cultural resources [PRC Section 21082.3].

1 Exhibit A
City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program

Background
Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed the way transportation impact analyses are conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with SB 743, the Fresno City Council adopted the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines) for the City of Fresno (City) on June 25, 2020, to address the shift from delay-based Level of Service (LOS) CEQA traffic analyses to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) CEQA traffic analyses. The City VMT Guidelines included standardized project screening criteria and VMT significance thresholds for development and transportation projects, and recommended VMT mitigation strategies. However, the implementation of SB 743 has created challenges for development projects by triggering significant VMT impacts without clear, proven, and feasible mitigation measures to offset such impacts. As such, the City proposed to create a VMT Reduction Program to provide an opportunity for development projects to mitigate VMT impacts and streamline compliance for SB 743.

VMT Reduction Program Framework
The City’s VMT Reduction Program was designed to provide a flexible, streamlined, and cost-effective approach to mitigate VMT impacts of land use development projects through the use of the City’s “Urban Design Calculator” (UDC) and a VMT mitigation fee.

The UDC was developed to assist development projects that trigger VMT impacts. The UDC uses design elements of a project that have a potential to reduce project VMT and estimates total VMT reduction due to those design elements. The City determined that the VMT Reduction Program would update the City’s UDC using most recent research on VMT mitigation strategies. The update was primarily based on strategies provided in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Handbook (CAPCOA Handbook, 2021) transportation section. The UDC would help projects reduce VMT impacts by implementing VMT reducing project design features at the project site. In case the project results in a significant VMT impact even with UDC, the VMT Reduction Program would allow those developments to further mitigate VMT impacts by making “fair share” payments into the program to cover the cost of identified VMT-reducing projects in the proposed VMT Reduction Program.

During the preparation of the VMT Reduction Program, a thorough research of local planning documents such as the City’s Active Transportation Plan, Fresno Council of Government’s (COG) short-range and long-range transit plan, and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was conducted along with available literature of VMT mitigation strategies. The objective was to compile a list of active transportation and transit-related infrastructure and capital improvement projects that can be funded by the program. Fees paid towards the VMT Reduction Program will provide funding to build the top 25 most effective VMT mitigation projects that were prioritized based on the following criteria: VMT offset provided, enhancing connectivity, enhancing access and equity, contributions to safety, cost effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation.
2 The following existing City planning documents were reviewed to identify unfunded, planned infrastructure improvement projects within Fresno that contribute towards reducing Citywide VMT and could be funded by the proposed program:
• FAX Short Range Transit Plan
• FAX Long Range Transit Plan
• Fresno Council of Governments (COG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) • Fresno Safe Routes to School Action Plan
• Fresno Active Transportation Plan
• Fresno County Regional Trails Plan
• Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart Mobility Plan
• Highway 41+ North Corridor Complete Streets Plan
The VMT Reduction Program Map, attached, shows the proposed projects included in the program and their approximate locations.

The VMT-reducing improvements in the program could be constructed utilizing funds collected under the proposed VMT Reduction Program. These projects would be subject to future CEQA analysis on a project-by-project basis as they are proposed and as the extent of impacts become known through the design process. However, these facilities may result in impacts to the environment, and thus are the subject of the programmatic analysis within this EIR. Additionally, it is expected that the VMT-reducing projects identified above may be completed, and the City expects to review and update the project list over time.

Whites Bridge
Maple
Brawley
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Clovis
Fowler
Temperance
West
Palm
Clovis
Fowler
Temperance
De Wolf
Highland
McCall
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
Chestnut
Peach
American
Cedar
Grantland
Hayes
Elm
East
M
arks
W
est
Walnut
Cornelia
North
California
Jensen
Ashlan
Grantland
Hayes
Cornelia
Brawley
Marks
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
McCall
Highland
De Wolf
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Kings Canyon
Ashlan
Peach
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Blackstone
First
Cedar
Chestnut
Garfield
Bryan
Polk
Blythe
Valentine
Van Ness
Fruit
Maroa
Fresno
Millbrook
Maple
Willow
Dakota
Clinton
Olive
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Alluvial
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Annadale
Church
W
illow
Minnewawa
Malaga
Orange
Bryan
Sunnyside
Arm
strong
Locan
Leonard
Thompson
Fig
Cherry
Hughes
Fruit
Polk
Valentine
Blythe
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Sunnyside
Armstrong
Locan
Thompson
Leonard
Clinton
Olive
Tulare
Butler
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Minnewawa
International
Teague
Gould Canal / Redbank Creek
California
State
University
Fresno
Fresno
International
Airport
Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
§¨¦99
§¨¦41
§¨¦41
E
0 31.5 Miles
")6
Document Path: K:\GIS 2025\VMT\VMT 2025.mxd
VMT Reduction Program Fee Projects
Active Transportation
§¨¦180
§¨¦168
§¨¦99
Route Enhancements Route Extensions

1.Mobile ticketing and trip planning app

2.Transit marketing program

3.TDM coordinator

4.Bike/Ped trip trackers

5.Intermodal signage
§¨¦180
Priority Bikeway Improvements
High Pedestrian Activity Area
Underserved Neighborhoods with Missing Sidewalks
New Routes
Transit
Transportation Demand Management Projects
UV45
UV38
UV34
UV32
UV32
UV39
Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits

6.Frequency enhancement, Route 39

7.Accessibility improvements, Route 34

8.New route- Bullard Ave

9.New route- Church Ave

10.New route- Willow Ave

11.Route extension, Route 45

12.Route enhancement, Route 38

13.Service improvement, Route 32

14.Priority Bikeway/Pedestrian Network

15.Southern Blackstone Smart Mobility Corridor

16.Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor

17.Downtown High Pedestrian Activity Area

18.North Avenue Neighborhood

19.Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor

20.Underserved Neighborhood

21.High Pedestrian Activity Area

22.Yosemite Middle School Neighborhood

23.High Pedestrian Activity Area

24.Scandinavian Middle School Neighborhood
UV34
UV45
UV38
UV32
UV39
UV45
")7
")8
")9
")11
")10
")13
")14")15
")16
")22
")12
")18
")24
")20
")21
")17
")23
")19
Transit Projects:

Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects:
(not shown on map)
Southern Blackstone Smart Mobility Strategy
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

APPENDIX E

PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

This page intentionally left blank
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7284| FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
July 21, 2025
City of Fresno
Draft Environmental Impact Report for
Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/36990

SENT VIA EMAIL
Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno St. #3043
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Dear Mx. Pagoulatos:

Caltrans has completed the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program proposing to implement a VMT Reduction Program to reduce VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions, while streamlining the environmental compliance process for development projects that generate vehicle trips.

The project site is located in the City of Fresno including surrounding sphere of influence.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) process reviews land use projects and plans through the lenses of our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, and travel ‐efficient development. To ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all development projects that utilize the multimodal transportation network.

Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:

1. Caltrans has completed its review of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Fresno Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Reduction Program for the City of Fresno. It should be noted in the DEIR Project Impacts (Index 4.16.3.2), that beyond or in Comment Letter A1
A1-1
A1-2
Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos) – Draft Environmental Impact Report for VMT Reduction Program July 21, 2025

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” addition to the use of the VMT metric, determining how the State Highway System may otherwise be affected by a land use project may still be necessary at times, particularly as it relates to the safety of the traveling public. Road safety reviews, that are not based on VMT, may be required. The Caltrans Local Developmental Review (LDR) - Safety Review Practitioners Guidance provides guidelines for the review of land use projects and plans affecting the State Highway System (SHS) within the LDR process.

2. Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development. An assessment of multi-modal facilities should be conducted to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion caused by the project and related development in this area of the city. The assessment should include the following:
a. Pedestrian walkways should link this Project to transit facilities, bicycle pathways and other walkways in the surrounding area.
b. Coordinating connections to local and regional bicycle pathways should be done to further encourage the use of bicycles for commuter and recreational purposes.
c. Transit service and bus stop accommodations should be extended to within ¼- mile of the Project site.

3. Caltrans recommends the Project implement “smart growth” principles regarding parking solutions, providing alternative transportation choices to residents and employees. Alternative transportation choices may include but are not limited to parking for carpools/vanpools, car-share and/or ride-share programs.

4. Based on Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, dated May 20, 2020, and effective as of July 1, 2020, Caltrans seeks to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, provide a safe transportation system, reduce per capita VMT, increase accessibility to destinations via cycling, walking, carpooling, transit and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Caltrans recommends that the project proponent continue to work with the city to further implement improvements to reduce VMT and offer a variety of transportation modes.

5. The city should consider requiring the project to provide charging stations for electric vehicles and for freight trucking as part of the statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce freight parking shortages and maintain the Federal Hours of Service regulations.

6. Due to severe truck parking shortages throughout the state and strict Federal Hours of Service regulations that limit the amount of time a truck driver can spend driving per day, many truck drivers cannot find safe and reliable truck parking spaces, and Letter A1
A1-2
Cont.

Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos) – Draft Environmental Impact Report for VMT Reduction Program July 21, 2025

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” therefore park in unauthorized and/or unsafe areas. Constructing adequate truck parking on-site can alleviate the unauthorized/unsafe truck parking demand on existing facilities. On-site parking for freight trucks will also strive to ensure a secure and reliable area for extended or overnight parking to help maintain adherence to the Federal Hours of Service regulations. On-site parking for freight trucks is adequate when on-site facilities include, at a minimum: restrooms, lighting, trash facilities, drinking water, showers, and food sellers (such as, but not limited to a food court, restaurant, food truck) or vending machines.

7. The city should consider requiring the Project to implement on-site parking for freight trucks within the Project boundaries, that truck drivers can utilize for extending parking periods before loading or after unloading.

8. The city should consider promoting the leveraging of strategic investments to maintain and modernize a multimodal freight transportation system with innovative approaches, including advanced technology to optimize integrated network efficiency, improve travel time reliability, and achieve sustainable congestion reduction.

9. To ensure that VMT-reducing projects do not unintentionally impact operations on the SHS, Caltrans requests early consultation during project-level environmental review and coordination on any improvements located adjacent to or affecting SHS facilities. Caltrans also recommends that the City provide clear reporting on the use of mitigation fees and the performance of funded projects, including metrics for trip reduction, mode share, and network connectivity. In addition, the City is encouraged to include freight-focused VMT reduction strategies, such as last-mile logistics improvements and off-peak delivery options, and to adopt equity-based project selection criteria that prioritize investments in disadvantaged communities and expand access to multi-modal transportation choices.

If you have any other questions, please call or email: Keyomi Jones, Associate Transportation Planner at (559) 981-7284 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Mr. Dave Padilla, Branch Chief,
Local Development Review
Letter A1
A1-2
Cont.

This page intentionally left blank
Comment Letter A2
A2-1
Comment Letter A2
A2-1
Cont.

Docusign Envelope ID: F8596550-DEFE-4D43-89AA-8118FED6864E Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
August 20, 2025

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Fresno
Objective: The proposed Program intends to create a VMT Reduction Program to establish mitigation for future projects that exceed the City's VMT thresholds in the form of a mitigation bank. The VMT Reduction Program includes two major components that can be applied, individually or in combination, to new development with VMT impacts:
an Urban Design Calculator, which estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements; and a mitigation fee program.

The mitigation impact fee would allow new development to mitigate VMT impacts by making "fair share" payments into a mitigation bank to cover the cost of the identified VMT-reducing projects in the proposed VMT Reduction Program. The VMT Reduction Program would identify relevant transportation demand management strategies and VMT-reducing projects within the City of Fresno to be funded by mitigation fees from developments that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA Potential VMT-reducing measures may include active transportation improvements, multi-modal transportation programs, and improved street connectivity, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The Program intends to streamline the Senate Bill 7 43 compliance process for development projects while funding future VMT improvement projects.

Location: The proposed Program will apply to development within the city limits of Fresno. The City of Fresno is located in Fresno County and covers an area of approximately 113 square miles. To the north of Fresno is Madera County, to the northeast and adjacent to Fresno, is the City of Clovis. Unincorporated land is located to the east, south, and west of Fresno.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Fresno in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Program's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the DEIR prepared for this Program.

CDFW previously commented on the Notice of Preparation for this Program on October 29, 2024, with recommendations related to species habitat assessments and surveys, cumulative impacts analyses, CEQA alternative analysis, federally listed species consultation, botanical surveys, nesting birds, and the potential need to notify for potential impacts to streams pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Comment Letter A2
A2-2A2-2
A2-3
Docusign Envelope ID: F8596550-DEFE-4D43-89AA..a118FED6864E Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
August 20, 2025

Special-Status Species
Aerial imagery and species occurrence records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2025), CDFWs familiarity with biological resources in the Program area, and given that the Program encompasses the entirety of the city limits of Fresno, potential impacts to special-status species exists and should be analyzed during review of projects arising from the VMT Program. CDFW concurs with the content of Table 4.4.A and 4.4.B included in Section 4.4 of the DEIR for the Program which lists special-status plant and wildlife species within the Project vicinity. As noted in the analysis and repeated throughout the Project Impacts subsection, these biological resources would need to be evaluated and addressed as part of any project-specific reviews and approvals.

Additionally, CDFW agrees with the methodology that future potential projects should be analyzed on a project-specific basis for potential biological resources impacts with site­ specific information and implement measurable mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels as needed.

Biological mitigation measure 810-1 states that transportation improvement projects funded by the proposed Program subject to CEQA review and with the potential to reduce or eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats shall provide a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). Biological mitigation measure 810-4 states that pre-construction nesting bird clearance surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities.

CDFW concurs with this methodology as appropriate for the majority of potential projects that are expected to occur within existing disturbed rights-of-way in developed areas; however, CDFW recommends strengthening the narrative in BIO-1 and BIO-4 by including species-specific protocol-level surveys as part of the BRA and pre- construction surveys, when appropriate. The additional site-specific evaluation will ensure that potential impacts from projects that occur outside of the existing rights-of­ way areas are eliminated or minimized.

California Endangered Species Act
Reasonably foreseeable future projects tiered from this Program may be subject to CDFWs regulatory authority pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). In the event that species listed under CESA are detected during surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid "take," or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire a State ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), prior to any ground disturbing activities. In addition, CDFW recommends that mitigation measures for the CESA listed species be fully addressed in the CEQA document prepared for any future project tiered from this Program.

Comment Letter A2
A2-5A2-5A2-5A2-5
A2-4
Docusign Envelope ID: F8596550-DEFE-4D43-89AA-8118FED6864E Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
August 20, 2025

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB}
Please note that the CNDDB is populated by voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record, or lack of recent occurrence records, in the CNDDB does not mean that a species is not present. All projects tiered from this Program should adequately assess any potential project-related impacts to biological resources by ensuring biological surveys are conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology as warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the project area.

Federally Listed Species
CDFW recommends projects tiered from this Program consult with the USFWS on potential impacts to federally listed species. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under the ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS is advised well in advance of any ground disturbing activities.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
Reasonably foreseeable future projects tiered from this Program may be subject to CDFWs regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires project proponents to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. "Any river, stream, or lake" includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the Lake and Stream Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593, or [email protected].

CDFW therefore recommends that the FEIR for this Program include information related to these requirements of Fish and Game code and advise that projects tiered from this Program retain a qualified biologist to determine if potential impacts to streams may require the need to notify pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602.

Comment Letter A2
A2-6
A2-8
A2-7
Comment Letter A2
A2-10
A2-11
A2-9
Docusign Envelope ID: F8596550-DEFE-4043-89AA-8118FED6864E Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
August 20, 2025

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025. Biogeographic information and observation system (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed 5 August 2025.

Comment Letter A2

This page intentionally left blank
August 6, 2025
Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program
District CEQA Reference No: 20250761
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact report (DEIR) from the City of Fresno (City) for the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program. Per the DEIR, the project consists of the establishment of a VMT Reduction Program intended to reduce Citywide VMT by establishing mitigation for future development projects in Fresno through developing an Urban Design Calculator that estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements and the use of a mitigation fee which would be used to fund VMT reducing projects throughout the City (Project).

The Project covers development projects in Fresno, California. The Project includes area within one of the communities in the state selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional air quality resources and attention under Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (Garcia) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities. See Figure 1 below.

B1-1
Comment Letter B1
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 6 District Reference No: 20250761
August 6, 2025
Figure 1: Boundary of the South Central Fresno AB617 Community The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

Ongoing Commitment to Strengthen Working Relationship
The District appreciates the City’s ongoing commitment to strengthen the working relationship with the District, in identifying and mitigating impacts on air quality through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.

Consistent with this cooperative effort and in order to address air quality impacts and concerns prior to future development projects occurring, the District recommends that the City develop administrative mechanisms and policies that ensure consistency in providing the District with information about projects under consideration by the City, such as land use designation, project size, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources. To aid the City in determining a project’s potential impacts, the District recommends the City provide an assessment evaluating potential project construction and operation related to air quality impacts to the District as early as possible. Additionally, the District is Letter B1
B1-2B1-2
B1-1
Cont.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 6 District Reference No: 20250761
August 6, 2025
available to work with the City and project applicants on future development projects to address air quality impacts and concerns. The District encourages the City to include guidance in relevant planning documents or development review procedures that advises project applicants to reach out and work with the District. The District’s goal is to assist with enhancing project designs in the early stages of the planning process for a better overall project with minimized impact on air quality and early identification of feasible mitigation measures.

Operational Funding Strategy
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from program-level to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. The District acknowledges that the Project will be incorporating strategies that reduce VMTs and the District recommends that the Project incorporate strategies that require the cleanest available heavy duty trucks, vehicles, and off-road equipment, including zero and near-zero technologies. VMTs can be reduced through encouragement of mix-use development, walkable communities, etc. Additional design element options can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf In addition, the District recommends that the Project incorporate strategies that will advance implementation of the best practices listed in Tables 5 and 6 of California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Freight Handbook Concept Paper, to the extent feasible. This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts as “practices” which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities. The concept paper is available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf Project Siting
The Project is intended to supplement the blueprint for future growth and provides guidance for the community’s development. Without appropriate mitigation and associated policy, future development projects within the City may contribute to negative impacts on air quality due to increased traffic and ongoing operational emissions. Appropriate project siting helps ensure there is adequate distance between differing land uses, which can prevent or reduce localized and cumulative Letter B1
B1-2
Cont.

B1-3
B1-4
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 6 District Reference No: 20250761
August 6, 2025
air pollution impacts from business operations that are in close proximity to receptors (e.g., residences, schools, health care facilities, etc.). The Project’s siting-related goals, policies, and objectives should include measures and concepts outlined in the following resources:
• CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The document includes tables with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources (e.g., distribution centers, chrome platers, gasoline dispensing facilities, etc.), and can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/strategy- development/land-use-resources
• CARB’s Freight Handbook Concept Paper: This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts, which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities, and can be found at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf Assembly Bill 617
AB 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities, like those in which the Project is located.

The South Central Fresno AB 617 community is one of the statewide communities selected by CARB for development and implementation of a CERP.

Following extensive community engagement and collaboration with the Community Steering Committee, the CERP for the South Central Fresno Community was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September 2019 and by CARB in February 2020.

During the development of the CERP, the Community Steering Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community that may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The Community Steering Committee also expressed the desire for more meaningful avenues of engagement surrounding the land-use decisions in the area. As these issues can most effectively be addressed through strong partnerships between community members and local land-use agencies.

For more information regarding the CERP approved for South Central Fresno, please visit the District’s website at:
https://community.valleyair.org/selected-communities/south-central-fresno Letter B1
B1-4
Cont.

B1-5
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 6 District Reference No: 20250761
August 6, 2025
Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for future development projects, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Electric Infrastructure
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/charge-up for more information.

District’s Bikeway Incentive Program
Incorporating design elements (e.g., installing bikeways) within the Project area that enhance walkability and connectivity can result in an overall reduction of VMT and improve air quality within the area. The Bikeway Incentive Program provides funding for eligible Class 1 (Bicycle Path Construction), Class II (Bicycle Lane Striping), or Class III (Bicycle Route) projects. These incentives are designed to support the construction of new bikeway projects to promote clean air through the development of a widespread, interconnected network of bike paths, lanes, or routes and improving the general safety conditions for commuter bicyclists. Only municipalities, government agencies, or public educational institutions are eligible to apply. More information on the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/bike-paths/
Guidelines and Project Eligibility for the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/drpijuw1/bikeway-program-guidelines-62515.pdf Letter B1
B1-6
B1-7
B1-8
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 6 District Reference No: 20250761
August 6, 2025
Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
The DEIR states that all future individual VMT reducing improvement projects within Fresno, including those implemented as part of development projects, would require separate environmental review under CEQA. The District recommends future project referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures.

For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Michael Corder by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5818.

Sincerely,
Mark Montelongo
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
Daniel Martinez
Program Manager
Letter B1
B1-9
Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Internal
July 7, 2025
Sophia P
agoulatos
Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Ref: Ga
s and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Sophi
a Pagoulatos,
Thank you
for submitting the VMT Reduction project plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area.

If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Att
ached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.

Below
is additional information for your review:

1. This pl
an review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en/account/service- requests/building-and-renovation.html.

2. If t
he project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.

3. An engineer
ing deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.

Any propos
ed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.

This l
etter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.

Sinc
erely,
Plan R
eview Team
C1-1
Comment Letter C1
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Internal
Land Management
Letter C1
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Internal
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
The
re could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf

1. S
tandby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concret e
dem
olition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated t
hrough the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.

2. A
ccess: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.

Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

3. W
heel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.

E
nsure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.

D
ue to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).

N
o equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.

4. G
rading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing gr
ade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.

5. E
xcavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand t
ools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch Letter C1
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Internal
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) W
ater jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.

A
ny plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

6. B
oring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are s
tringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.

For
bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.

7. S
ubstructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.

I
f previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.

8. S
tructures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.

9. Fenc
ing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.

10. Lands
caping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No t
rees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.

Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the eas
ement area.

Letter C1
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Internal

11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.

12. Pi
peline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.

With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.

13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.

Letter C1
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Internal
A
ttachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It i
s PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:

1. B
uildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on s
ubdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”

2. G
rading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.

Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to bas
e of tower or structure.

3. Fenc
es: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access m
ust be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.

4. Lands
caping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), plant only low-growing shrubs under the wire zone and onl
y grasses within the area directly below the tower. Along the border of the transmission l
ine right-of-way, plant only small trees no taller than 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.

5. R
eservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.

6. A
utomobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by
PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.

Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND t
o PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.

7. S
torage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.

Letter C1
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 7
Internal

8. St
reets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.

9. Pi
pelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.

10. Si
gns: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.

11. Rec
reation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.

12. Cons
truction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.

Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.

Cont
ractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.

13. PG
&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.

Letter C1

This page intentionally left blank
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
Comment Letter C2
Letter C2
C2-4
C2-5
C2-6
September 2025

FRESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM EIR

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT

FRESNO , CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024091129

This page intentionally left blank
September 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM EIR

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT

FRESNO , CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024091129

Submitted to:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721

Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 112
Clovis, California 93611
559.490.1210

Project No. 20241626
This page intentionally left blank

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Response to Comments Document .......................................................... 1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Document Organization .................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 DRAFT EIR COMMENTERS ................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Organization of Comment Letters and Responses ............................................................ 2-1

2.2 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR ................................................................................ 2-1

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ........................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Master Response: Project Description and Project Merits ............................................... 3-1

3.2 Comments and Responses Matrix .................................................................................... 3-2

4.0 DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS .............................................................................. 4-1 Chapter 1.0, Executive summary ............................................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 3.0, Project Description ................................................................................................ 4-1 Section 4.4, Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 4-2 Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................... 4-3 Chapter 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project .................................................................... 4-3

APPENDICES
E: PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR

TABLES
Table 2.A: List of Comments Received ................................................................................................ 2-1 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix ...................................................................................... 3-3

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

ii
This page intentionally left blank

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
This document has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program (proposed project) for the City of Fresno (City). The Draft EIR identifies the likely environmental consequences associated with implementation of the proposed project, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. This Response to Comments (RTC) Document provides responses to comments on the Draft EIR and makes revisions to the Draft EIR, as necessary, in response to those comments or to make clarifications in the Draft EIR. This document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed project.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to solicit input from responsible and trustee agencies regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR, as well as identify potential areas of controversy. The NOP was published on September 27, 2024, and was distributed to local, regional, and State agencies. A scoping session for the preparation of the Draft EIR was held at 5:00 p.m. on October 21, 2024. Comments received by the City on the NOP were taken into account during the preparation of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR was made available for local public review for 45 days beginning on July 2, 2025, and ending on August 15, 2025. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the City’s website, and hard copies were available for public review at Fresno City Hall and the Central Branch of the Fresno County Public Library. Additionally, a notice of the Draft EIR’s availability was posted in the Fresno Bee. The Draft EIR was also distributed to State responsible and trustee agencies for 45 days beginning on July 7, 2025, and ending on August 20, 2025.

During the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received five comment letters. Copies of all written comments received during the comment period are included in Appendix E, Public Comment Letters on the Draft EIR, of this document.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This RTC Document consists of the following chapters:
• Chapter 1.0: Introduction. This chapter discusses the purpose and organization of this RTC Document and summarizes the environmental review process for the project. • Chapter 2.0: Draft EIR Commenters. This chapter contains a list of agencies and organizations who submitted written comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

1-2
• Chapter 3.0: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains a matrix that includes text of each CEQA-related comment received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, and a written response to each comment. Reproductions of all comment letters are included in Appendix E, Public Comment Letters on the Draft EIR.
• Chapter 4.0: Draft EIR Text Revisions. Corrections to the Draft EIR that are necessary in light of the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Draft EIR, are contained in this chapter. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document.

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

2-1

2.0 DRAFT EIR COMMENTERS
This chapter presents a list of comment letters received during the public review period and describes the organization of the letters and comments that are provided in Chapter 3.0, Comments and Responses, of this document.

2.1 ORGANIZATION OF COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
Chapter 3.0 includes a matrix of each CEQA-related comment received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, and a written response to each comment. Reproductions of all comment letters are included in Appendix E, Public Comment Letters on the Draft EIR. The written comments are grouped by the affiliation of the commenter, as follows: State Agencies (A), Local Agencies (B), and Organizations and Interested Parties (C). The comment letters are numbered consecutively following the designations defined below:

State Agencies A
Local Agencies B
Organizations and Interested Parties C
Comment letters are numbered and comments within each letter are numbered consecutively after the hyphen.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Table 2.A provides a list of the State agencies, local agencies, and organizations and interested parties that commented on the Draft EIR prior to the close of the public comment period. The comments received have been organized by date received and in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments. Each comment letter received is indexed with a number below.

Table 2.A: List of Comments Received
State Agencies
A1 California Department of Transportation, District 6 July 21, 2025 A2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife August 20, 2025 Local Agencies
B1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District August 6, 2025 Organizations and Interested Parties
C1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company July 7, 2025
C2 Building Industry Association of Fresno/Madera Counties, Inc. August 15, 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

2-2
This page intentionally left blank
3-1

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Written responses to the comment letters received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) are provided in this chapter. The letters received during the public review period on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety. The letters are immediately followed by responses keyed to the specific comments.

Please note that text within the letters that has not been numbered does not raise environmental issues or relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR and, therefore, no comment is enumerated or response required, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. In addition, when general support or opposition is given for the project, that comment is noted but no further analysis is provided in the response as the commenter is not questioning the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR.

Where comments on the Draft EIR concern issues requiring technical expertise such as those related to air quality, the responses to comments, like the initial analysis in the Draft EIR, relies on the knowledge and professional analysis of qualified experts. This chapter also includes a Master Response intended to address comments related to a particular theme. In this case, a Master Response is included to provide a discussion of comments on the Project Description and the merits of the proposed project.

Where revisions to the Draft EIR text are called for, the page is set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with double-underlined text, and deleted text is shown in strikeout text. Text revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 4.0 of this Response to Comments (RTC) Document. Information provided in this RTC Document clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.

3.1 MASTER RESPONSE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT MERITS Often during review of an EIR, members of the public raise issues that relate to the project itself or the project’s community consequences or benefits (referred to here as “project merits”), rather than the environmental analyses or associated impacts and mitigation measures raised in the EIR.

Comments received on the Draft EIR that raised issues related to project merits include implementation of the VMT Reduction Program and the mitigation fee. Lead Agency review of both environmental issues and project merits are important in the decision of what action to take on a project, and both are considered in the decision-making process for a project. However, a Lead Agency is only required by CEQA to respond to comments regarding significant environmental issues.

In accordance with Sections 15088 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Final EIR must include a response to comments on the Draft EIR pertaining to significant environmental issues analyzed under CEQA. Several of the comments provided in response to the Draft EIR express an opinion about the components of the project or provide recommendations regarding the proposed project,

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-2
but do not pertain to the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. Rather, these opinions relate to the merits of the project.

Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction for parties reviewing and providing comment on a Draft EIR, as follows:

In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.

Section 15204 continues in relation to the role of lead agencies responding to comments:

When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

Therefore, in accordance with Section 15204, the City is not required to respond to comments that express an opinion about the project merits and do not relate to environmental issues covered in the Draft EIR. Although such project merits opinion comments received during the EIR process do not require responses in the EIR, as previously noted, they do provide important input to the process of reviewing the project overall and will be considered by City decision-makers.

3.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MATRIX
Table 3.A includes all CEQA-related comments received on the Draft EIR and a response to each comment. The text of each comment has been included in the matrix and includes any grammatical errors included in the original comment letter. Each comment letter is included in its entirety in Appendix E, Public Comment Letters on the Draft EIR.

3-3

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
State Agencies
A1 California Department of Transportation, District 6 (July 21, 2025) A1-1 Caltrans has completed the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program proposing to implement a VMT Reduction Program to reduce VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions, while streamlining the environmental compliance process for development projects that generate vehicle trips.

The project site is located in the City of Fresno including surrounding sphere of influence.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) process reviews land use projects and plans through the lenses of our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, and travel-efficient development. To ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all development projects that utilize the multimodal transportation network. Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:

This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and briefly summarizes the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

No further response is necessary.

A1-2 1. Caltrans has completed its review of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Fresno Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Reduction Program for the City of Fresno. It should be noted in the DEIR Project Impacts (Index 4.16.3.2), that beyond or in addition to the use of the VMT metric, determining how the State Highway System may otherwise be affected by a land use project may still be necessary at times, particularly as it relates to the safety of the traveling public. Road safety reviews, that are not based on VMT, may be required. The Caltrans Local Developmental Review (LDR) - Safety Review Practitioners Guidance provides guidelines for the review of land use projects and plans affecting the State Highway System (SHS) within the LDR process.

2. Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development. An assessment of multi-modal facilities should be conducted to develop an This comment provides a series of comments regarding future projects in Fresno, as well as projects that could be constructed under the VMT Reduction Program. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed VMT Reduction Program aims to establish mitigation for future projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds in the form of a mitigation bank. The program would identify, quantify, and prioritize applicable mitigation measures, and relevant VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to be funded by the proposed mitigation bank. The adoption of the proposed VMT Reduction Program would support future multi-modal or transportation improvements in accordance with the program. Future transportation improvement projects funded by the proposed VMT Reduction Program would be largely focused within developed areas, but the proposed improvements could still result in potentially significant impacts to the environment.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-4
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
integrated multi-modal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion caused by the project and related development in this area of the city. The assessment should include the following:
a. Pedestrian walkways should link this Project to transit facilities, bicycle pathways and other walkways in the surrounding area.
b. Coordinating connections to local and regional bicycle pathways should be done to further encourage the use of bicycles for commuter and recreational purposes.
c. Transit service and bus stop accommodations should be extended to within ¼- mile of the Project site.

3. Caltrans recommends the Project implement “smart growth” principles regarding parking solutions, providing alternative transportation choices to residents and employees. Alternative transportation choices may include but are not limited to parking for carpools/vanpools, car-share and/or ride-share programs.

4. Based on Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, dated May 20, 2020, and effective as of July 1, 2020, Caltrans seeks to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, provide a safe transportation system, reduce per capita VMT, increase accessibility to destinations via cycling, walking, carpooling, transit and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Caltrans recommends that the project proponent continue to work with the city to further implement improvements to reduce VMT and offer a variety of transportation modes.

5. The city should consider requiring the project to provide charging stations for electric vehicles and for freight trucking as part of the statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce freight parking shortages and maintain the Federal Hours of Service regulations.

6. Due to severe truck parking shortages throughout the state and strict Federal Hours of Service regulations that limit the amount of time a truck driver can spend driving per day, many truck drivers cannot find safe and reliable truck parking spaces, and therefore park in unauthorized and/or unsafe areas.

Constructing adequate truck parking on-site can alleviate the unauthorized/unsafe truck parking demand on existing facilities. On-site parking for freight trucks will also strive to ensure a secure and reliable area for All future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of future development projects, would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary. 3-5

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
extended or overnight parking to help maintain adherence to the Federal Hours of Service regulations. On-site parking for freight trucks is adequate when on-site facilities include, at a minimum: restrooms, lighting, trash facilities, drinking water, showers, and food sellers (such as, but not limited to a food court, restaurant, food truck) or vending machines.

7. The city should consider requiring the Project to implement on-site parking for freight trucks within the Project boundaries, that truck drivers can utilize for extending parking periods before loading or after unloading.

8. The city should consider promoting the leveraging of strategic investments to maintain and modernize a multimodal freight transportation system with innovative approaches, including advanced technology to optimize integrated network efficiency, improve travel time reliability, and achieve sustainable congestion reduction.

9. To ensure that VMT-reducing projects do not unintentionally impact operations on the SHS, Caltrans requests early consultation during project-level environmental review and coordination on any improvements located adjacent to or affecting SHS facilities. Caltrans also recommends that the City provide clear reporting on the use of mitigation fees and the performance of funded projects, including metrics for trip reduction, mode share, and network connectivity. In addition, the City is encouraged to include freight-focused VMT reduction strategies, such as last-mile logistics improvements and off-peak delivery options, and to adopt equity-based project selection criteria that prioritize investments in disadvantaged communities and expand access to multi-modal transportation choices.

A2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (August 20, 2025) A2-1 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Fresno, as Lead Agency, for the above-referenced Program pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Program that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Program that CDFW, by law, may be required to This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and summarizes the role of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in reviewing the Draft EIR as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. This comment also identifies the topics of other special-status species, nesting birds, unlisted species, and the Native Plant Protection Act, as issues of general concern of the CDFW. However, this comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-6
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802.). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, reasonably foreseeable future projects may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Other Special-Status Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened on any State or federal list pursuant to CESA and/or the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) to be considered Endangered, Rare, or Threatened under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria specified in the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Chapter 3, § 15380), it should be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Program.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.
3-7

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened on any State or federal list pursuant to CESA and/or the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) to be considered Endangered, Rare, or Threatened under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria specified in the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Chapter 3, § 15380), it should be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Program.

Native Plant Protection Act: The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish & G.

Code §1900 et seq.) prohibits the take or possession of state-listed rare and endangered plants, including any part or product thereof, unless authorized by CDFW or in certain limited circumstances. Take of state-listed rare and/or endangered plants due to Program activities may only be permitted through an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or other authorization issued by CDFW pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 786.9 subdivision (b).

A2-2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Fresno
Objective: The proposed Program intends to create a VMT Reduction Program to establish mitigation for future projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds in the form of a mitigation bank. The VMT Reduction Program includes two major components that can be applied, individually or in combination, to new development with VMT impacts: an Urban Design Calculator, which estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements; and a mitigation fee program. The mitigation impact fee would allow new development to mitigate VMT impacts by making “fair share” payments into a mitigation bank to cover the cost of the identified VMT-reducing projects in the proposed VMT Reduction Program. The VMT Reduction Program would identify relevant transportation demand management strategies and VMT- reducing projects within the City of Fresno to be funded by mitigation fees from This comment briefly summarizes the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project and the location of the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-8
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
developments that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA.

Potential VMT-reducing measures may include active transportation improvements, multi-modal transportation programs, and improved street connectivity, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The Program intends to streamline the Senate Bill 743 compliance process for development projects while funding future VMT improvement projects.

Location: The proposed Program will apply to development within the city limits of Fresno. The City of Fresno is located in Fresno County and covers an area of approximately 113 square miles. To the north of Fresno is Madera County, to the northeast and adjacent to Fresno, is the City of Clovis. Unincorporated land is located to the east, south, and west of Fresno.

A2-3 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Fresno in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Program’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the DEIR prepared for this Program.

CDFW previously commented on the Notice of Preparation for this Program on October 29, 2024, with recommendations related to species habitat assessments and surveys, cumulative impacts analyses, CEQA alternative analysis, federally listed species consultation, botanical surveys, nesting birds, and the potential need to notify for potential impacts to streams pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

This comment provides an introduction to CDFW’s comments on the Draft EIR, but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

A2-4 Special-Status Species
Aerial imagery and species occurrence records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2025), CDFW’s familiarity with biological resources in the Program area, and given that the Program encompasses the entirety of the city limits of Fresno, potential impacts to special-status species exists and should be analyzed during review of projects arising from the VMT Program. CDFW concurs with the content of Table 4.4.A and 4.4.B included in Section 4.4 of the DEIR for the Program which lists special-status plant and wildlife This comments states that CDFW concurs with the methodology in the Draft EIR that was used to identify potential impacts to biological resources, as well as the potential impacts identified and mitigation measures recommended to be implemented. The CDFW recommends adding additional, clarifying information to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to strengthen the effectiveness of these mitigation measures.
3-9

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
species within the Project vicinity. As noted in the analysis and repeated throughout the Project Impacts subsection, these biological resources would need to be evaluated and addressed as part of any project-specific reviews and approvals.

Additionally, CDFW agrees with the methodology that future potential projects should be analyzed on a project-specific basis for potential biological resources impacts with site-specific information and implement measurable mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels as needed.

Biological mitigation measure BIO-1 states that transportation improvement projects funded by the proposed Program subject to CEQA review and with the potential to reduce or eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats shall provide a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA).

Biological mitigation measure BIO-4 states that pre-construction nesting bird clearance surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. CDFW concurs with this methodology as appropriate for the majority of potential projects that are expected to occur within existing disturbed rights-of-way in developed areas; however, CDFW recommends strengthening the narrative in BIO-1 and BIO-4 by including species-specific protocol-level surveys as part of the BRA and pre- construction surveys, when appropriate. The additional site-specific evaluation will ensure that potential impacts from projects that occur outside of the existing rights-of-way areas are eliminated or minimized.

In response to this comment, and included in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 have been revised, as shown below. The revisions provide clarifications and do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1, shown on page 4.4-22 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Transportation improvements funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, and with the potential to reduce or eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats, shall provide a Biological Resources Assessment prepared by a qualified biologist for review and approval by the City of Fresno. The assessment shall include biological field survey(s) of the project site to characterize the extent and quality of habitat that would be impacted by development. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologists and/or botanists in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Services survey protocols for target species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation. If no special status/sensitive species, sensitive habitats/natural communities, or federally protected wetlands are observed during the field survey, then no further mitigation will be required. If biological resources are documented on the project site, the project proponent shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulatory agencies and shall apply mitigation determined through the agency permitting process.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-10
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Mitigation Measure BIO-4, shown on page 4.4-24 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: A pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities associated with a transportation improvement project. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and cover all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the project impact area. Further, if an active bird nest is found, the qualified biologist should identify the specific bird species and establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the active nest to avoid potential direct and indirect impacts. It is further recommended that the qualified biologist periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if project-related activities disturb the birds and if the “no disturbance” buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-
disturbance” buffer may occur following an
additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

A2-5 California Endangered Species Act
Reasonably foreseeable future projects tiered from this Program may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). In the event that species listed under CESA are detected during surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid “take,” or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire a State ITP , pursuant to This comment states that any future projects proposed under the proposed VMT Reduction Program may be subject to regulatory authority under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). As identified in the Draft EIR, all transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to 3-11

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), prior to any ground disturbing activities. In addition, CDFW recommends that mitigation measures for the CESA listed species be fully addressed in the CEQA document prepared for any future project tiered from this Program.
evaluate project-specific impacts and any required mitigation. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 provides further direction to address potential project-specific impacts. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

A2-6 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
Please note that the CNDDB is populated by voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record, or lack of recent occurrence records, in the CNDDB does not mean that a species is not present. All projects tiered from this Program should adequately assess any potential project-related impacts to biological resources by ensuring biological surveys are conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology as warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the project area.

This comment states that any future projects proposed under the proposed VMT Reduction Program should assess potential site- specific impacts related to biological resources. As identified in the Draft EIR, all transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific impacts and include any required mitigation. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 provides further direction to address potential project-specific impacts. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

A2-7 Federally Listed Species
CDFW recommends projects tiered from this Program consult with the USFWS on potential impacts to federally listed species. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under the ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS is advised well in advance of any ground disturbing activities.

This comment recommends that any future projects proposed under the proposed VMT Reduction Program should consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) related to potential impacts to federally listed species. As identified in the Draft EIR, all transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific impacts and any required mitigation. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) be prepared for any transportation improvements funded by the proposed VMT Reduction Program that has the potential to reduce or

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-12
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats. As part of a BRA prepared by a qualified biologist, consultation with the USFWS would occur if federally listed species are identified at the project level. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

A2-8 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Reasonably foreseeable future projects tiered from this Program may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires project proponents to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the Lake and Stream Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593, or [email protected].

CDFW therefore recommends that the FEIR for this Program include information related to these requirements of Fish and Game code and advise that projects tiered from this Program retain a qualified biologist to determine if potential impacts to streams may require the need to notify pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602.

This comment recommends that any future projects under the proposed VMT Reduction Program may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority related to lake and streambed alterations. As discussed under Impact Discussion BIO-3, beginning on page 4.4-23 of the Draft EIR, all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of future development projects, would be required to undergo project-level environmental review under CEQA and be evaluated on a project-specific level with site-specific analysis and implement mitigation measures, as needed. As required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a Biological Resources Assessment may be required at the project level to address potential impacts to wetland habitat, including potential impacts to streams. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

A2-9 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species This comment requests that any information developed as a part of subsequent environmental documentation be incorporated into a database. This comment is noted, and, as future site-specific analyses are conducted consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation BIO-4, qualified biologists are expected to fulfill the requirements of reporting site-specific information. This comment 3-13

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
and natural communities detected during project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to the CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to the CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and- Animals.
does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

A2-10 FILING FEES
If it is determined that the Program or subsequent projects have the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

This comment notes the requirement for the payment of filing fees associated with filing of a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the proposed VMT Reduction Program and any subsequent
environmental documentation. This comment is noted, but this comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

A2-11 CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist City of Fresno in identifying and mitigating Program impacts on biological resources.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey- Protocols). If you have any questions regarding this letter or further coordination, please contact Marile Colindres, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 974-3452, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

This comment provides a conclusion to the comment letter. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-14
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Local Agencies
B1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (August 6, 2025) B1-1 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact report (DEIR) from the City of Fresno (City) for the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program. Per the DEIR, the project consists of the establishment of a VMT Reduction Program intended to reduce Citywide VMT by establishing mitigation for future development projects in Fresno through developing an Urban Design Calculator that estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements and the use of a mitigation fee which would be used to fund VMT reducing projects throughout the City (Project). The Project covers development projects in Fresno, California. The Project includes area within one of the communities in the state selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional air quality resources and attention under Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (Garcia) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities. See Figure 1 below.

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and briefly summarizes the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

No further response is necessary.

B1-2 1) Ongoing Commitment to Strengthen Working Relationship The District appreciates the City’s ongoing commitment to strengthen the working relationship with the District, in identifying and mitigating impacts on air quality through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.

Consistent with this cooperative effort and in order to address air quality impacts and concerns prior to future development projects occurring, the District recommends that the City develop administrative mechanisms and policies that ensure consistency in providing the District with information about projects under consideration by the City, such as land use designation, project size, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources. To aid the City in determining a project’s potential impacts, the District recommends the City provide an assessment evaluating potential project construction and operation related to air quality impacts to the District as early as possible. Additionally, the District is available to work with the City and project applicants on future development projects to address air quality impacts and concerns. The District encourages the This comment recommends that the City provide an assessment evaluating potential project-level construction and operation related to air quality impacts. As noted in the Draft EIR, beginning on page

4.3-30, the proposed VMT Reduction Program would be consistent with the City’s General Plan as it would preserve acceptable air quality and would improve a transportation network that is sensitive to environmental issues. The proposed project would not affect Fresno’s growth projections because the proposed project does not include any development that would introduce population or substantial employment in Fresno. However, construction activities associated with these individual VMT-reducing improvement projects result in an increase in criteria pollutants. These construction-related emissions would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. All transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific 3-15

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
City to include guidance in relevant planning documents or development review procedures that advises project applicants to reach out and work with the District.

The District’s goal is to assist with enhancing project designs in the early stages of the planning process for a better overall project with minimized impact on air quality and early identification of feasible mitigation measures. impacts and any required mitigation. The approved General Plan already includes several policies and objectives that direct coordination with the SJVAPCD to achieve compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria air pollutants, consistent with the District’s goal of minimizing air quality impacts.

B1-3 2) Operational Funding Strategy
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from program-level to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley.

Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. The District acknowledges that the Project will be incorporating strategies that reduce VMTs and the District recommends that the Project incorporate strategies that require the cleanest available heavy duty trucks, vehicles, and off-road equipment, including zero and near-zero technologies. VMTs can be reduced through encouragement of mix-use development, walkable communities, etc.

Additional design element options can be found at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/ media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf
In addition, the District recommends that the Project incorporate strategies that will advance implementation of the best practices listed in Tables 5 and 6 of California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Freight Handbook Concept Paper, to the extent feasible. This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts as “practices” which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities. The concept paper is available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20-%20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the %20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf
This comment acknowledges that, while projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin have the potential to generate air pollutants, there are strategies and design elements that could be implemented to reduce VMT impacts and overall impacts to air quality. This comment also requests that strategies to address air pollution impacts at the project-level be incorporated into the proposed VMT Reduction Program. It should be noted that the proposed VMT Reduction Program does not propose any physical changes that would result in potential impacts on the environment all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of future development projects, would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. As such, implementation of project-level best practices would be applicable at the time that future transportation improvements identified in the proposed VMT Reduction Program are proposed, or when future development projects are proposed. As such, recommendations for the incorporation of best practices do not apply to the proposed VMT Reduction Program. The references provided in this comment do not change the findings of the Draft EIR and will be considered for future reference. Further, refer to the Master Response for a discussion of comments on the Project Description and project merits.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-16
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
B1-4 3) Project Siting
The Project is intended to supplement the blueprint for future growth and provides guidance for the community’s development. Without appropriate mitigation and associated policy, future development projects within the City may contribute to negative impacts on air quality due to increased traffic and ongoing operational emissions. Appropriate project siting helps ensure there is adequate distance between differing land uses, which can prevent or reduce localized and cumulative air pollution impacts from business operations that are in close proximity to receptors (e.g., residences, schools, health care facilities, etc.). The Project’s siting-related goals, policies, and objectives should include measures and concepts outlined in the following resources:
 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

The document includes tables with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources (e.g., distribution centers, chrome platers, gasoline dispensing facilities, etc.), and can be found at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/strategy- development/land-use-resources
 CARB’s Freight Handbook Concept Paper: This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts, which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities, and can be found at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- 20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf Refer to the response to Comment B1-4. All construction activities associated with individual VMT-reducing improvement projects identified in the proposed VMT Reduction Program would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, including improvements implemented as part of future development projects, and would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. The references provided in this comment do not change the findings of the Draft EIR and will be considered for future reference.

B1-5 4) Assembly Bill 617
AB 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities, like those in which the Project is located.

The South Central Fresno AB 617 community is one of the statewide communities selected by CARB for development and implementation of a CERP .

Following extensive community engagement and collaboration with the Community Steering Committee, the CERP for the South Central Fresno This comment states that proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community that may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The comment provides a reference to the Community Emission Reduction Program (CERP) approved for South Central Fresno. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed VMT Reduction Program aims to establish mitigation for future projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds in the form of a mitigation bank. The program would identify, quantify, and prioritize applicable 3-17

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Community was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September 2019 and by CARB in February 2020.

During the development of the CERP , the Community Steering Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community that may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The Community Steering Committee also expressed the desire for more meaningful avenues of engagement surrounding the land-use decisions in the area. As these issues can most effectively be addressed through strong partnerships between community members and local land-use agencies.

For more information regarding the CERP approved for South Central Fresno, please visit the District’s website at: https://community.valleyair.org/selected- communities/south-central-fresno
mitigation measures, and relevant VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to be funded by the proposed mitigation bank. The adoption of the proposed VMT Reduction Program would support future multi- modal or transportation improvements in accordance with the program. All construction activities associated with individual VMT- reducing improvement projects identified in the proposed VMT Reduction Program would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to ensure consistency with the goals of the CERP to reduce potential impacts. All future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of future development projects, would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

B1-6 5) Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for future development projects, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

This comment recommends that the City evaluate Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) truck routing patterns for future development projects. As previously noted, the proposed VMT Reduction Program aims to establish mitigation for future projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds in the form of a mitigation bank. The program would identify, quantify, and prioritize applicable mitigation measures, and relevant VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to be funded by the proposed mitigation bank. All future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of future development projects, would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA.

This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-18
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
B1-7 6) Electric Infrastructure
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/charge-up for more information.

This comment provides information related to the District’s incentives for public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure, and recommends installation of electric vehicle charging stations at project sites. All construction activities associated with individual VMT-reducing improvement projects identified in the proposed VMT Reduction Program would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, including improvements implemented as part of future development projects, and would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

B1-8 7) District’s Bikeway Incentive Program
Incorporating design elements (e.g., installing bikeways) within the Project area that enhance walkability and connectivity can result in an overall reduction of VMT and improve air quality within the area. The Bikeway Incentive Program provides funding for eligible Class 1 (Bicycle Path Construction), Class II (Bicycle Lane Striping), or Class III (Bicycle Route) projects. These incentives are designed to support the construction of new bikeway projects to promote clean air through the development of a widespread, interconnected network of bike paths, lanes, or routes and improving the general safety conditions for commuter bicyclists. Only municipalities, government agencies, or public educational institutions are eligible to apply. More information on the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/bike-paths/
Guidelines and Project Eligibility for the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/drpijuw1/bikeway-program-guidelines- 62515.pdf
This comment provides information related to the District’s Bikeway Incentive Program. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed VMT Reduction Program identifies multi-modal transportation improvements including bikeway and bikeway network
improvements. This comment regarding the District’s grant program is noted, but this comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

No further response is necessary.
3-19

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
B1-9 8) Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents The DEIR states that all future individual VMT reducing improvement projects within Fresno, including those implemented as part of development projects, would require separate environmental review under CEQA. The District recommends future project referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf This comment acknowledges that future projects implemented under the proposed VMT Reduction Program would undergo separate environmental review under CEQA, and recommends that future projects be provided to the District for review. This comment is noted, but this comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

Organizations and Interested Parties
C1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (July 7, 2025)
C1-1 Thank you for submitting the VMT Reduction project plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.

Below is additional information for your review:

1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning:
https://www.pge.com/en/account/service-requests/building-and- renovation.html.

2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will review future projects to determine potential impacts to PG&E facilities. In addition, this comment includes information regarding requirements related to natural gas facilities and electric facilities. Because all construction activities associated with individual VMT-reducing improvement projects identified in the proposed VMT Reduction Program would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, including improvements implemented as part of future development projects, and would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA, the recommendations included in this comment do not pertain to the proposed VMT Reduction Program. As such, this comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-20
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.

3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.

Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851 filing is required.

This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.

C2 Building Industry Association of Fresno/Madera Counties, Inc. (August 15, 2025) C2-1 The Building Industry Association of Fresno and Madera Counties (BIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Fresno's Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program (SCH No. 2024091129). The BIA represents homebuilders, developers, and associated industries committed to providing quality housing and fostering sustainable growth in the Fresno region.

After reviewing the DEIR, we offer the following comments:

This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and briefly summarizes the commenter’s organization. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

C2-2 1. Strong Nexus for Proposed Fees: We support the City's efforts to reduce VMT and improve transportation infrastructure. However, it is critical that any mitigation fees imposed on new development demonstrate a clear and direct nexus between the fee and the impacts of the development, as required by Government Code Sections 66000 - 66025. The nexus study must thoroughly and transparently demonstrate the proportional relationship between new development, increased VMT, and the costs of the proposed mitigation measures. This is especially relevant in light of the significant unavoidable transportation impacts described in the DEIR.

This comment discusses the mitigation fee identified in the proposed VMT Reduction Program, and expresses an opinion regarding the mitigation fee’s nexus with projects identified in the proposed VMT Reduction Program. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR and only references the significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT. Refer to the Master Response for a discussion of comments on the Project Description and project merits. This comment does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such 3-21

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

C2-3 2. Support for Market-Rate Housing: We urge the City to prioritize VMT-reducing projects that support the development of additional market-rate housing in Fresno. A diverse housing stock, including market-rate options, is essential to meeting the region's housing needs and promoting economic growth. Projects that facilitate infill development, mixed-use communities, and transit-oriented development should be prioritized as a means of reducing VMT and providing housing choices. This aligns with the General Plan policies regarding infill and mixed-use development.

This comment requests that the City prioritize VMT-reducing projects that support the development of market-rate housing in Fresno. Refer to the Master Response for a discussion of comments on the Project Description and project merits. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

C2-4 3. Fair and Equitable Fee Structure: The VMT reduction program should be applied in a fair and consistent manner. Fees should be determined based on a comprehensive analysis of the projected VMT impact, taking into account factors such as project location, density, and access to alternative transportation options.

This comment provides an opinion regarding implementation of the proposed VMT Reduction Program. Refer to the Master Response for a discussion of comments on the Project Description and project merits. This comment does not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

No further response is necessary.

C2-5 4. Urban Design Calculator: The DEIR mentions the Urban Design Calculator (UDC) as a tool for estimating VMT reductions. Ensure that the UDC is regularly reviewed and updated to incorporate the latest data and best practices, reflecting current conditions in Fresno.

This comment provides an opinion on implementation of the proposed VMT Reduction Program and the Urban Design Calculator.

Refer to the Master Response for a discussion of comments on the Project Description and project merits. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

3-22
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
C2-6 5. Alternatives Considered: We acknowledge the analysis of alternatives, including the "No Project Alternative" and the "All Applicable Fee Alternative" referenced. We believe further exploration of alternatives that offer a balance between VMT reduction and housing affordability is warranted.

This comment requests that an alternative that discusses the balance of VMT reduction and housing affordability be completed. The project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR were developed by changing components of the proposed project to reduce potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed VMT Reduction Program.

The proposed program would establish a VMT mitigation mechanism for future development projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds in the form of a mitigation fee. The proposed program would fund VMT-reducing transportation improvements within the City, but it does not propose any specific land use changes or development. It is assumed that the comment is requesting an alternative that contemplates a reduced VMT mitigation fee in order to allow for great housing affordability. As noted in the Draft EIR, a significant and unavoidable impact would occur related to VMT impacts because it is unknown when the VMT mitigation fee would be able to fund transportation improvements, and it is not known whether the transportation improvements would result in reduced VMT impacts. As such, an alternative that contemplates a reduced VMT mitigation fee would likely result in similar environmental impacts as the proposed VMT Reduction Program and would not provide a robust comparison for CEQA purposes.

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

4-1

4.0 DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS
This chapter presents specific changes to the text of the Draft EIR that are being made to clarify any errors, omissions, or misinterpretation of materials in the Draft EIR in response to comments received during the public review period, or as directed by City staff. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a greater severity than those set forth in the Draft EIR. Further, the clarifications and corrections provide in the following revisions do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR. Where revisions to the text are called for, the page number is identified, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with double-underlined text, and deleted text is shown in strikeout text.

CHAPTER 1.0, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following staff-initiated text revision is made to impact statement GHG-2 in the Executive Summary Matrix on page 1-17 of the Draft EIR:

GHG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The following staff-initiated text revision is made to impact statement GHG-3 in the Executive Summary Matrix on page 1-17 of the Draft EIR:

GHG-3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

The following staff-initiated text revision is made to impact statement HAZ-4 in the Executive Summary Matrix on page 1-18 of the Draft EIR:

HAZ-4: The project would notcould be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

CHAPTER 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following staff-initiated text revision is made to the Project Objectives on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR:

3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) states that an EIR project description must include “[a] statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” The proposed project objectives are outlined below.
• Streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects by providing feasible mitigation options to reduce potentially significant VMT impacts.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

4-2
• GenerateIdentify funding for future TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to help reduce Citywide total VMT.
• Contribute towards making Fresno a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented community with active, healthy, and livable spaces.

SECTION 4.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following text revision is made to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 on page 4.4-22 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Transportation improvements funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, and with the potential to reduce or eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats, shall provide a Biological Resources Assessment prepared by a qualified biologist for review and approval by the City of Fresno. The assessment shall include biological field survey(s) of the project site to characterize the extent and quality of habitat that would be impacted by development. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologists and/or botanists in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Services survey protocols for target species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation. If no special status/sensitive species, sensitive habitats/natural communities, or federally protected wetlands are observed during the field survey, then no further mitigation will be required. If biological resources are documented on the project site, the project proponent shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulatory agencies and shall apply mitigation determined through the agency permitting process.

The following text revision is made to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 on page 4.4-24 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: A pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities associated with a transportation improvement project.

The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and cover all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the project impact area. Further, if an active bird nest is found, the qualified biologist should identify the specific bird species and establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the active nest to avoid potential direct and indirect impacts. It is further recommended that the qualified biologist periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if project-related activities disturb the birds and if the “no disturbance” buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area.

Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

4-3
projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

SECTION 4.9, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following text revision is made to impact statement HAZ-4 on page 4.9-19 of the Draft EIR:

HAZ-4 The proposed project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

CHAPTER 6.0, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following staff-initiated text revision is made to the Project Objectives beginning on page 6-3 of the Draft EIR:

6.3.2 Project Objectives
An EIR must only discuss in detail an alternative that is capable of feasibly attaining most of the basic objectives associated with the action, while at the same time avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects associated with the proposed project. Below are the project objectives, as provided in Section 3.4, Project Objectives. • Streamline the Senate Bill (SB) 743 compliance process for development projects by providing feasible mitigation options to reduce potentially significant VMT impacts. • GenerateIdentify funding for future TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to help reduce Citywide total VMT.
• Contribute towards making Fresno a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented community with active, healthy, and livable spaces.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2025

4-4
This page intentionally left blank
Exhibit A -2
September 2025

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FRESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

This page intentionally left blank
September 2025

DRAFT

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FRESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721

Prepared by:

LSA
2491 Alluvial Avenue, PMB 626
Clovis, California 93611
559.490.1210

Project No. 20241626

This page intentionally left blank

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

September 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Location and Setting .......................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Project ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Project Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 4 No Project Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 4 All Applicable Fee Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.0 PROCEDURAL FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 7

4.0 RECORD OF PROCEDINGS ..................................................................................... 9

5.0 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ..................................................................... 11

5.1 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 12 Findings Regarding Less Than Significant Impacts (No Mitigation Required) ............................................. 13 Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant .................................................. 20 Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts Mitigated to Less-than-Significant Levels .................................... 29 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts not Mitigated to Less -than-Significant Levels ........................ 31 Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts not Mitigated to Less -than-Significant Levels ............................. 32

5.2 Mitigation Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 32

5.3 Significant Irreversible Environment Effects ................................................................................ 32

5.4 Growth Inducement ..................................................................................................................... 34

5.4.1 Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth .......................................................................... 34

5.4.2 Promotion of Economic Growth .................................................................................................. 35

6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 37

6.1 Alternatives Considered in the EIR ................................................................................................. 37 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative .......................................................................................................... 37 Alternative 2: Net Zero Energy Consumption Alternative ........................................................................... 37 Findings Regarding Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 38

7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 39

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

This page intentionally left blank

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of these findings is to satisfy the requirements of Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, associated with approval of the Fresno VMT Reduction Program (project).

The CEQA Statutes (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000, et seq.) and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Sections 15000, et seq.) state that if it has been determined that a project may or will have significant impacts on the environment, then an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. Prior to approval of the project, the EIR must be certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090. When an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, for each identified significant impact:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

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.

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.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 states that after consideration of an EIR, and in conjunction with making the Section 15091 findings identified above, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. A project that would result in a significant environmental impact cannot be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact.

However, in the absence of feasible mitigation, an agency may approve a project with significant and unavoidable impacts, if there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the lead agency to document and substantiate any such determination in a “statement of overriding considerations” as a part of the record.

The requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 (as summarized above) are all addressed herein. This document summarizes the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations authorized by those provisions of the CEQA Guidelines and by the PRC for the project.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

2 This page intentionally left blank

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a summary of the Project Description.

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The City of Fresno (City) is located in Fresno County in the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley and covers an area of approximately 113 square miles. The City is located approximately 200 miles north of Los Angeles, and approximately 170 miles south of Sacramento. To the north of Fresno is Madera County, to the northeast and adjacent to Fresno, is the City of Clovis. Unincorporated land is located to the east, south, and west of Fresno. State Route (SR) 99 runs north-south through the City and provides primary connectivity between Fresno and other regions of California. SR-41 runs north- south through the center of the City and connects Fresno to Yosemite National Park. SR-168 links the Downtown area to the adjacent City of Clovis. SR-180 runs east-west, providing access to outlying rural communities.

The City of Fresno’s General Plan was adopted in December 2014; it established the Planning Area for the General Plan and governs future development throughout Fresno. The General Plan contains policies, plans and programs that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City, prioritizing infill development, Downtown, and neighborhood revitalization; transit-oriented development along major streets; mixed-uses; and the building of Complete Neighborhoods. Policy direction for development according to the General Plan is further refined by community and specific plans that were called for in the General Plan, such as the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, and the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. These plans were adopted in order to address specific issues and to identify future investment needs. Central to these plans is the transformation of these areas into walkable complete neighborhoods and communities through well-designed infill development, in combination with a multi-modal transportation system.

2.2 PROJECT
The project aims to reduce citywide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by establishing mitigation for future development projects in Fresno. The VMT Reduction Program includes two major components that can be applied, individually or in combination, to new development with VMT impacts: an Urban Design Calculator (UDC), which estimates potential VMT reductions for development projects through incorporation of various design elements; and a mitigation fee (supported by a nexus study) and mitigation bank, which would be used to fund VMT-reducing projects throughout Fresno.

The project would include a fee program which would identify, quantify, and prioritize applicable mitigation measures, and relevant VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to be funded by the proposed mitigation bank. These projects, which may include active transportation improvements, multi-modal transportation programs, and improved street connectivity, including bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities, would be subject to future CEQA analysis on a project-by-project basis as they are proposed and as the extent of impacts become known through the design process.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

4 The proposed mitigation fee would be determined through the development of a nexus study, which would include technical details on the estimation of various cost components for the proposed mitigation measures for the project and their efficacy on VMT reductions. The nexus study would provide justification and nexus between anticipated VMT growth and proposed mitigation measures, costs, and fees.

Additionally, the proposed project would include updating the City’s existing UDC for use by individual projects. Projects that would have a significant VMT impact could reduce the project’s impact by applying VMT reducing project design features at the project site. The extent of VMT reduction would be calculated using the UDC as a first step of the VMT Reduction Program prior to participating in the VMT mitigation bank. After applying VMT reductions using UDC, the remaining excess VMT from the project would be used to calculate the project’s contribution into the mitigation bank.

Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) states that an EIR project description must include “[a] statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” The proposed project objectives are outlined below. • Streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects by providing feasible mitigation options to reduce potentially significant VMT impacts. • Generate funding for future transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and VMT- reducing projects within Fresno to help reduce Citywide total VMT. • Contribute towards making Fresno a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented community with active, healthy, and livable spaces.

2.3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The Draft EIR considered and evaluated two alternatives, the No Project Alternative and All Applicable Fee Alternative. Findings for the alternatives are included in Section 6.0 of this document.

No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the VMT Reduction Program would not be adopted. VMT-reducing transportation improvements currently identified in existing City planning documents would continue as planned but would be unfunded under this alternative. Therefore, the City would be required to separately identify funding from another source. Additionally, given that the VMT Reduction Program would not be adopted, a mitigation mechanism would not be established to assist future development with reducing potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA. Similar to existing conditions, future developments that trigger significant VMT impacts under CEQA would be required to prepare Environmental Impact Reports and adopt statements of overriding consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

5 All Applicable Fee Alternative
The All Applicable Fee Alternative would require all future development in Fresno to pay into the VMT Reduction Program. Unlike the project, this alternative would require development projects to pay into the proposed VMT Reduction Program even if the development projects are located in low VMT areas, or areas that would not result in VMT impacts. As a result, this alternative would require all future development projects that generate VMT to be responsible for addressing Citywide VMT.

This alternative would increase funds collected for VMT-reducing projects and would allow for implementation of more VMT-reducing projects and TDM measures than the proposed project.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

6 This page intentionally left blank

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

7 3.0 PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
Based on the nature and scope of the project, the City determined, based on substantial evidence, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepared an EIR. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2024091129) was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with CEQA, and additional noticing and opportunities for public comment were also provided, as follows:
• A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated on September 27, 2024, for a 30-day public and agency comment period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, Fresno County Clerk-Recorder, and responsible and trustee agencies. • A public scoping meeting to receive comments regarding the issues to be covered in the EIR was held on October 21, 2024, at Fresno City Hall, Fresno, CA. • A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the Office of Planning and Research July 7, 2025, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, or which exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law. The comments of such persons and agencies were sought.
• Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City distributed letters dated June 16, 2025, to the California tribes that are culturally and geographically affiliated with the Planning Area.

Representatives for the following tribes were notified: Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government, King River Choinumni Farm Tribe, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, Table Mountain Rancheria, Traditional Choinumni Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wukasche Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. • No responses from notified tribes were received during the 30-day response period and, therefore, no resources have been identified as Tribal Cultural Resources. On this basis, the consultation process under PRC Section 21080.3.1(b) was concluded. • A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was mailed on July 2, 2025, to all interested groups, organizations, and individuals who had previously requested notice in writing. The Notice of Availability stated that City had completed the Draft EIR and that copies were available on the City’s website: https://www.fresno.gov/planning/plans-projects-under-review/vehicle-miles- traveled/. Hard copies of the Draft EIR were made available at the City’s offices at 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA and the Central Branch of the Fresno County Public Library. • A 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR began on July 2, 2025, and ended on August 15, 2025. A 45-day State review period started on July 7, 2025, and ended on August 20, 2025.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
8 • The City provided written responses to all comments received during and after the public comment period referenced above for the Draft EIR and additional information to clarify such responses was added by the City to the Draft EIR to produce the Final EIR (FEIR). • The FEIR was made available on September 16, 2025, and consists of the following items:
○ The Draft EIR released on July 2, 2025;
○ Responses to Comments; and
○ Revisions to the Draft EIR.
• As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR were provided at least 10 days to review the proposed responses contained in the FEIR prior to the date for consideration of the FEIR for certification.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

9 4.0 RECORD OF PROCEDINGS
In accordance with PRC Section 21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the project includes the following documents, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings:
• City staff reports and all attachments;
• The Draft EIR and all appendices to the Draft EIR;
• The FEIR and all appendices to the FEIR;
• All notices required by CEQA and presentation materials related to the project; • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP and the Draft EIR;
• All studies conducted for the project and contained or referenced in the Draft EIR and the FEIR; • All documents cited or referenced in the Draft EIR and the FEIR; • All public reports and documents related to the project prepared for the City and other agencies;
• All other documents related to the project;
• The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the project; and • Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law.

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at the City offices at 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA.

The Draft EIR and FEIR are incorporated into these findings in their entirety, unless and only to the extent these findings expressly do not incorporate by reference the Draft EIR and FEIR. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse physical environmental impacts.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

10 This page intentionally left blank

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

11 5.0 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
PRC Section 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[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 of the PRC goes on to state that “in the event [that] 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 in PRC Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions.

The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][1]). For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level, or of the project’s ability to avoid a potentially significant impact altogether. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less- than-significant level.

The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][2]).

The third potential conclusion is that 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 Draft EIR and FEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][(3]). “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 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364).

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. 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] 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417).

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

12 In the process of adopting mitigation measures, the City has made a determination regarding whether the mitigation proposed in the EIR is “feasible.” In some cases, modifications may have been made to the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR to update, clarify, streamline, or revise those measures. None of these changes result in significant new information or impacts that would require recirculation of the EIR.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a lead agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons in support of the finding that the project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. In the process of considering the EIR for certification, the City has recognized that impact avoidance is not possible in all instances. To the extent that significant adverse environmental impacts will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the adopted mitigation, the City has found that specific economic, social, and other considerations support approval of the project. Those findings are reflected herein in Section 5, “Findings Required Under CEQA,” and in Section 7, “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” below.

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Draft EIR identified a number of less-than-significant impacts associated with the project that do not require mitigation. The Draft EIR also identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that may be caused in whole or in part by the project.

Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other effects cannot be, and thus may be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section 7, “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” however, the City has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of the project.

The findings of the City with respect to the project’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR and these Findings of Fact. The Summary of Findings does not attempt to replicate or restate the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Please refer to the Draft EIR and FEIR for more detail.

The following provides a summary description of each potentially significant and significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and adopted by the City, and states the findings of the City regarding the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Draft EIR and FEIR and associated record (described herein), both of which are incorporated by reference. The City hereby ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the record into these findings, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

13 To the extent any of the mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction of other agencies, the City finds those agencies can and should implement those measures within their jurisdiction and control (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][2]).

Findings Regarding Less Than Significant Impacts (No Mitigation Required) The City agrees with the characterization in the Draft EIR and FEIR of all project-specific impacts identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are either less than significant or have no impact, as described in the EIR. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as having no impact or a less-than-significant impact.

The impacts for which the project would result in either no impact or a less-than-significant impact, and which require no mitigation, are identified in the bulleted list below. Please refer to the Draft EIR and FEIR for more detail.

AESTHETICS
• Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • Impact AES-3: The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point), and due to the location of the project in an urbanized area, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
• Impact AES-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. • Impact AES-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to aesthetics.

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
• Impact AG-1: The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use.
• Impact AG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

14 • Impact AG-3: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
• Impact AG-4: The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
• Impact AG-5: The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. • Impact AG-6: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to agricultural resources.

AIR QUALITY
• Impact AQ-1: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact AQ-2: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Impact AQ-3: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• Impact AQ-4: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
• Impact AQ-5: The proposed project, in combination with other projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to air quality.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• Impact BIO-5: The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. • Impact BIO-6: The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Impact Cul-3: The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

15 ENERGY
• Impact ENG-1: The proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
• Impact ENG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
• Impact ENG-3: The project, in combination with other projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to energy.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
• Impact GEO-1: The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.);
II. Strong seismic ground shaking;
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; IV. Landslides
• Impact GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • Impact GEO-3: The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. • Impact GEO-4: The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
• Impact GEO-5: The project does not contain soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• Impact GHG-1: The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

16 • Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. • Impact GHG-3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
• Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • Impact HAZ-2: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
• Impact HAZ-4: The project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • Impact HAZ-5: The project would be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. • Impact Haz-6: The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Impact HAZ-7: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. • Impact HAZ-8: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
• Impact HYD-1: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. • Impact HYD-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

17 • Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
○ Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ○ Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
○ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; nor
○ Impede or redirect flood flows.
• Impact HYD-4: The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
• Impact HYD-5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. • Impact HYD-6: The project, in combination with other projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
• Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. • Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
• Impact LU-3: The project, in combination with other projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to land use and planning.

MINERAL RESOURCES
• Impact MIN-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. • Impact MIN-2: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
• Impact MIN-3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

18 NOISE
• Impact NOI-3: The proposed would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
• Impact POP-1: The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). • Impact POP-2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. • Impact Pop-3: The proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to population and housing.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
• Impact PSR-1: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.
• Impact PSR-2: The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
• Impact PSR-3: The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
• Impact PSR-4: The project, in combination with other projects, would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to public services and recreation.

TRANSPORTATION
• Impact TRA-1: The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Impact TRA-3: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
• Impact TRA-4: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

19 UTLITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
• Impact UTL-1: The project would not require nor result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact UTL-2: The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
• Impact UTL-3: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. • Impact UTL-4: The project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
• Impact UTL-5: The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. • Impact UTL-6: The project, in combination with other projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems.

WILDFIRE
• Impact WF-1: The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Impact WF-2: The proposed project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. • Impact WF-3: The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
• Impact WF-4: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
• Impact WF-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to wildfire.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

20 Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant The City hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and that these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant and significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. The potentially significant and significant impacts and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level are summarized below. Please refer to the DEIR for more detail. Note that text that is struck through or double-underlined represents deleted text or additional text (respectively) that was revised in the FEIR.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Although impacts to species listed as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species by local, State, and federal agencies should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible; it is acknowledged that future projects may not be able to avoid these species.

Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Although impacts to species listed as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species by local, State, and federal agencies should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible; it is acknowledged that future projects may not be able to avoid these species. While future transportation improvement projects funded by the program would be largely focused within developed areas, the proposed improvements could still adversely impact sensitive special-status species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Transportation improvements funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, and with the potential to reduce or eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats, shall provide a Biological Resources Assessment prepared by a qualified biologist for review and approval by the City of Fresno. The assessment shall include biological field survey(s) of the project site to characterize the extent and quality of habitat that would be impacted by development. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologists and/or botanists in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Services survey protocols for target species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation. If no special status/sensitive species, sensitive habitats/natural communities, or federally protected wetlands are observed during the field survey, then no further mitigation will be required. If biological resources are documented on the project site, the project proponent shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulatory agencies and shall apply mitigation determined through the agency permitting process.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

21 Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would require a Biological Resources Assessment, as determined by the City, to evaluate potential impacts to on- site biological resources, including sensitive or special-status species. As such, future VMT- reducing improvements would be evaluated on a project-specific level with site-specific analysis and mitigation measures would be identified, as needed. Thus, the proposed program would not result in significant impacts to sensitive special-status species. (Draft EIR pages 4.4-22 and 4.4- 23)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to special-status species and associated habitat identified in the EIR.

Impact BIO-2: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

While future transportation improvement projects funded by the program would be largely focused within developed areas, the proposed improvements could still have the potential to adversely impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The presence of riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community on future project sites must be evaluated prior to approvals of discretionary projects.

Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would require a Biological Resources Assessment, as determined by the City, to evaluate potential impacts to on- site biological resources, including riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities. As such, future VMT-reducing improvements would be evaluated on a project-specific level with site-specific analysis and mitigation measures would be identified, as needed. Thus, the proposed program would not result in significant impacts to sensitive special-status species. (Draft EIR page 4.4-23)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to special-status species and associated habitat identified in the EIR.

Impact BIO-3: The project would have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Several locations within the Planning Area support riparian or wetland vegetation. The majority of future transportation improvements funded by the program would occur within existing rights-of- way in developed areas of the City and not impact Federally protected wetlands. Nevertheless, all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of future development

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

22 projects, would be required to undergo project-level environmental review under CEQA and be evaluated on a project-specific level with site-specific analysis.

Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would require a Biological Resources Assessment, as determined by the City, to evaluate potential impacts to on- site biological resources, including federally protected wetlands. As such, future VMT-reducing improvements would be evaluated on a project-specific level with site-specific analysis and mitigation measures would be identified, as needed. Thus, the proposed program would not result in significant impacts to sensitive special-status species. (Draft EIR page 4.4-23) Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to special-status species and associated habitat identified in the EIR.

Impact Bio-4: The project could interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Future transportation improvements implemented as part of future development projects may occur on sites with trees or be located adjacent to trees that could serve as nesting habitat for migratory birds. Therefore, there is potential to impact nesting birds if construction occurs during the avian nesting season (generally from February 1 through August 31).

Mitigation Measure BIO-4
A pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities associated with a transportation improvement project. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and cover all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the project impact area. Further, if an active bird nest is found, the qualified biologist should identify the specific bird species and establish a “no- disturbance” buffer around the active nest to avoid potential direct and indirect impacts. It is further recommended that the qualified biologist periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if project-related activities disturb the birds and if the “no disturbance” buffer should be increased.

Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area.

Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by- case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

23 Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4 would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. As such, future VMT-reducing improvements would be evaluated on a project-specific level with site-specific analysis and mitigation measures would be identified, as needed. Thus, the proposed program would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. (Draft EIR pages 4.4-24 through 4.4-25)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species identified in the EIR.

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1: The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.

As land uses are built out in accordance with the approved General Plan, the growth that would occur within the Planning Area would include infill development and buildout of rural, agricultural, and undeveloped areas. As the density and intensity increases in the existing urban areas, there is a possibility that the new development could result in demolition or substantial alterations of historical or potentially historical buildings and structures. In addition to land use development, infrastructure and other public works improvements could result in demolition or substantial alterations of historical resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: To ensure identification and preservation of potentially historic resources (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 as a resource listed in, eligible for listing in, or listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or local register), each transportation improvement funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt from CEQA) shall be conditioned as follows: prior to any construction activities that could impact potential or previously identified historical resources, the project proponent shall provide a historical resources assessment performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history or history (as defined in 48 Code of Federal Regulations 44716) to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department for review and approval. The historical resources assessment shall include a records search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) and a survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) guidelines to identify any previously unrecorded potential historical resources that may be potentially affected by the proposed project. If a historical resource is identified on-site, the resource shall be avoided to the extent feasible.

If relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource is required, the project proponent shall utilize the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the maximum extent feasible to ensure the historical significance of the resource is not impaired. If

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

24 demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource is required, the resource shall be evaluated, and/or designated in the NRHP, CRHR, or local register, and recordation shall take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), or Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) documentation, and shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Recordation shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering, which defines the products acceptable for inclusion in the HABS/HAER/HALS collection at the Library of Congress. The specific scope and details of documentation shall be developed at the project level in coordination with the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department and performed prior to the first issuance of any demolition, building, or grading permits.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to historic resources through the preparation of site-specific evaluations and in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. (Draft EIR pages 4.5-19 through 4.5-21)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to any historic resources identified in the DEIR.

Impact CUL-2: The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Several locations within the City and surrounding area have known archaeological resources. Based on previously completed cultural resource surveys historical/archaeological sites have been discovered within the Planning Area. While future transportation improvement projects funded by the VMT Reduction Program would be largely focused within developed areas and within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, the proposed improvements could still adversely impact previously unknown archaeological resources during grading and construction activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2.1: To ensure identification and preservation of archaeological resources within the City of Fresno, each transportation improvement funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt from CEQA) shall be screened by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department to determine whether a Cultural Resources Assessment is required. Screening shall consider the type of project and whether ground disturbances will occur. Ground disturbances include activities such as grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade. If there will be no ground disturbance, then a Cultural Resources Assessment shall not be required. If there will be ground disturbances, prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground disturbing activities, the City may require a Cultural Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. The Cultural Resources Assessment shall include a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search conducted through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) and Sacred Land Files (SLF) search through the Native

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

25 American Heritage Commission (NAHC), review of historical maps, and a Phase I (intensive) pedestrian survey to assess the likelihood for buried archaeological resources to occur. The Cultural Resources Assessment shall meet or exceed standards in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (1990) and Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs (1991).

Mitigation Measure CUL-2.2: In the event that cultural resources are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future transportation improvement project funded by the proposed program, the construction contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-meter radius of the find and the project proponent shall retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 and CUL-2.2 would reduce impacts to prehistoric resources through field surveys and literature searches, as well as the implementation of recommendations provided by a qualified archaeologist. (Draft EIR pages 4.5-21 through 4.5-22)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to any archaeological resources identified in the DEIR.

Impact CUL-4: The project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or •A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

While the VMT Reduction Program does not involve any development, future transportation improvements implemented in accordance with the program could impact tribal cultural resources during ground-disturbing activities, including Native American artifacts and human remains.

Potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2.1, and CUL-2.2.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

26 Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-2.2 would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources through the preparation of site-specific evaluations, field surveys and literature searches, and regulatory compliance and coordination with appropriate Native American representatives. (Draft EIR pages 4.5-23 through 4.5-24) Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to any tribal cultural resources, identified in the DEIR.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

The project would not result in any physical improvements, or in changes to the distribution or intensity of the land uses within the Planning Area. However, adoption of the VMT Reduction Program would support future multi-modal or transportation improvements in accordance with the program. Future VMT-reducing projects identified by the VMT Reduction Program could potentially involve development of previously undeveloped parcels that could result in disturbance of previously undisturbed soils containing unique paleontological resources geologic features.

Mitigation Measure GEO-6
Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
• If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are deter-mined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

27 • If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist.

Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-6 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources through field surveys, literature searches, and consulting with a qualified paleontologist in the event resources are discovered. (Draft EIR pages 4.7-23 and 4.5-24)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to any paleontological resources, identified in the DEIR.

NOISE
Impact NOI-1: The project could generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Given the programmatic level of the project, construction-related noise impacts that may occur at any one time are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. Construction of individual transportation improvements funded by the proposed program could temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each individual project.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Each transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review shall ensure through contract specifications that construction best management practices (BMPs) are implemented by construction contractors to reduce construction noise levels. Contract specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Director prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (whichever is issued first). BMPs to reduce construction noise levels may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and is in good working condition.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

28 • Place noise-generating construction equipment and construction staging areas away from sensitive uses.
• Construction activities shall occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, pursuant to Section 10-109 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. • Implement noise attenuation measures, as needed, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources. • Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
• Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday). The haul route exhibit shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise. • Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party and the Director of Development.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 would reduce substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project by restricting the uses of construction equipment within close proximity of existing structures. (Draft EIR pages 4.13-15 through 4.13-18)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise, identified in the EIR.

Impact NOI-2: The project could generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

If construction activities occur within 25 feet of existing structures, short-term construction impacts associated with groundborne vibration would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, each transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review with construction activities

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

29 requiring operation of groundborne vibration generating equipment (i.e., vibratory compactor/roller, large bulldozer, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammer) within 25 feet of an existing structure shall be required to prepare a project-specific vibration impact analysis to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts associated with the project, and to determine any specific vibration control mechanisms that shall be incorporated into the project’s construction bid documents to reduce such impacts. Contract specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 would reduce impacts related to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels by restricting the uses of construction equipment within close proximity of existing structures. (Draft EIR pages 4.13-18 and 4.13-19)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to groundbourne vibration and groundbourne noise levels, identified in the DEIR.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts Mitigated to Less-than-Significant Levels The City hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant and significant cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. The potentially significant and significant impacts and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level are summarized below. Please refer to the EIR for more detail.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-7: The project, in combination with other projects, could contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

Future cumulative development projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine potential impacts to sensitive special-status species and any required mitigation. As stated, all future transportation improvements funded by the proposed VMT Reduction Program would similarly require separate environmental review under CEQA. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-4.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-4 would reduce impacts to biological resources by requiring avoidance and minimization efforts, consultation with responsible agencies, compensatory mitigation and mitigation consistent with regulatory requirements. (Draft EIR pages 4.4-26 through 4.4-28) Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

30 project that avoid or substantially lessen cumulative impacts to state or federally protected wetlands, identified in the EIR.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-5: The project, in combination with other projects, could contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.

While future transportation improvement projects funded by the VMT Reduction Program would be largely focused within developed areas and within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, the proposed improvements could still adversely impact previously unknown archaeological resources during grading and construction activities. Current regulations to preserve cultural resources are expected to continue to reduce potential impacts resulting from the project. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 1, CUL-2.1, and CUL-2.2.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2.1, and CUL-

2.2 would ensure a historical resources assessment is prepared to identify any previously unrecorded historic resources and evaluate impacts of future transportation improvements on such resources. (Draft EIR page 4.5-24)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen cumulative impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources, identified in the EIR.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-7: The project, in combination with other projects, could contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils.

Construction due to the project could result in the discovery of previously unknown paleontological/geological resources during excavation and/or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils. Current regulations to preserve cultural resources are expected to reduce potential impacts resulting from the project. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less- than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-6.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-6 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources through field surveys, literature searches, and site-specific recommendations made by a qualified paleontologist (if required). (Draft EIR pages 4.7-24 and

4.7-25)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen cumulative impacts to paleontological resources, identified in the EIR.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

31 NOISE
Impact NOI-4: The project, in combination with other projects, could contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to noise.

Construction activities associated with the project and cumulative projects may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. While the proposed transportation improvements do not add stationary noise sources, the project could contribute to a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels and could generate excessive groundborne vibration. Potential impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce cumulative impacts related to an increase in ambient noise levels and excessive groundborne vibration through implementation of BMPs and the preparation of project specific analysis. (Draft EIR pages 4.13-19 and 4.13-20)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen cumulative impacts with respect to water supply and hydrology, identified in the EIR.

Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts not Mitigated to Less-than-Significant Levels The following significant environmental impacts of the project are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would substantially lessen the environmental impacts to less-than- significant levels.

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-2: The project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Mitigation is not feasible to address conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Given the speculative timing of when the TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements would be implemented, and the fact that the proposed VMT Reduction program cannot fully fund all identified improvements, the timing of VMT reductions may not occur concurrent with project level impacts and may occur later in time. Furthermore, data on the effectiveness of VMT reduction methods continues to evolve. While the VMT-reducing projects funded by the proposed project would reduce impacts when implemented, it is currently unknown if they would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, impacts in this regard would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available.

Significance without Mitigation. Mitigation is not feasible to address conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) due to the speculative timing of when the TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements would be implemented, and the fact

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

32 that the proposed VMT Reduction program cannot fully fund all identified improvements, the timing of VMT reductions may not occur concurrent with project level impacts and may occur later in time. Furthermore, data on the effectiveness of VMT reduction methods continues to evolve. While VMT-reducing projects funded by the proposed project would reduce impacts when implemented, it is currently unknown if they would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would occur. (Draft EIR page 4.16-12) Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce potential conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts not Mitigated to Less-than-Significant Levels The following significant cumulative environmental impacts of the project are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would substantially lessen the cumulative environmental impact to less-than-significant levels.

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-5: The project, in combination with other projects, would contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to transportation.

Although the project aims to reduce citywide VMT through an impact fee, TDM measures, and VMT- reducing projects, implementation timing is uncertain and fees would apply only to VMT impacts above the threshold, so it cannot be guaranteed that the project’s would be fully funded or that mitigation of future project impacts would be to a less-than-significant level. As a result, project- level and cumulative VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, and no additional feasible mitigation is available.

Significance without Mitigation. Mitigation is not feasible to address the project’s significant and cumulative impacts related to transportation. No feasible mitigation measures are available beyond the VMT-reducing components identified by the proposed VMT Reduction Program. (Draft EIR pages 4.16-13 and 4.16-14)
Finding on Proposed Mitigation. No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, cumulative transportation impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

5.2 MITIGATION MONITORING
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared for the project and approved by the City (PRC, Section 21081.6, subd. [a][1]; CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

5.3 Significant Irreversible Environment Effects
The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126) require a discussion of the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in a project should it be implemented. The

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

33 irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is the permanent loss of resources for future or alternative purposes. Irreversible and irretrievable resources are those that cannot be recovered or recycled or those that are consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms.

CEQA requires that EIRs assess whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible changes to the physical environment. The CEQA Guidelines discuss three categories of significant irreversible changes that should be considered. Each is addressed below.

As mandated by the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must address any significant irreversible environmental change that would result from project implementation. According to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, such a change would occur if one of the following scenarios is involved:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • Irreversible damage would result from environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project would result in the wasteful use of energy).

The environmental effects of the proposed project are thoroughly discussed in the Draft EIR Section

4.0, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, and summarized in the Executive Summary.

Implementation of the project would require the long‐term commitment of natural resources and land, as discussed below.

Future transportation improvements implemented as single projects or as part of larger development projects would consume limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during each individual project’s construction phase and would continue throughout its operational lifetime. Future development would require a commitment of resources including building materials; fuel and operational materials/resources; and transportation of goods and people to and from individual project sites. Construction would require the consumption of resources that are not renewable, or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non- renewable. These resources include, but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt; metals; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment.

Transportation improvements accommodated through the project would consume resources similar to those currently consumed within Fresno (e.g., energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle trips, fossil fuels, and water). Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with construction activities, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. As stated, given the nature of the transportation improvements and the overall reduction of VMT through increases in multimodal transportation, operational activities requiring the substantial consumption of natural resources are not anticipated. While some pedestrian improvements, such as pedestrian crosswalk traffic signals or lighting, would require electricity for operations, the electricity use would be minimal.

Nonetheless, the project’s energy requirements under both construction and operations represent a long-term commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

34 Future construction activities associated with future transportation improvements could release hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions; refer to Section 5.9 of the EIR, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. All potential demolition, grading, and excavation activities would be subject to the established regulatory framework to ensure that hazardous materials are not released into the environment. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials.

As a result, implementation of the VMT Reduction Program would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future generations or for other uses. It is noted that the continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale in a regional context. Although irreversible environmental changes would result from project implementation, such changes would not be considered significant given the limited scope and scale of the various VMT-reducing improvements that could be funded by the VMT Reduction Program. (Draft EIR page 5-3 and 5-4)

5.4 Growth Inducement
The project is not considered to be growth-inducing, as it does not implement new development that would directly or indirectly foster substantial economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Nor would the project have significant growth-inducing impacts including the extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions or industrial parks in areas that are only sparsely developed or are underdeveloped.

5.4.1 Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth
Eliminating physical or regulatory obstacles to growth can result in a growth-inducting impact because those obstacles are removed. An example of a physical obstacle to growth is the need for public service infrastructure (such as roadways, water mains, sewer lines etc.). Extending public service infrastructure into an area that lacks infrastructure would induce population growth because the infrastructure needed to serve the area would be available, and therefore, the area would then have the capacity to allow population growth. Also, the addition, deletion or alteration of a regulatory obstacle (such as a growth or development policy) could result in new growth because the regulatory obstacle would be altered such that new growth would subsequently not be hindered.

Given the nature of future transportation improvements funded by the VMT Reduction Program, such improvements would not significantly increase demands for public services (i.e., fire and police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, and libraries) or utility and service systems (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste). Overall, the project would not establish an essential public service that could remove an impediment to growth.

The VMT-reducing projects that would be implemented under the project would involve additional bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and multi-purpose paths, which would increase multimodal access to areas within Fresno previously accessible to only vehicles (to a large extent). Specifically, transportation

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

35 improvements implemented outside of areas with low VMT would provide new multimodal access to less urbanized areas.

While the VMT Reduction Program streamlines Senate Bill (SB) 743 compliance for development projects within the City’s Planning Area, the proposed program also establishes a mitigation fee for development projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds under CEQA. As a result, implementation of the VMT Reduction Program could remove a barrier to development within the City’s Planning Area. As such, implementation of the project would remove an existing impediment to growth through the provision of new access to an area and establishment of a mitigation mechanism for future development projects.

5.4.2 Promotion of Economic Growth
The promotion of economic growth is the extent to which a proposed project could cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. A “multiplier effect” is an economic phrase which pertains to the interrelationships between various sectors of the economy. The multiplier effect is a quantitative description and can be described as how an increase in some economic activity starts a chain reaction that generates more activity than the original increase.

The potential transportation improvements that could be implemented by funding from the VMT Reduction Program would not directly result in economic growth within Fresno. However, the project could indirectly result in economic growth. As previously discussed, the project streamlines SB 743 compliance for development projects within the City’s Planning Area that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds under CEQA. Future development projects triggering potentially significant VMT impacts would be able to pay an impact fee to reduce such impacts to less-than-significant levels, thereby facilitating and expediting the project entitlement process. As such, the VMT Reduction Program could encourage economic growth and land use development within the City’s Planning Area by streamlining the SB 743 compliance process for future developers.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

36 This page intentionally left blank

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

37 6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remains any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.

As noted under the heading “Findings Required under CEQA,” an alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, “feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417).

6.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE EIR
The following alternatives to the project are evaluated in detail in the EIR, as described below:
• Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the City would not adopt the VMT Reduction Program leaving planned VMT-reducing improvements unfunded unless another source is identified and providing no citywide mitigation mechanism. Future projects with significant VMT impacts would continue to address them individually through EIRs and statements of overriding considerations under CEQA. Guidelines Section 15093. • Alternative 2 – All Applicable Fee Alternative: Under the All Applicable Fee Alternative, all future development, regardless of location or whether it causes a significant VMT impact, would pay into the City’s VMT Reduction Program, making all VMT-generating projects contribute to citywide mitigation and increasing funds to implement more VMT-reducing projects and TDM measures than the proposed project.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the VMT Reduction Program would not be adopted. VMT-reducing transportation improvements currently identified in existing City planning documents would continue as planned but would be unfunded. The identified improvements would be implemented, but the City would be required to separately identify funding from another source. Additionally, given that the proposed VMT Reduction Program would not be adopted, a mitigation mechanism would not be established to assist future development with reducing potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA. Similar to existing conditions, future developments that trigger significant VMT impacts under CEQA would be required to prepare EIRs and adopt statements of overriding consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

Alternative 2: All Applicable Fee Alternative
All Applicable Fee Alternative would require all future development in Fresno to pay into the VMT Reduction Program. Unlike the project, this alternative would require development projects to pay

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

38 into the VMT Reduction Program even if the development projects are located in low VMT areas, or areas that would not result in VMT impacts. As a result, this alternative would require all future development projects that generate VMT responsible for addressing Citywide VMT. This alternative would increase funds collected for VMT-reducing projects and would allow for implementation of more VMT-reducing projects and TDM measures than the proposed project.

6.2 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 would not establish a fee to mitigate VMT impacts in Fresno. By not implementing any of the components included in the proposed VMT Reduction Program, this alternative would not streamline SB 743 compliance for future projects, would not identify funding for TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects, and would not contribute towards making Fresno a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented community. As a result, this alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives.

Alternative 2 would implement the proposed VMT Reduction Program, but would result in additional funding for VMT-reducing projects. Because this alternative would result in more funding from more development projects, the VMT-reducing improvements identified by the VMT Reduction Program would continue to be funded, and all of the project objectives would be met.

CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives. Based on a comparison between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 was determined to result in less impacts on the environment because it would implement the proposed VMT Reduction Project, collect additional fees, and meet all of the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed VMT Reduction Program.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

39 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the project.

Based on the record of proceedings, the City finds and determines that (1) the majority of the significant impacts of the project will be reduced to less-than-significant levels by implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in these findings; (2) the City’s approval of the project as proposed will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce to a less-than significant level the remaining significant environmental effects.

In light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations identified in the findings for the project, the objectives of the project, and the considerations set forth below related to this project, the City chooses to approve the project because, in its view, the economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits resulting from the project substantially outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment and based on substantial evidence, the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the project can be found in the preceding findings, which are herein incorporated by reference; in the project itself; and in the record of proceedings as defined above. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval.

The City finds that the project, as approved, will have the following economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits, which constitute overriding considerations:

1. The project would meet the project objectives established by the City.

As demonstrated by the EIR, the Findings, this Statement, and the additional documents and evidence comprising the administrative record, the project meets the following objectives established by the City in the EIR, which are fundamental to the approval of the project:
• Streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects by providing feasible mitigation options to reduce potentially significant VMT impacts. • Generate funding for future transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and VMT-reducing projects within Fresno to help reduce Citywide total VMT.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

40 • Contribute towards making Fresno a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented community with active, healthy, and livable spaces.

2. The project would streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects, allowing a range of future projects to continue to meet the needs of the City and its residents while providing applicable mitigation measures to reduce project related impacts to the furthest extent feasible.

3. The project would provide funding for future TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects to help reduce Citywide VMT, thereby reducing greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions, easing congestion, improving roadway safety, and supporting healthier, more equitable, and walkable communities across the city.

4. The project is consistent with and will contribute to achieving the policies, goals, and objectives established by the City of Fresno General Plan. Specifically:
a. The project would implement General Plan Policies UF-12-e and UF-14-a by funding transportation infrastructure improvements that facilitate public transit and use of bicycles.

These policies call for the implementation of standards that support pedestrian activities, bicycle linkages, and priority transit routes.
b. The project would implement General Plan Policy MT-2-b which calls for coordination with private and public partners to implement trip reduction strategies to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and make better use of the transportation system. The project is specifically oriented to reduce vehicle miles traveled City wide and includes components designed to improve the existing transportation system and increase its use. c. The project would implement General Plan Policy MT-2-g which calls for implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies. This project would be a direct implementation of this policy because it would contribute funding to identified Transportation Demand Management projects.
d. The project would implement General Plan Policy MT-2-j by generating funding to improve the City’s multi-modal transportation system and increase its utilization, which is called for by MT-2-j.
e. The project would implement General Plan Policies MT-4-c and MT-6-c which call for providing linkages between bikeways, trails, and paths, by generating funding for those facilities and linkages.
f. The project would implement General Plan Policy MT-5-a which calls for the development of sidewalks on public streets, by generating funding in support of multi-modal transportation projects that include sidewalk improvements.
g. The project would support the implementation of General Plan Policy RC-5-a which calls for the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The VMT Reduction Program would fund

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

41 projects that reduce Citywide VMT, thus reducing mobile sources of emissions, which contribute significantly to GHG emissions.

Based on the detailed findings made above, the City hereby finds that environmental, economic and social considerations outweigh the remaining environmental effects of approval and implementation of the project.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF O VERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025

42 This page intentionally left blank
Exhibit A -3

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION P ROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists mitigation measures recommended in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements, and is intended to ensure compliance during implementation of the project.

The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Mitigation Responsibility,” refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The third column, entitled “Monitoring/Reporting Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fourth column, entitled “Monitoring Timing/Schedule,” refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION P ROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
S EPTEMBER 2025

2 This page intentionally left blank

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION P ROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

3 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Transportation improvements funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, and with the potential to reduce or eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats, shall provide a Biological Resources Assessment prepared by a qualified biologist for review and approval by the City of Fresno. The assessment shall include biological field survey(s) of the project site to characterize the extent and quality of habitat that would be impacted by development. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologists and/or botanists in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Services survey protocols for target species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation. If no special status/sensitive species, sensitive habitats/natural communities, or federally protected wetlands are observed during the field survey, then no further mitigation will be required. If biological resources are documented on the project site, the project proponent shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulatory agencies and shall apply mitigation determined through the agency permitting process.

Project Proponent
and qualified
biologist
Planning and
Development
Department
Biological Resources Assessment
to be completed during
environmental review of
subsequent project and prior to
approval of discretionary project.

The City shall ensure that project-
specific mitigation is incorporated
into project plans for approval
prior to the issuance of any
grading or construction permits. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: A pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities associated with a transportation improvement project.

The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and cover all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the project impact area. Further, if an active bird nest is found, the qualified biologist should identify the specific bird species and establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the active nest to avoid potential direct and indirect impacts. It is further recommended that the qualified biologist periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if project-related activities disturb the birds and if the “no disturbance” buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area.

Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

Project Proponent
and qualified
biologist
Planning and
Development
Department
A qualified biologist shall conduct
a pre-construction nesting bird
clearance survey no more than 14
days before any vegetation
removal or ground-disturbing
activities. The City shall ensure
that project-specific mitigation is
incorporated into project plans for
approval prior to the issuance of
any grading or construction
permits.

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION P ROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
S EPTEMBER 2025

4 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: To ensure identification and preservation of potentially historic resources (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 as a resource listed in, eligible for listing in, or listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or local register), each transportation improvement funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt from CEQA) shall be conditioned as follows: prior to any construction activities that could impact potential or previously identified historical resources, the project proponent shall provide a historical resources assessment performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history or history (as defined in 48 Code of Federal Regulations 44716) to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department for review and approval. The historical resources assessment shall include a records search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) and a survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) guidelines to identify any previously unrecorded potential historical resources that may be potentially affected by the proposed project. If a historical resource is identified on-site, the resource shall be avoided to the extent feasible.

If relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource is required, the project proponent shall utilize the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the maximum extent feasible to ensure the historical significance of the resource is not impaired. If demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource is required, the resource shall be evaluated, and/or designated in the NRHP , CRHR, or local register, and recordation shall take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), or Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) documentation, and shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Recordation shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering, which defines the products acceptable for inclusion in the HABS/HAER/HALS collection at the Library of Congress.

The specific scope and details of documentation shall be developed at the project level in coordination with the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department and performed prior to the first issuance of any demolition, building, or grading permits.

Project Proponent
and qualified
historical
resources
specialist
Planning and
Development
Department
Project to project approval, the
Planning and Development
Department shall review historical
resources assessment. Timing for
recommendations shall be
established by project-specific
mitigation measure.

Planning and Development
Department to review contract
specifications to ensure inclusion
of provisions included in project-
specific mitigation measures.

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION P ROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

5 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
Mitigation Measure CUL-2.1: To ensure identification and preservation of archaeological resources within the City of Fresno, each transportation improvement funded by the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt from CEQA) shall be screened by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department to determine whether a Cultural Resources Assessment is required. Screening shall consider the type of project and whether ground disturbances will occur. Ground disturbances include activities such as grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade. If there will be no ground disturbance, then a Cultural Resources Assessment shall not be required. If there will be ground disturbances, prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground disturbing activities, the City may require a Cultural Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. The Cultural Resources Assessment shall include a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search conducted through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) and Sacred Land Files (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), review of historical maps, and a Phase I (intensive) pedestrian survey to assess the likelihood for buried archaeological resources to occur. The Cultural Resources Assessment shall meet or exceed standards in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (1990) and Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs (1991).

Project Proponent
and qualified
historical
resources
specialist
Planning and
Development
Department
During environmental review and
prior to approval of discretionary
project, the Planning and
Development Department shall
determine if a Cultural Resources
Assessment is required. The
Planning and Development
Department shall ensure that
project-specific mitigation is
incorporated into project plans
prior to project approval.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2.2: In the event that cultural resources are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future transportation improvement project funded by the proposed program, the construction contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-meter radius of the find and the project proponent shall retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed.

After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.

Project Proponent
and construction
contractor
Planning and
Development
Department
Planning and Development
Department to review
construction specifications to
ensure inclusion of provisions
included in mitigation measure.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-6: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
 If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that Planning and
Development
Department
Planning and
Development
Department
City shall review preliminary
grading plans prior to issuance of
grading permits. If needed, a field
survey or literature review shall
occur prior to the start of grading
activities. Additional monitoring of
project sites during construction

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION P ROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
S EPTEMBER 2025

6 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
 If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontolo- gist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
period shall be determined by a
qualified paleontologist and
consistent with project-specific
mitigation measures.

NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Each transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review shall ensure through contract specifications that construction best management practices (BMPs) are implemented by construction contractors to reduce construction noise levels. Contract specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Director prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (whichever is issued first). BMPs to reduce construction noise levels may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and is in good working condition.

Project Proponent
and construction
contractor
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of a grading or
building permit, the Planning and
Development Department to
review construction specifications
to ensure inclusion of provisions
included in mitigation measure.

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
S EPTEMBER 2025

F RESNO VMT REDUCTION P ROGRAM

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

7 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
 Place noise-generating construction equipment and construction staging areas away from sensitive uses.
 Construction activities shall occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, pursuant to Section 10-109 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code.  Implement noise attenuation measures, as needed, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources.  Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
 Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.  The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday). The haul route exhibit shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.  Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party and the Director of Development.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, each transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review with construction activities requiring operation of groundborne vibration generating equipment (i.e., vibratory compactor/roller, large bulldozer, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammer) within 25 feet of an existing structure shall be required to prepare a project-specific vibration impact analysis to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts associated with the project, and to determine any specific vibration control mechanisms that shall be incorporated into the project’s construction bid documents to reduce such impacts.

Contract specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Project Proponent
and construction
contractor
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permits, the Planning
and Development Department
shall ensure that project
construction specifications
prohibit heavy construction within
25 feet of existing structures.