Exhibit P - Resolution Certifying EIR — Fresno City Council, November 20, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

potential impacts on sensitive receptors, including TACs generated from off-road equipment use and truck engine idling. Land use projects are required to comply with AB 2588 and CARB standards for diesel engines. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to adhere to CARB’s Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (Off-Road Regulation), which includes a limit on unnecessary idling by restricting vehicles and other engines to no more than 5 consecutive minutes of engine idling. These regulatory measures would be required through the duration of implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure AIR-1b would require future development under the proposed project that requires discretionary approval to conduct site-specific analysis to determine potential air quality impacts. This includes future projects which would have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day, or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units. These projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1b which requires the inclusion of appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce impacts to air quality, including restricting idling.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-22
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
B3-13 11) Under-fired Charbroilers
Future development projects have the potential to include restaurants with under-fired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors.

Since the cooking of meat can release carcinogenic PM2.5 species, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, controlling emissions from new under-fired charbroilers will have a substantial positive impact on public health. The air quality impacts on neighborhoods near restaurants with under-fired charbroilers can be significant on days when meteorological conditions are stable, when dispersion is limited and emissions are trapped near the surface within the surrounding neighborhoods. This potential for neighborhood-level concentration of emissions during evening or multi-day stagnation events raises air quality concerns.

Furthermore, reducing commercial charbroiling emissions is essential to achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards. Therefore, the District recommends that the Tower District Specific Plan Update include a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating under-fired charbroilers.

The District is available to assist the City and project proponents with this assessment. Additionally, the District is currently offering substantial incentive funding that covers the full cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the system during a demonstration period covering two years of operation. Please contact the District at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] for more information, or visit: https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/restaurant-charbroiler- technology-partnership/
This comment warns of the immediate health risk associated with under-fire char broilers and recommends the project to include measures related to installation of control systems for new restaurants with under-fired char broilers.

All future development proposals that contain under-fired char broilers will be evaluated for consistency with SJVPACD Rule 4692 for commercial charbroiling and will be evaluated for potential health effects during the discretionary review process. No changes to the Draft EIR are required.

B3-14 12) Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
For future development projects within the Project area, and at strategic locations throughout the Project area in general, the District suggests the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

This comment recommends that the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors. The information provided in this comment is noted.

The recommendation provided in this comment does not change the findings of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR included the reference to the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use 3-23

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low- maintenance greenery.

Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, and the recommended buffer distances have been incorporated into future analysis requirements as outlined in Table 4.1.I and Mitigation Measure AIR- 1c. Mitigation Measure AIR-1c is consistent with the goal of locating sensitive land away from major sources of air pollution, including TACs. Furthermore, project applicants would be required to identify applicable mitigation measures in order to reduce emissions to less- than-significant levels. Mitigation measures would be implemented and made enforceable as applicable at the project level during the discretionary project review process. No changes to the Draft EIR are required.

B3-15 13) Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community If future development projects consists of residential and commercial development, gas-powered residential and commercial lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yard-machines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emission-landscaping-equipment- voucher-program/.

This comment provides information on SJVAPCD’s Clean Green Yard Machines program which includes potential funding sources for electric lawn care equipment. Refer to the Master Response for a discussion of comments on the Project Description and project merits. This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

B3-16 14) On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Tower District Specific Plan Update.

This comment addresses State requirements regarding the adoption on-site solar development and suggests requiring solar systems as an emission reduction strategy. The Specific Plan includes policies to support the adoption of solar energy systems withing the Tower District. Refer to the Master Response for a discussion of comments on the Project Description and project merits. Implementation of the proposed project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including current Title 24 and CALGreen Code standards which establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including solar requirements. This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-24
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

B3-17 15) District’s Bikeway Incentive Program
Bikeways installation projects can achieve reduction in VMT and they may be eligible for funding through the District’s Bikeway Incentive Program.

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. Transportation impacts are addressed in the Initial Study included as Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The proposed project would support multimodal transportation cycling and the construction of bike lanes. 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.

B3-18 16) District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current- district-rules-and-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit This comment provides information on SJVAPCD’s permits and permitting requirements. This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.
3-25

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

B3-19 16a) District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission.

District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, project proponents shall obtain an ATC permit from the District for equipment/activities subject to District permitting requirements.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For projects subject to permitting by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 (obtain ATC permit from the District) shall be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit.

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

This comment provides information on District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review). Rule 2201 and permitting requirements of the District are discussed on pages 4.1-29 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR acknowledges that any new or modified stationary/industrial source would be required to provide emission controls and offsets. The further information provided in this comment is noted, but no changes to the Draft EIR are required.

B3-20 16b) District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR) Accordingly, future development projects within the Tower District Specific Plan Update 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: [Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds]
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 This comment provides information related to the District’s Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule). Rule 9510 is discussed in the Draft EIR (pages

4.1-21, 4.1-29, and 4.1-33) as an applicable law and regulation related to implementation of the proposed project. As indicated in the comment, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required for future development project(s) that are subject to District Rule 9510.

As noted in the Draft EIR, future development projects requiring discretionary actions under CEQA will be required to prepare site specific analysis to determine any potential impacts. Future development projects would be required to comply with all applicable permits and regulatory standards, including those established by SJVAPD or other trustee/responsible agencies determined to have jurisdiction over the project. As outlined in

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-26
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
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/
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].

Section 4.1.5.1, all development associated with the proposed project would comply with SJAVPCD’s established rules and regulations. 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.

B3-21 16c) District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
Future development projects will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures. To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.

Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolition-renovation/.

This comment provides information related to the District’s Rule 4002. As noted in the comment, future development projects under the proposed project would be subject to District Rule 4002. See response to Comment B3-20 regarding compliance with all applicable permits and regulatory standards, including those established by SJVAPD or other trustee/responsible agencies determined to have jurisdiction over the project.

B3-22 16d) District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 if it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling This comment provides information related to the District’s Rule 4601. Regulation 4601 is discussed in the Draft EIR page 4.1-21, as an applicable law and regulation related to implementation of the proposed project. See response to Comment B3-20 regarding compliance with all applicable permits and regulatory standards, 3-27

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/tkgjeusd/rule-4601.pdf
including those established by SJVAPD or other trustee/responsible agencies determined to have jurisdiction over the project.

B3-23 16e) District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol
This comment provides information related to the District’s Regulation VIII. As noted in the comment, future development projects will be subject to this regulation. Regulation VIII is discussed in the Draft EIR (pages 4.1-21, 4.1-28, 4.1-30, 4.1-31, and 4.1-33) as an applicable law and regulation related to implementation of the proposed project. See response to Comment B3-20 regarding compliance with all applicable permits and regulatory standards, including those established by SJVAPD or other trustee/responsible agencies determined to have jurisdiction over the project.

B3-24 16f) Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

This comment states that future development projects may be subject to additional District rules. Recognizing the need for coordination and permitting requirements, the City has identified General Plan Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information, which requires the City to forward information regarding proposed development proposals that require air quality evaluation to the SJVAPCD for review and identification of any permitting requirements, including those listed in this comment. As noted in the Draft EIR, future development projects requiring discretionary actions under CEQA will be required to prepare site specific analysis to determine any

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-28
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
potential impacts. Future development projects would be required to comply with all applicable permits and regulatory standards, including those established by SJVAPD or other trustee/responsible agencies determined to have jurisdiction over the project. 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.

B3-25 17) Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s 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 includes direction on submitting future documents for review by SJVAPC. 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.

B4 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
B4-1 The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) submitted comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan Update on June 9, 2025. These comments continue to be relevant and should be considered in the ongoing planning process. For your convenience and reference, a copy of the original letter is enclosed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

This comment requests that previous comments submitted by FMFCD, continue to be referred to regarding ongoing planning process of the proposed project. As previously noted, all future development facilitated by the proposed project 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.

B4-2 Attachment 1: June 9, 2025 comment Letter on Notice of Preparation for the Tower District Specific Plan Update EIR
This comment includes the comment letter submitted by FMFCD on June 9, 2025 in response to the distribution of the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project, referenced in Comment B4-1.

The comments included in the attached comment letter were taken 3-29

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
into account during the preparation of the Draft EIR. 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 Producers Dairy Foods, Inc
C1-1 The Producers Dairy team is grateful for the hard work and commitment of City of Fresno (City) staff, the Tower Committee, and the public to bring this draft Tower District Specific Plan (Plan) to fruition. We remain committed to providing input on the Plan that allows us to continue operating our family business alongside and in cooperation with the City and neighbors. Producers has been a member of the Tower Community for over 70 years, and we feel privileged to offer job opportunities to people living in the area; Producers employs more than 500 individuals, out of which over 300 reside within a 10-mile radius of our establishment. Our employees have emphasized the importance of living near their workplace for a multitude of reasons including the ability to walk and bike to work, use less gas, and use public transportation.

With this in mind, Producers offers the following comments on the Plan and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City's consideration:

This comment provides an introduction 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.

C1-2 Page 14 - Figure 1.4 Community Components
Grammatical Recommendation: Figure 1.4 (page 14) shows "Proposed Historic Districts" in the legend, reflected on the map with light-yellow shading. Of particular interest to Producers and its neighboring businesses is the area south of Belmont and west of Broadway, which is shaded as a proposed historic district. To remain consistent with the narrative of this draft plan, the legend should use the term "historic designation study area" rather than "proposed historic district." Labeling the area as "proposed" suggests the City has already taken a position to designate it as historic. This conflicts with the text on page 44, which instead states: "Initiate a study for the historic designation of the following areas - pictured below. " The map should therefore complement the text by identifying This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-30
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
the area south of Belmont and west of Broadway as a historic designation study area, not as a proposed district.

C1-3 Furthermore, the EIR does not identify or acknowledge the area of South of Belmont, West of Broadway (page 3-16 and 3-17) as a planned/studied update or proposed historic district in the conservation and historic preservation section

3.6.1. The City acknowledges the Tower District's established character as an important facet of the area. The Draft EIR identifies two formally designated areas within the Tower District as formally identified historic districts. Additionally, several areas within the Tower District are identified for further analysis as potentially eligible for formal designation. Section 4.3, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, evaluates potential impacts on historic and cultural resources. The Draft EIR contains mitigation measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts related to historic and cultural resources, including Mitigation Measure CUL-1b which would require site specific analysis prior to approval of any discretionary project that could result in an adverse change to a potential historic and/or cultural resource. The Draft EIR adequately evaluated potential impacts related to historic or cultural resources and the proposed project would not cause a significant impact.

C1-4 • Page 38 - Figure 2.3 Historic Resources and Districts Additional Note: The same inconsistency appears on the map on page 38, where the legend again labels the purple cross hatched area as "Historic District- Proposed 2025." As with Figure 1.4 on page 14, this should be revised to read "Historic Designation Study Area" to align with the narrative on page 44.

Consistent terminology across all maps and text is essential to avoid confusion and to ensure this draft plan accurately reflects the City's stated intent.

Also, as noted above, the EIR does not identify or acknowledge the area of South of Belmont, West of Broadway as a planned/studied update or proposed historic district in the conservation and historic preservation section 3 .6.1.

Please see response to Comment C2-4. The Draft EIR adequately evaluated potential impacts related to historic or cultural resources and the proposed project would not cause a significant impact.

C1-5 • Page 125 -Figure 5.6
Producers continues to express concern to the City regarding the inclusion of bike lanes on H Street, as depicted in Figure 5.6 on page 125. H Street is a designated truck route, and our priority remains the safety of both our team members and the community.

This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.
3-31

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
C1-6 • EIR at 1-11 - Mitigation Measure AIR-1c.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 c should be clarified. The first sentence suggests the mitigation would apply only to businesses that seek to "locate"/construct within a certain distance from sensitive receptors. Does this provision only apply to businesses that seek to move into a new area, or would it apply to existing businesses that seek to modify or alter their operations to accommodate a changing business landscape? To provide transparency to the public, the EIR should state what the buffers would be. It is also unclear which categories of approvals or permits this mitigation measure would apply to.

This comment refers to Mitigation Measure AIR-1c, which identifies the use of the discretionary review process for residential and other sensitive land uses to impose site plan and design features aimed at minimizing exposure to environmental pollution. The first sentence of Mitigation Measure AIR-1c does not state that it would apply only to businesses that seek to locate or construct near sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1c stipulates that sensitive land uses should be located to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the CARB Handbook. CARB recommendations for siting of new sensitive land uses and recommended buffers are included in Table 4.1.I of the Draft EIR on page 4.1-40. Mitigation Measure AIR-1c is revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure AIR-1c.

Locate new sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with
recommended buffer distances identified in the most
current version of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the
CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a HRA to the City. If the health risk assessment (HRA) shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of
reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

C1-7 • EIR at 1-29 – NOI-1a & NOI-1b.

These mitigation measures appear to require a full construction noise analysis for any project that requires construction or grading and a full project-specific noise study for any "project." Because the term "project" encompasses virtually any discretionary permit, virtually any permits for any business within the Plan Area would be required to perform a noise analysis, regardless of whether any such study is necessary. Establishing such a blanket requirement would not have a reasonable nexus to many of "projects" within the Plan Area and could have a chilling effect on modest projects proposed by small businesses.

This comment refers to Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, which requires project-level construction noise analysis be prepared prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, and Mitigation Measure NOI-1b, which requires a project-specific noise study be prepared to determine noise levels generated from long-term operations. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI- 1b would serve to ensure that future development facilitated by the Specific Plan Update would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-32
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards. Evaluation of potential noise impacts is required under CEQA Guidelines to determine if a project would result in a significant impact with respect to noise. Noise analyses would be reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Director to ensure compliance with the City of Fresno’s stationary noise standards. Mitigation Measures NOI 1-a and NOI 1b are revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a.

Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-
exempt projects), and prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, the construction
contractor shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on off-site sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site. The project-level construction noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Planning and
Development Director. Measures shall be implemented to
reduce construction noise to the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria or below if construction noise impacts are identified. Measures may include, but are not limited to the installation of temporary construction barriers.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1b.

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
standards. The project specific noise study will be
submitted to the city for review and approval. Noise
reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or soundwalls) or by using equipment that has a quieter rating.

C2 Business Owners (La Tapatia, Patton, and Producers)
C2-1 On behalf of several businesses operating in and around the Tower District, we want to thank the City of Fresno, the Tower Committee, and community stakeholders for the time and commitment invested in developing the Draft Tower District Specific Plan (Plan) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The business community values this collaborative effort and shares in the goal of balancing neighborhood priorities with a strong, sustainable economic base.

C2-2 Plan Mapping – Figures 1.4 (p. 14) & 2.3 (p. 38): Both maps label certain areas, including south of Belmont and west of Broadway, as “Proposed Historic Districts.” This terminology conflicts with the Plan narrative (p. 44), which calls for initiating a study of potential historic designation. To avoid confusion, the maps should be revised to reflect these areas as “Historic Designation Study Areas.” Consistency between the maps and narrative is essential.

C2-3 EIR – Mitigation Measure AIR-1c (p. 1-11): This mitigation measure should be clarified to ensure it will not apply to new permitting for existing businesses, all of whom have made significant investments in the Tower District, and who could be prevented from upgrading or modernizing as a result of the restrictions contemplated under this measure.

This comment refers to Mitigation Measure AIR-1c, which identifies the use of the discretionary review process for residential and other sensitive land uses to impose site plan and design features aimed at minimizing exposure to environmental pollution. Mitigation Measure AIR-1c stipulates that sensitive land uses should be located to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the CARB Handbook. Refer to the response to Comment C1-6.

C2-4 EIR – Noise Mitigation Measures NOI-1a & NOI-1b (p. 1-29): As written, the requirement for project-specific noise studies appears to apply broadly to nearly any discretionary permit, regardless of scale or impact. This blanket approach risks creating unnecessary costs and barriers, especially for modest projects pursued by This comment refers to Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, which requires project-level construction noise analysis be prepared prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, and Mitigation Measure NOI-1b, which requires a project-specific noise study be

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-34
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
small businesses. A more tailored requirement would ensure a reasonable nexus between project type and environmental review.
prepared to determine noise levels generated from long-term operations. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI- 1b would serve to ensure that future development facilitated by the Specific Plan Update would not 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 in other applicable local, State, or federal standards. Evaluation of potential noise impacts is required under CEQA Guidelines to determine if a project would result in a significant impact with respect to noise. Refer to the response to Comment C1-

7. C2-5 We submit these comments not in opposition to the Plan, but to ensure it achieves its intended balance: protecting community character while providing a clear, predictable framework that supports local businesses. We believe this approach will allow both businesses and residents to thrive together in the Tower District.

Thank you for considering these perspectives. We look forward to continuing dialogue with the City as the Plan advances.

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.

C3 South Tower Community Land Trust
C3-1 We appreciate this opportunity to review the draft Tower District Specific Plan Update. We are providing this formal letter to aggregate our feedback and suggest significant alteration to more fully document the history and current reality in the Tower District as well as to chart a more equitable future for our neighborhood.

First it is important for us to frame what perspective this letter comes from.

Leading this organization is our founding executive director, Kiel Lopez-Schmidt.

They have a diverse experience in architecture, affordable housing development, community development finance. This has included leading numerous projects in the Tower District such as:

1. banquet hall adaptive reuse of the former Turpin’s Furniture at 1028 N Fulton St

2. architecture & sign design of affordable housing development, 541 @ South Tower

3. food truck commissary in former restaurant at 504 E. Belmont Ave This comment provides an introduction 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.
3-35

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response

4. Nomination of the JR Turner Home at 815 E. Dudley Ave. to Local Historic Registry

5. Served 10 years on the Tower District Design Review Committee.

6. Design and manufacturer coordination of Tower Bike Racks

7. Conditional Use Permit for Goldstein's

8. Facade improvement design for Color Me Chula and En Las Nubes

9. Coordination of 4 public art murals in the neighborhood

10. Renovation of homes at 517 & 525 N. Farris Ave for affordable home ownership

11. Ongoing predevelopment of 8 units of new housing for affordable homeownership at 517 N.Farris and 604 N. San Pablo Ave.

12. Ongoing acquisition and rehab of 617-619 N. Fulton Ave. to be a non-profit center

13. Ongoing CUP for The Belmont

Additionally, the board of directors of our organization included diverse backgrounds and experience:

1. Real estate agent

2. Two musicians

3. Artist

4. User experience design researcher

5. Two educators

6. Substance abuse counselor

7. Registered nurse

8. And two LGBTQ+ health educators and non-profit founders Our other Policy Committee members that contributed to this letter bring additional diverse experience and perspectives including: city planning, photography, nonprofit leadership and CEQA expertise.

Our organization was born out of the community organizing and design for Broadway Parque. So we strongly believe in including community in the projects and policies that we advocate for. Living out those values, we have gone door to door informing and listening to South Tower neighbors about their concerns and

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-36
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
barriers for health and prosperity and as well as their aspirations and assets to contribute to a shared vision.

When the draft Specific Plan Update was made available, we organized a study session at Broadway Parque that 12 community members were able to attend. We broke out into 6 groups each group reading and discussing one chapter. The group discussion following the chapter break out groups generated numerous detailed comments that follow. Many of these topics were uplifted by our group throughout the Specific Plan outreach process. Hopefully this letter will have a greater impact on the final plan.

The comments that follow are focused on improved social determinants of health in a framework of correcting racial and economic inequities experienced by South Tower residents and other residents who do not yet enjoy the full vitality that some Tower District residents have the privilege of enjoying. These comments also come from the perspective of a community development organization that has a proven ability to increase park and affordable housing access. It took decades to arrive at this point of disparity and we commit to the decades of work that will take to dismantle the barriers and structures that continue these inequities.

C3-2 02 Conservation & Historic Preservation

Page 32 ends

from Downtown was part of White Flight and redlining with racial covenants excluding many demographics from renting or owning homes or businesses north of Olive.

Page 33 ends

threat of more historic structure loss with industrial expansion.

Page 41 ends

context sensitive. The massing and materials of both do not respect or reflect the buildings adjacent to them. A good example of context sensitive design is 541 @ South Tower. It is new construction but with urban massing and art deco design built in 2016. But it does not appear anywhere in the Specific Plan or Design Standards
Page #44: CHP 1.5 The historic survey of South of Belmont West of Broadway should place priority on identifying historic buildings and assets at risk from industrial expansion and deferred maintenance.

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
CHP 1.7
●comment: The Belmont phoenix palms and the deodar cedars should be mentioned here or under 2.2
Page #47: CHP 2.1
●comment: This would be stronger if it said “hold accountable property owners…” instead of the more passive “work to preserve…”

03 Land Use
During the land use map initiation meeting with Fresno City Council, Councilmember Nelson Esparza motioned to study 604 N. San Pablo Ave for rezone from RS-5 to Mixed Use. That motion was seconded and voted affirmatively by all councilmembers. That rezone does not appear to be included on any map or text in the plan or EIR. The 604 N. San Pablo Ave. The property is owned by South Tower CLT and we have aspirations to develop a mixed use development on site. We would like to see that Council vote honored and included in this plan.

C3-3 Table 3.B in the EIR on page 3-21 the table assumes the loss of 6 housing units.

However a total of 24 units of existing housing are zoned industrial. We don’t understand why any homes should be lost for industrial expansion especially in the context that there are few mitigations to protect other housing that will become adjacent to industrial when those homes are lost and converted to industrial uses.

Table 3-B states there are 13 acres of vacant or underutilized Light Industrial with 6 units of housing to be removed. Can the plan identify the vacant / underutilized industrial land? Also of note during the planning process one industrial business Patton Air Conditioning purchased an existing home zoned industrial adjacent to other housing, they demolished the home and built a parking lot with bright lights and storage containers that are not appropriate for residential areas. Producers Dairy demolished several agricultural buildings from early 1900’s that were eligible for historic designation for a planned parking lot.

Table 3.A of the Draft EIR provides a summary of the existing non- residential square-footage and residential units within the Specific Plan Area under the existing General Plan Land Use Designations.

Table 3.B in the Draft EIR provides a summary of development capacity of vacant and underutilized sites based on proposed land use designations under the proposed project. Vacant parcels are shown in Figure 4.1 of the Specific Plan, and as shown in Table 3.1 of the Specific Plan, there will be no change in the acreage of Light Industrial land uses.

C3-4 EIR 3.6.2.3 states “Light industrial uses are located along the southwest boundary of the Specific Plan Area. These areas are important historical and economic centers, as they bring employment opportunities. Some of these businesses have This comment restates a sentence from the Draft EIR and expresses an opinion regarding existing land uses. This comment does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-38
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
been in the neighborhood for many decades and have long-standing relationships with local residents and institutions.”
of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

C3-5 Page #66 : Figure 3.2
●Comment: “Please show the community feedback that requested this downzoning.”
●Comment: The Cheese building and properties to its south need to be Public Facility with a NMXor CMS dual designation. It’s original designation should have been considered spot zoning. Keeping it industrial today is not incentivizing the property owner to maintain it per their covenant; instead it is incentivizing the continued use of the lot as an industrial parking lot in a residential neighborhood. ●Comment: Light industrial zoning needs to have an asterisk similar to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan to indicate the zoning will change when existing users leave. Or, there needs to be a policy committing the City to rezone this area should that occur. Office and Business Park should be examined as more neighborhood friendly alternatives.

Page #67: 3.6 Industrial and Employment Compatibility
●Comment: This statement is out of balance. While they are an old company, they haven’t always benefited the community. Instead they have a history of expansion into the neighborhood.

Quantify “important” and what is the value of that importance compared to the health of their neighbors? Or opportunity costs of lack of space for other uses and lowered property values for the neighborhood?
Page #67: 3.6 Industrial and Employment Compatibility
●Comment: How many employees? I’ve only heard a statistic referencing a distance of ten miles which includes Clovis and therefore is not just the neighborhood.

Page #67: 3.6 Industrial and Employment Compatibility
●Comment: Can the City verify that a dairy plant is a light industrial use and not a heavy industrial use and what keeps it from being considered a heavy use? Page #79: LU 4.3
This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.
3-39

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
●Comment: Drive throughs should not be allowed anywhere in the Tower District.

Also, they are already not allowed in CMS.

Page #81: LU 6.1 Maintain industrial zoning for existing industrial uses, while striving to mitigate their negative effects on residential areas. ●Comment: “Striving” is not a commitment. There is no try only do. “Consider…consider…explore…” this policy has no teeth and is simply lip service to the residents.
●Comment: Why aren’t there any design standards for Employment Uses including Industrial?
Page #81: LU 6.2 Allow light industrial uses to have neighborhood-serving retail. ●Comment: What about requiring CBAs anytime an industrial business wants to expand in the Tower?
Page #82: LU 6.4 Support the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in monitoring emissions.
●Comment: What is the point of this policy if it doesn’t require more than what’s already required?
C3-6 04 Parks and Public Spaces.

Per the EIR page 81, the Specific Plan area currently has 8 acres of parks accounting for 0.33 park acres per 1,000 residents short of the 3 acre per 1,000 residents standard in the 2035 General Plan and Parks Master Plan. This means the Tower District Specific Plan has a deficit of 64 acres of parks. The proposed policies and “park opportunities for study” identified on Figure 4.1 fall far short of filling the need for 64 acres of new park in the Tower District. This plan should identify at least 64 acres of new park within the plan area. It is appropriate to identify more that 64 acres of potential parks space knowing that some opportunities will not come to fruition.

As stated in Chapter 4.6 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measures REC-1a and REC-1b would be implemented to reduce potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan Update on parks and public facilities; however, because the existing amount of parkland and recreational facilities within the Specific Plan Area does not meet City standards, and no construction of new park facilities is planned through the implementation of the Specific Plan Update, this potential impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

C3-7 Page 90 : Figure 4.1
●Comment: Bradway Parque is complete and should not be noted as “planned” ●The vacant property on Clinton on the western edge of the plan area is under development now.

Page #93: Figure 4.3 Measure P Park Prioritization for Future Parks This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-40
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
●Comment: The data shows that there needs to be a stronger commitment to parks. Potential new parks should be shown on the land use map to give the City more opportunities to potentially add park space.

Page #94: Planned Parks
●Comment: disagree, the original subway was probably better Page #96: Canalside Parks
●Comment: herndon
Page #97: 4.4 Public Schools and Libraries
●Comment: highlighted typo of the word, “currently”
Page #101: POS 1.5 Pursue joint-use partnerships with schools in the Tower District.
●Comment: parking or parks?

1.Circulation
Page #119: 5.5 Pedestrians
●Comment: highlighted text of unfinished sentence under image in margin, “Sidewalk gaps, as in the south Tower District area, are a barrier to…” incomplete sentence
C3-8 05 Circulation
H Street and Weber are ideal for bicycle and pedestrian traffic to and from Tower District and Downtown. These roads should include pedestrian oriented lighting standards and protected bike lanes to keep those active transportation methods safe from truck traffic.

C3-9 06 Utilities

Page 155 ends

trail along Dry Creek Canal. The right of way along the canal has not been kept open to allow for a trail adjacent to the canal in many places. Undergrounding the canal into a pipe would allow for a trail above the canal and would reduce drowning risk, water contamination and evaporation. FID would be an essential partner in that work. Also FID is a potential blocker for development. Their requirements nearly stopped the development of the 541 @ South Tower development. FID needs to be proactively engaged.

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Although the City does not have direct control over electricity provision, it may be worthwhile to provide information on it since it can inhibit the development of new housing units, including ADUs. It also factors into sustainability and affordability.
a. Recommendation: Work with PG&E to determine priorities for transformer replacement and undergrounding of power lines.

6.4 Solid Waste - Trash enclosure requirements for commercial and multifamily residential or mixed use projects can be a barrier to designing quality urban site plans.
a. Recommendation: Allow for flexibility for urban developments on tight in-fill sites to utilize hand cart for solid waste, recycling and green waste rather than dumpsters. This will free up precious square footage for other uses while also encourage limiting waste produced on site.

Recommendation: Add publicly accessible trash cans on sidewalks throughout the commercial corridors that can be emptied with automated lift of existing garbage trucks to reduce cost of trash collection and limit trash overflows and littering.

Broadband internet access is a key equity issue.

Recommendation: Identify areas of Tower District that lack broadband access.

Work with broadband providers to encourage full coverage. 07 Implementation

Page 164 ends

that is an official committee of citizens appointed by the Mayor and City Councilmembers is not listed among the review bodies. Will that committee be dissolved? This may have some overlapping purpose with the description of the Tower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee and the Council District Project Review Committee. Additionally, the Council District Project Review Committees are listed twice.

Page 166 ends

name is South Tower Community Land Trust [South Tower CLT] Appendix B Health and Equity Evaluation
Page #190: Policy recommendations grid (orange)
●Comment: This row should have more negatives by to reflect the negative healthy and equity outcomes of keeping industrial in the neighborhood.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-42
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
C3-10 Noise Pollution - Despite public comments about noise pollution from the Producers Dairy industrial facility at Palm & Belmont, the three noise monitoring locations included in the EIR are nowhere near the Producers Dairy or an industrial zoned facility adjacent to residentials. Without proper study of the existing noise levels near the industrial section of South Tower, there is no baseline for noise mitigation measures. Only 3 sound monitors were included in this plan. We believe an additional monitor should be included at Palm & Franklin to capture the industrial noise levels adjacent to residential. Given other comments about concern of night life noise levels on the Olive corridor, it is appropriate to capture data somewhere along the Olive corridor.

Noise monitors are representative of the Specific Plan Area as a whole. The Draft EIR acknowledges that implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Update 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 in other applicable local, State, or federal standards. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would require project-specific noise studies, as identified in Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b.

C3-11 Light Pollution - The bright lights at Light Industrial businesses adjacent to residential uses has been uplifted during public comments as inappropriate for the peaceful enjoyment of those homes. A study of light pollution should be include in the EIR and mitigation measures should be proposed to limit light pollution bleeding from Industrial properties to residential ones.

The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix C of the Draft EIR) addressed potential impacts to aesthetics as a result of new light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Initial Study found that potential new sources of light and glare associated with the proposed project would not be substantial in the context of existing lighting sources in the Specific Plan Area. In addition, daytime glare would not be substantial because no highly reflective glass elements or building materials are proposed as part of the project. Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) standards address light and glare impacts to day-time and night-time views resulting from construction of the proposed project. Therefore, potential light and glare from the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

C3-12 EIR
Table 4.1.A does not include pollutants known to be included at the Producer’s Dairy facility. See 2019 settlement between EPA and Producers Dairy related to anhydrous ammonia. “Producers Dairy Foods’ industrial refrigeration system uses large quantities of anhydrous ammonia, a toxic chemical highly corrosive to skin, eyes and lungs.” https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epa-settlement- producers-dairy-foods-improves-chemical-safety-fresno-california The comment refers to a settlement between EPA and Producer’s Dairy regarding chemical safety and risk management violations.

Producers Dairy is an existing facility within the Tower District, and the proposed project does not include updates to the operational activities of the facility. The Draft EIR does include an evaluation of potential impacts to air quality due to the implementation of the Specific Plan Update in Chapter 4.1, Air Quality. Table 4.1.A of the Draft EIR lists the Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants as identified by CARB, and includes Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs).

Mitigation Measures AIR-1a and AIR-1b require future projects that prepare environmental evaluations under CEQA to submit an HRA to 3-43

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
the City Department of Development and Resource Management.

The HRAs would be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRAs show that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a future project is considered, the project applicant would be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

C3-13 Design Standards - Most notably the design standards & guidelines contain no section for Industrial Districts. A large amount of residential single family and mixed-use zones are adjacent to light industrial zones. The conflict and lack of mitigation of negative impacts by industrial has been the topic of many public comments through this process. The Design Standards are an excellent places to include standards for those mitigations but that opportunity is completely ignored.

This comment addresses the Design Standards and Guidelines and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

C3-14 Thanks again for the opportunity to comment and we hope these comments will be thoughtfully considered for their impact of health and equity of Tower District residents and for the advancement of developments being led by South Tower CLT.

C4 Diana Diehl
C4-1 Thank you for this opportunity to provide public comment on this important issue.

While I very much appreciate the hard work involved in creating this document, the TDSP Update does not do enough to protect residents from the heavily negative effects of the nightlife, deferring mostly to a future "entertainment district overlay."
Thanks to a long series of the City's choices, currently Tower's primary industry is drinking, and our secondary industry seems to be targeting the drinkers and their cars for crimes, which very much negatively impacts the health and equity of most residents regardless of their specific location."
This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-44
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
This Specific Plan Update prioritizes health and equity" but redlining is still very much evident in the Update, as special designation is given to the areas formerly holding racial covenants while the third grade "C" and fourth grade "D" south of Olive continue the ongoing disinvestment, south Tower not meriting any of the bespoke vintage-style Tower street signage below Olive AND even having our residential Dunbar Tracts at Dennett and Yosemite rezoned from residential to Commercial Main Street in this Plan.

Quite a slap in the face from a document that speaks about the long history of inequitable treatment in this very area. Somehow even the existing protections of the 1991 TDSP didn't save our historic Taylor and Wheeler homes from the City's industrialization. "Equity"? Someone's home is usually their largest asset, and the City just arbitrarily devalued over 20 residences for nonexistent business.

Expanding commercialization into residential areas while housing is desperately needed AND there's a real issue with Tower vacancy rates seems doubly wrong headed.

C4-2 Will this Plan protect all residents? Will everyone's "character-defining streetscape elements" be protected or only in certain areas, again? The 1991 TDSP mentions how valued are our street trees, yet not one of the 8 we've lost on Dennett since have ever been replaced.

This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the City of Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article 3 “Street Trees and Parkways” provides guidelines and requirements for the preservation and protection of existing street trees, as well as guidelines establishing the installation of City-owned trees along streets. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

C4-3 So much of Tower has already been lost to inappropriate development, and sadly these neighborhoods continue to suffer because through no fault of their own but through decades of the City pandering to developers, these areas are no longer "intact" enough to be considered "historic" and worthy of these special designations and protections, and so the decline continues while the formerly racially-covenanted properties continue to receive disparate benefits and special designations.

C4-4 I am also concerned that more high density and mid density housing is planned, because Tower already has had more than her fair share. Our street was built out As shown in Table 3.1 of the Specific Plan, Residential Medium density land uses will decrease by 4.6 percent, Residential Medium- 3-45

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
with mostly SFRs, and of the 13 houses, only 6 remain. The other 7 were cut into apartments or replaced with apartments after a damaging fire. The ENTIRE City of fresNo needs to get aboard the density train, not just distressed areas of Tower.

Stop telling us we're "lucky to get anything new" and then building a high-density tightly-packed eyesore.

High Density will increase by 0.4 percent, and Residential High Density will have no change in acreage. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix C of the Draft EIR) addressed potential impacts to land use. The Specific Plan Update would implement land use changes that would maintain and enhance the character-defining elements associated with the Tower District while allowing for future growth, and as shown in Table 3.1 of the Specific Plan, Residential Medium-Low density would increase by 4.1 percent.

Future development projects proposed in the zoning designations in the Specific Plan Area would be subject to regulations within the Development Code and the updated Design Guidelines and
Standards. Future projects would also conform to the requirements of the underlying zoning district, all applicable overlay districts, and all other Articles within the Development Code.

Implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Land use changes within the Specific Plan Area that would occur would be consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan to encourage housing opportunities and connectivity within communities. Therefore, the impact from implementation of the Specific Plan Update would be less than significant.

C4-5 The updated Plan mentions "nurturing the mutually supportive relationship between residential and vibrant commercial areas." Page 22 has a photo of a community meeting showing a large "be a good neighbor" sign and I'm wondering where does the Plan address the good-neighborship of the "vibrant commercial areas"? Because "equity"? residents already compromise a lot. A LOT.

C4-6 18-wheelers travel our residential streets daily delivering liquor and consumables to Olive, there are numerous commercial dumpsters along Olive that require daily services accessed from side streets the City blows the Tower parking lot at 6 a.m. to dislodge the sleeping unhoused, residents listen to Scrubcan and City trucks as public trash cans are serviced at 4 a.m., and our Olive sidewalks are covered with This comment discusses truck traffic on residential streets and general complaints within the Specific Plan Area. This comment does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is relevant

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-46
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
food and liquor garbage, urine and vomit that never seems to get washed away unless there's a City pressure-washing project.
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.

C4-7 It's noisy here, 24 hours a day. Tower residents recognize that the "vibrant commercial areas" need services to operate. But WHERE are the "vibrant commercial areas" compromising for the residents? The City doesn't even enforce the mandate to secure commercial trash, which is certainly part of the reason Tower streets are so trashy. Meanwhile, local Tower businessman publicly announces that he's not obliged to clean up outside his Wishon bar, because his "excessive City taxes" should cover those services.

Noise. Noise, noise, noise. The updated Plan mentions the ill health effects of ongoing excessive noise. The updated Plan mentions "noise mitigation" in the context of the vibrant commercial areas negatively affecting adjacent residents, but fails to note that the RESIDENTS should never be the sole notice/enforcement process.

How Tower noise complaints currently work: residents are awakened by window- rattling music at 1 a.m., and call the non-emergency police number where after waiting on hold for 10+ minutes, they are told that a specific address is required before the PD can accept any complaint.

Resident gets dressed and walks to Olive and must determine if the window rattling is caused by the excessively loud music coming from Veni's open door, if the excessively loud music is coming from the mobile vendor food trailer blocking parking spaces at International Furniture or the mobile vendor food trailer blocking parking spaces at Detention, or if the excessively loud music is coming from Vibez or Splash patios, or if the excessively loud music is coming from the hot dog cart in the Wishon/Olive parking lot, or if the excessively loud music is coming from the mobile DJ's speakers plugged in at the City-owned Tower Theater, or if the excessively loud music is coming from the unlicensed 24 hour business next door, or if the excessively loud music is just coming from some random parked tailgating party car. The resident will almost certainly walk past more than one police vehicle in this process.

Once the specific address is secured, the resident calls back the non-emergency police number and waits on hold for another 10 minutes. The resident provides the specific address and makes their complaint and is told that this isn't the first complaint but police calls are very busy right now but maybe later they can send This comment discusses how noise complaints are addressed in the Tower District. This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.
3-47

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
someone to the area. Having just walked past 3 or 4 parked patrol cars, this is disheartening to hear. The morning of the next day, the resident calls the non- emergency police number to follow up, and is told that there's no record of any noise complaint from last night.

This "process" is insulting to residents and BEYOND ridiculous and the City should be monitoring these fully foreseeable ongoing noise issues as part of their code enforcement. Not relying upon specific complaints that the City then ignores and conveniently doesn't even track.

When the City changes the character of a neighborhood by promoting nightlife and an "entertainment district" and licenses and inspects businesses adjacent to residential, the City should be aggressive and diligent in discovery of new or non- conforming business entities to ensure that they are appropriate and a good fit for a family neighborhood, and not overrepresented - too many smoke shops, e.g.

The City sends the police to Tower to set up enforcement traps and DUI checkpoints, and parks patrol cars at Detention or Roger Rocka's to monitor the crowd drinking on the street. But issues for Tower residents go unaddressed - neighbors report break-ins, broken windows, even hot prowl burglaries, and the police never respond. The City process seems to only serve business needs.

Where is the "human focused design" in that?
Looking forward to the updated Plan's "enhanced livability" because imposing an expanding nightlife on residents is the opposite of that. Also looking forward to the "sustainability" cited by the Update because approving increasing numbers of drinking places in a small residential neighborhood is NOT a sustainable business model when more and more entities are fighting for the same dwindling number of entertainment dollars.

C4-8 Little two-lane Olive now has the additional traffic from the closed Hwy 99 exits at Belmont and McKinley, plus the HSR construction. This is an unprecedented amount of industrial and commuter traffic dumped into our historic residential This comment is in regard to vehicle traffic from the closed SR-99 exits at Belmont Avenue and West McKinley Avenue, and High Speed Rail construction. Impacts from projects outside the scope of this EIR

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-48
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
neighborhood via an extremely narrow road. The Plan Update does not address mitigating the impact of this. We already suffer excess traffic short-cuts from drivers frustrated by the lane changes, protected bike lanes, mobile vendor food trailers, and the parklets, on top of the nightly tourist cars and those who come to prey upon the visitors. This traffic will affect air quality, noise, and our quality of life.

Looking forward to "calming auto oriented roadways" because our previous efforts to bring this issue to the City's attention have been met with an unusual amount of great difficulty, resistance, and excuses.
are addressed in their own environmental documents. A trip generation analysis was conducted for the proposed project and found that the Specific Plan Update is anticipated to generate a maximum of 199 additional peak hour trips compared to the adopted specific plan, which is less than the 200 peak hour trip threshold requirement for Transportation Impact Study (TIS) or detailed Level of Service (LOS) analysis. As such, a TIS is not required for the proposed project per the City’s General Plan goals and policies. However, individual future projects within the Specific Plan Area that are facilitated by the Specific Plan Update and meet the requirements for a TIS or a detailed LOS analysis Caltrans and safety analysis, would be required to conduct such studies at a project level in order to determine the individual project-related potential operational deficiencies, and recommend/implement operational improvements for eliminating such operational deficiencies. Additionally, individual future projects within the Specific Plan Area that are facilitated by the Specific Plan Update would be required to prepare project-level CEQA analysis to evaluate potential impacts to air quality and noise.

C4-9 The Plan Update is fairly silent about our parking issues. Our driveways and the fire hydrant are blocked or obstructed daily by parking tourists, and despite our "walkability" and notable pedestrian traffic, not even the crosswalk Daylighting laws are enforced in Tower. There are regular stop sign traps, but only on weekend nights. So much for Safe Routes To School.

Much of the City-owned Tower Theater parking lot is often blocked off to the public for paid reserved parking. It is not fair for the City to permit the residential streets to be used for pre-and post-game tailgating from 10pm until 3am. The City should study the parking issue and provide tourists with signage and maps instead of inflicting these issues on residents.

A residential parking permit district sounds awesome, or even metered parking for evenings and events. Our street is already crowded with parked cars: a 19-unit Airbnb with zero offstreet parking, a 400-person event venue with a shared 20- space parking lot, an 8-unit apartment complex with 24 bedrooms and only 10 parking spaces.

This comment discusses parking issues and safety in the Tower District. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix C of the Draft EIR) addressed potential impacts to safety and public facilities in Section XV, Public Services. The analysis included in the Initial Study determined that potential impacts related to these topics to be less than significant. The incremental increase in demand for fire and police services would not adversely affect existing response times to the site or within the City.

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
On weekends between the hours of 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., our street often looks like the Walmart parking lot on Christmas Eve - lines of cars jockeying for parking, drivers honking and shouting, loud stereos and car alarms. Meanwhile, there's not ONE car parked on Wishon or Fulton or at the Golden, Veni, or Babylon parking lots despite being so much closer to the nightlife. Why are so many seeking privacy for parking AND what is the impact of that decision on residents? How about installing (optional) "residential quiet zones" so that the families in these family neighborhoods can sleep at night?
Utilities should be underground or concealed as much as possible in some sort of period-appropriate or decorative box especially when installed on private property or on residential streets, and City staff should be working to identify these eyesores and attractive nuisances and have them removed or improved because keeping Comcast property graffiti-free is a full time job in Tower.

LU 5.4 "future street vending programs" is concerning; it is not at all equitable to divert commuter traffic from Olive to Dennett (the "Safe Route To School") for a weekly food truck event program that DIRECTLY COMPETES with our local businesses. Any street vending programs should be sensitive to and not competitive with existing local businesses, and any road closures should be sensitive to school routes and the needs of and the impact upon existing local residents.

Short-term rentals affect Tower neighborhoods, especially vis-a-vis drinking and driving and the impact on visitor street parking. The impact of Airbnbs etc should be addressed as part of the updated Plan.

C4-10 It was difficult to read the updated Plan, knowing all too well how readily the first Plan has been disregarded all these years. Many of the issues listed have been previously raised with the City repeatedly since 1991 only to go absolutely nowhere or be rudely blown off. Hoping that this Plan isn't also just pretty words to be ignored every time it's financially or politically expedient.

I love this neighborhood. I've loved it since 1981. I loved it so much I bought two properties here and planned to stay forever. But I've noticed that no matter how much the City talks about mixed-use compromise and "mutual benefit," it's the residents who are expected to bend for convenience every time, and the Updated Plan seems like more of the same. More protections for residents, please. The houses will still be here long after the businesses go broke.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-50
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
C5 Neva Popenoe
C5-1 Hello,
I would like to offer a few comments regarding the proposed Tower District Specific Plan Update. Below are a few items that I don’t believe were sufficiently addressed and some suggested edits:

C5-2 1. Adjust industrial zones to exclude housing units. Industrial zones include several residential properties and they should not be included in the industrial zoning.

This comment states that industrial zones should be adjusted to exclude existing housing units. As shown in Table 3.1 of the Specific Plan, there will be no change in Light Industrial land uses.

Additionally, implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Land use changes within the Specific Plan Area that would occur would be consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan to encourage housing opportunities and connectivity within communities. This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

C5-3 2. Provide more park areas with green space. The plan lists schools and Ted C Wills as public areas and parks, but they have limited hours, and often do not allow families to have access to green space on weekends. Provide open space areas throughout the District, and don’t include areas that are limited in access and space.

This comment states open space areas should be provided throughout the Tower District. As described in Chapter 4.6 of the EIR, Mitigation Measures REC-1a and REC-1b would reduce potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan Update on parks and public facilities; however, because the existing amount of parkland and recreational facilities within the Specific Plan Area does not meet City standards, and no construction of new park facilities is planned through the implementation of the Specific Plan Update, this potential impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an 3-51

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

C5-4 3. Restrict truck traffic through areas with residential properties. While many areas may be designated travel corridors, these are areas where people live, and should not be subject to air pollution because they have more affordable housing in these pockets. The people living along the corridors or in or adjacent to industrial zones do not deserve to have higher levels of pollution.

This comment expresses concern regarding truck traffic and emissions near residential properties. The Specific Plan discusses truck traffic and exposure to air pollution due to truck routes in Section 5, Circulation and includes objectives and policies, such C 5 to “minimize the impact of truck traffic on the residential neighborhoods of the Tower District.” Additionally, as discussed under Impact AIR-3 of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.1-36, development under the proposed project that would emit TACs would require review under SJVAPCD rules and regulations or review under CEQA, especially if located near sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure AIR- 1c requires that new sensitive land uses should be located to avoid conflicts with the buffer distances recommended in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. If such uses fall within these buffers, projects must either install enhanced filtration or prepare a Health Risk Assessment, with mitigation required if SJVAPCD thresholds are exceeded. This mitigation measure is consistent with the goals of the CERP, and encourages the City to further assess the emission reduction measures and strategies contained in the CERP and address them in the Project in order to reduce air exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities. 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.

C5-5 4. Require air monitoring throughout the district, particularly in industrial areas and travel corridors. Air quality monitors should be available for public viewing.

This comment recommends that public air quality monitors be installed throughout the District. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, and installation of air monitors would not be directly related to an impact resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan. As noted on page 4.1-23 in the

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

3-52
Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Draft EIR, there are several objectives and policies in the City's General Plan which establish a blueprint for ensuring physical development within the city is properly evaluated for all potential air quality impacts, and that the City maintains direct coordination with SJVAPCD, which monitors air quality in the San Joaquin Valley, to achieve compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria air pollutants, consistent with the SJVAPCD’s goal of minimizing air quality impacts. As shown in Table 4.1.G and 4.1.H of the Draft EIR, construction and operational emissions for buildout of the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD annual significance thresholds. As noted on page 4.1-32 of the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would result in many individual development projects for which information regarding specifics are currently unknown. Future development under the proposed project would be required to complete site-specific analysis to assess any potential impacts related to air quality.

C5-6 5. Do not limit density in any area. Infill should not be restricted in historical areas.

Houses throughout the Tower district are more than 100 years old, and there is no reason one block should have special treatment because its historic connection as a better graded property zone. There is something troubling about continuing such a designation.

This comment states areas with historic designation should not have limited density or infill restrictions. This comment addresses the Specific Plan itself and does not address the adequacy of completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise an environmental issue; and does not request the incorporation of additional information be added to the Draft EIR which is 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.

C5-7 6. Provide better and more shelters at bus stops. In the hottest time of the year, I’ve seen people look like they were about to pass out waiting for the bus at the northeast corner of Olive and Van Ness and this is a designated sheltered bus stop. There is no shade at the seats during certain times of the day, and should not be considered a sheltered bus stop, as there is no shade near the bus stop.

The bus stops along Olive and Fulton are some of the busiest and they have very few sheltered stops, and as stated, the shelters are grossly inadequate.

This comment expresses safety concerns related to bus stops located within the District. Bus stops and shelters in the Tower District are associated with the City’s Fresno Area Express “FAX” transportation service. Issues regarding safety associated with FAX services are not within the scope of this EIR but have been noted. 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.

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

4-1

4.0 DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS
This chapter presents specific changes to the text of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (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 of Fresno (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 mitigation measure AIR-1c in the Executive Summary Matrix on page 1-8 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure AIR-1c Locate new sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook).

Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City.

If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

The following staff-initiated text revision is made to mitigation measure BIO-1a in the Executive Summary Matrix on page 1-12 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a Avoidance Measures for Bats.

1. A qualified biologist with experience in assessing trees for bat roosts will survey all trees to be removed during construction within 500 feet of the construction footprint for suitability as bat roosts. If a tree planned for removal is deemed suitable, the qualified biologist will conduct a night emergence survey of the suitable roost tree 1 to 2 nights prior to tree removal using night vision and/or infrared-sensitive camera equipment and
bioacoustic recording equipment. If surveys are negative, trees should be removed immediately.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

4-2

2. If night emergent surveys are positive, trees should be removed using a two-step process for 2 consecutive days and should be monitored by a qualified biologist. On the first day, small branches and small limbs that do not contain potential roost habitat (e.g., cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark) will be removed using chainsaws. On the second day, the remainder of the tree will be removed. The disturbance caused by chainsaw noise and vibration, coupled with the physical alteration of the tree will cause colonial bat species to abandon the roost tree after nightly emergence for foraging. Removing the tree the next day prevents re-habituation and re-occupation of the altered tree.

3. Any trees suitable as bat roost will be removed during one of the following periods to avoid harm to young or hibernating bats:
a. Between approximately March 1 and April 15 (or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit
[°F], and less than 0.5 inch of rainfall in 24 hours occurs). b. After maternity season and prior to winter torpor or hibernation, September 1 through about October 15 (or
before evening temperatures fall below 45°F, and prior to greater than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours).

For trees that will not be removed but which are actively in use as a roost, a no disturbance buffer shall be implemented. If a maternity roost is confirmed, the no disturbance buffer will be 500 feet until it is confirmed that the young are no longer reliant on parental care or the bats have left the area. For all other roosts, the no disturbance buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist based on the conditions at the site and the planned construction activities. The qualified biologist may identify other avoidance measures to be implemented during construction, such as restricting work to specific times of day, to support no disturbance buffers of less than 50 feet.

The following staff-initiated text revision is made to Mitigation Measure NOI-1a and Mitigation Measure NOI-1b in the Executive Summary Matrix on page 1-29 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), and prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, the construction contractor shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on off-site sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site.

The project-level construction noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Planning and

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

4-3
Development Director. Measures shall be implemented to reduce construction noise to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria or below if construction noise impacts are identified. Measures may include, but are not limited to the installation of temporary construction barriers.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1b Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), a project-specific noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to determine the noise levels generated from long-term operations of future projects associated with implementation of the Tower District Specific Plan Update, and measures will be included as necessary to reduce noise levels and ensure compliance with the City of Fresno’s stationary noise standards. The project specific noise study will be submitted to the city for review and approval. Noise reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or soundwalls) or by using equipment that has a quieter rating.

SECTION 4.1, AIR QUALITY
The following text revision is made to Mitigation Measure AIR-1c on page 4.1-43 of the Draft EIR:

Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City.

SECTION 4.2, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following text revision is made to Mitigation Measure BIO-1a on page 4.2-25 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a Avoidance Measures for Bats.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

4-4
qualified biologist will conduct a night emergence survey of the suitable roost tree 1 to 2 nights prior to tree removal using night vision and/or infrared-sensitive camera equipment and
bioacoustic recording equipment. If surveys are negative, trees should be removed immediately.

SECTION 4.5, NOISE
The following text revision is made to Mitigation Measure NOI-1a and Mitigation Measure NOI-1b on page 4.5-20 of the Draft EIR:

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

4-5
Mitigation Measure NOI-1a Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), and prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, the construction contractor shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on off-site sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site.

The project-level construction noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Director. Measures shall be implemented to reduce construction noise to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria or below if construction noise impacts are identified. Measures may include, but are not limited to the installation of temporary construction barriers.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

4-6
This page intentionally left blank

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

APPENDIX L

PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS DOCUMENT
N OVEMBER 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) 905-9371 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 25,
2025
FRE-180-57.58
Not
ice of Availability -Tower District Specific Plan Update EIR GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/36453

SENT VIA EMAIL
Sophia
Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Dear Mx.

Pagoulatos,
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 6 appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tower District Specific Plan Update. Our comments are submitted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and in our role as a responsible agency with jurisdiction over the State Highway System (SHS), particularly State Route 180 (SR -180), which lies within the Specific Plan boundaries.

The Specific Plan area is generally bounded by State Route (SR) 180 to the south, Blackstone Avenue to the east, Shields Avenue to the north, and Fruit Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west. As such, Caltrans has a direct interest in ensuring that proposed development does not adversely affect the operation or safety of the SHS.

The Specific Plan Objective C 4.2 states, “Initiate pedestrian improvements at the SR 180 Access Ramps.” Caltrans recognizes the importance of complete streets in supporting our mission to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Early involvement with Caltrans is recommended for City of Fresno complete street improvements on Fulton Street, Van Ness Avenue, and Belmont Avenue near the SR 180 access ramps.

Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) Number 94, issued in accordance with the Director’s Policy on Complete Streets (DP -37), is a document that provides flexibility in the design of context-sensitive facilities that serve travelers of all ages and abilities, and would be beneficial guidance in the development of City complete street projects.

A1
A1-1
A1-2
Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos – Notice of Availability -Tower District Specific Plan Update EIR August 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Also, it is important that the City of Fresno considers potential transportation safety impacts to the State Highway System during the Local Development Review (LDR) process. The February 2024 Caltrans Local Development Review Safety Practitioner’s Guidance, provides guidance for analyzing the safety impacts of proposed land use projects and plans on local roadways and prioritizes vulnerable road The Draft EIR identifies several areas of controversy based on input received during the scoping process, including queueing near SR 180 ramps, increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and consistency with Statewide Transportation and Climate Plans.

Caltrans supports the City’s identification of these issues and recommends that the Final EIR provide additional clarity on how the Specific Plan Update will address them. This will ensure protection of the SHS and alignment with state and regional transportation objectives.

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

Sincerely,
David Pad
illa, Branch Chief
Local Development Review
[email protected]
(559) 905-9371
A1-3
A1
A1-4
A2
A2-1
A2-2
A2
A2-2
Cont.

A2-3
A2-4
A2
A2-4
Cont.

A2-5
A2-6
A2
A2-6
Cont.

A2
A2-7
A2-8
A2-9
A2
A2-10
From: Luna, Hector
To: Sophia Pagoulatos
Cc: Hines, Brody
Subject: RE: Tower District Specific Plan EIR Notice of Availability Date: Friday, August 15, 2025 11:45:03 AM
Attachments: image003.png
image005.png
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
The County recommends project specific traffic analysis should also include nearby County- maintained roads, such as N. Palm Avenue and N. Van Ness Blvd., which may be affected by the development approved by the City of Fresno. An analysis of these roads would help evaluate the project's impact on existing and future traffic and determine if and/or when additional infrastructure is needed.

Regards,
Hector E. Luna| Principal Planner
Department of Public Works and Planning |
Water and Natural Resources Division
2220 Tulare St. 6th Floor Fresno, CA 93721
Main Office: (559) 600-4292 | Direct: (559) 600-9672
Email: [email protected]
Your input matters! Customer Service Survey
From: Sophia Pagoulatos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:30 AM
To: LongRangePlanning <[email protected]>
Subject: Tower District Specific Plan EIR Notice of Availability

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE

TOWER DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Fresno (City), as the Lead Agency, has completed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tower District Specific Plan Update (“Specific Plan Update” or “proposed project”), which is being distributed for public review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Public Resources Code.

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project will apply to development in the Tower District located within the City of Fresno. The Tower District Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) consists of approximately B1
B1-1
1,869 acres, is centrally located within Fresno and is home to approximately 20,200 residents.

The Tower District is generally bound by Shields Avenue to the north, Blackstone Avenue to the east, SR-180 to the south, and Fruit Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west. The Tower District is the geographic area for which the Specific Plan Update establishes policies related to conservation, future growth, and change.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would update the 1991 Tower District Specific Plan (1991 Specific Plan) to respond to both continuing and new issues in the Tower District. Recent decades have led to greater emphasis on housing availability and affordability, expanding recreational opportunities, and calming auto-oriented roadways. At the same time, the Specific Plan Update maintains the guiding principles from the 1991 Specific Plan and continues the focus on neighborhood character, walkability, and historic resources.

The intent of the proposed project is to provide strategic and comprehensive guidance for making decisions regarding the Tower District’s built environment and landscape character, land use and activities, public open space, community facilities, transportation, and other forms of infrastructure within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Update establishes a set of goals, objectives, policies, and implementing actions for both neighborhood conservation and the future growth and change of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Update also aids in implementing the broader goals and policies for the City of Fresno, outlined in the General Plan, in a manner that can better meet the needs of the Tower District.

This update is intended to streamline development within the Specific Plan Area by updating the Specific Plan’s environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA requirements, and by providing a current regulatory framework and applicable mitigation measures.

The proposed project would also implement land use changes that would maintain and enhance the character-defining elements associated with the Tower District while allowing for future growth. The Specific Plan Update would promote more mixed-use development along commercial corridors by re-designating a portion of Blackstone Avenue from neighborhood mixed use to corridor/center mixed-use and by re-designating a portion of Shields Avenue from office to neighborhood mixed-use areas, specifically on Blackstone Avenue and Shields Avenue. The Specific Plan Update would also expand the Apartment House (AH) Overlay zoning designation along Olive Avenue, from North Fruit Avenue to North Echo Avenue, and allow medium low density residential uses at Terrace Gardens, Porter Tract, and Wilson Island. Additionally, the existing Tower District Design Guidelines adopted in 2005 are proposed to be updated by the Tower District Design Standards and Guidelines as part of the proposed project. The updated Design Standards and Guidelines reflect the policy direction of the Specific Plan Update and are intended to result in compatible development.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
B1
Hard copies of the Draft EIR, Specific Plan, and Design Standards and Guidelines are available for review at the following locations:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Third Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Monday through Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday: Closed City of Fresno Central Library
2420 Mariposa Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Monday through Thursday: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday: 10:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Gillis Branch Library
629 West Dakota Avenue
Fresno, CA 93705
Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Sunday: Closed
The Draft EIR, Specific Plan, and Design Standards and Guidelines are also available on the City’s website at:
www.fresno.gov/tdsp
Documents incorporated by reference can be viewed at the Planning and Development Department.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The City of Fresno will receive public comments on the Draft EIR from August 15, 2025, through September 29, 2025. Comments will also be received on the Specific Plan and Design Standards and Guidelines. Written comments should be received no later than 5 pm (PST) on September 29, 2025. Please send your written comments to the Planning and Development Department and include your name, address, and phone number and/or email address so that we may contact you for clarification, if necessary. Comments may be made in person, by first class mail, facsimile or email to:

B1
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Third Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Email: [email protected]

ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Draft EIR identifies potential significant effects in the following areas:
· Air Quality
· Biological Resources
· Cultural Resources
· GHG
· Noise
· Recreation
All other environmental issues were determined to have no impact, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation measures incorporated. Mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR would reduce the potentially significant effects to a less- than-significant level in all areas except Recreation.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15087(c)(6), the notice shall include presence of a site on any of the lists of sites enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, including but not limited to, lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites and others, and the information in the Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement required under subdivision (f) of that section. There is one site within the Specific Plan Area identified as an evaluation site consistent with Government Code Section 65962.5.

Sophia Pagoulatos | Planning Manager
Long Range Planning | Planning & Development
City of Fresno | 2600 Fresno St | Fresno CA 93721
559.621.8062
[email protected]
Resources: Long Range Planning | GIS & Mapping
Citywide Development Code | Plans & Projects Under Review B1
2907 S. Maple Avenue
Fresno, California 93725-2208
Telephone: (559} 233-7161
Fax: (559} 233-8227
CONVEYANCE. COMMITMENT. CUSTOMER SERVICE.

September 11, 2025
Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning and Development Department
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
RE: Notice of Availability of an Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) has reviewed the Notice of Availability of an Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan (Project). We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject documents for the proposed project. FID's comments are as follows:

Impacted Facilities

1. FID has a canal within the Project Area as shown on the attached FID exhibit map. The facility is Dry Creek Canal No. 75. Fl D's canals range from smaller diameter pipelines to large open canals. In most cases, the existing facilities will need to be upgraded to meet then-current urban standards and increase accessibility. FID will impose the same conditions on future projects as it would with any other project located within the common boundary of the City of Fresno and FID. FID will require that it review and approve all maps and plans which impact FID canals and easements.
a. Large Canal Crossing - The Dry Creek Canal No. 75 is a large canal and will more than likely be too large to be contained within a pipeline.

Development impacts to this facility shall require designs that protect the canal's integrity for an urban setting including the need for access and full right-of-way widths for FID's operations and maintenance needs.

2. FID's facility within the Planning Area carries irrigation water for FID users and recharge water for the City of Fresno, during the irrigation season and flood waters during the winter months.

3. Canal Access - FID will continue to access the Canal from public roads. In order G:\Agencies\FresnoCily\EIR'P��8�MtWJl'r!JijAr'5 M�ffl\No/i'&!� 1J>�Eff e°��rJ�it�'vi �'k'f �cJoJR. CHRISTO pH ER WOOLF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS GEORGE PORTER GREGORY BEBERIAN General Manager BILL STRETCH B2
B2-1
B2-2
BB2-4
B2-2B2-2
B2-3
Sophia Pagoulatos
Re: NOA EIR, Tower District
May 29, 2019

Page 2 ends

to access the maintenance bank with our larger equipment, FID requires a drive approaches wide enough to accommodate the equipment. FID requires a 50-foot wide drive approach narrowing to a 20 feet wide drive banks. The 50-foot width is defined as starting from the end portion of a bridge/railing outward (away from the bridge). Every road and canal intersection is different and therefore each access will be different. The major factors affecting the proposed width will be the angle of the road intersecting the Canal, grade of canal bank vs. City road, median vs. no median, etc.
a. If guard railings extend beyond attachment points at each wing-wall, they will obstruct FID's access to the canal and additional right-of-way will need to be acquired. FID will require the developer demonstrate FID's longest vehicle will be able to make the turns onto the drive banks. FID's right-of way is a minimum 20-feet from the canal hinge on both sides of the canal, and FID will require the developer acquire and dedicate to FID exclusive easements for this purpose.

4. Canal Banks - If there will be any work on canal banks, the following will apply:
a. All in-channel disturbed soil shall be concrete lined (both side slopes and bottom). FID will require reinforced concrete to limit the on-going maintenance that typically occurs with gunite or shotcrete slope protection. b. Drive banks must be sloped a minimum of 2% away with a maximum of 4% from the canal with provisions made for rainfall. Drainage will not be accepted into the Canal and must be routed away from FID property/drive banks. Runoff must be conveyed to nearby public streets or drainage system by drainage swales or other FID acceptable alternatives outside FID's easements/property.
c. All existing trees, bushes, debris, old canal structures, pumps, canal gates, and other non- or in-active FID and private structures must be removed within FID's property/easement and the City's project limits.

5. Trail - It is FID's understanding that many trails are master-planned within the Project Area. The following requirements are intended for trail projects adjacent to FID-owned properties and rights-of-ways for open canals:
a. FID will not allow the trail easement to be in common use with FID-owned property or easements.
b. FID requires all trail improvements be placed outside of FID-owned properties and easements.

G:\Agcncies\FrcsnoCity\EIR\Tower District Specific Plan Update\NOA_EIR Tower District Specific Plan.doc B2
B2-4
Cont.

B2-5
B2-6
Sophia Pagoulatos
Re: NOA EIR, Tower District
May 29, 2019

Page 3 of 4 ends

c. FID will not allow any portion of a tree canopy to encroach within its properties or easements.
d. Fl D's canals will not accept any drainage from the trail or the canal bank. e. FID may require some improvements be made to the canal depending on the existing canal condition, the proposed trail, and the adjacent development.
f. City parks that are adjacent to open canals are treated the same as trails, therefore the same requirements shall apply.

Water Supply Impact

1. The document must consider whether the City's Water Master Plan may impact the developments within the Planning Area. The report must consider and evaluate the City's growth within the planning area and any other concerns including climate change, and whether the City's Water Master Plan can still provide the necessary guidance for the City.

2. The City of Fresno has implemented many of the projects previously proposed in the City's Water Master Plan. The Proposed document should consider and evaluated whether the constructed projects have resulted in benefits that were anticipated.

3. Any changes in land use should be such that the need for water is minimized and/or reduced so that groundwater impacts to the proposed project area and any surrounding areas are eliminated.

4. If treated surface water will be used and the City has a deficit water supply or groundwater levels continue to drop, the City must acquire additional water from a water purveyor, such as FID for that purpose, so as to not impact water supplies to or create greater water supply deficits in other areas of the City or in the groundwater basin. Water supply issues must be resolved before any further "hardening" of the water supply demand is allowed to take place.

5. The potential for increase in water consumption by the project will result in additional groundwater overdraft. There is a significant cone of depression beneath the City of Fresno. FID is concerned that the increased water demand due to a change in land use may have a significant impact to the groundwater quantity and/or quality underneath the City of Fresno, FID and the Kings Groundwater Sub-basin. The "demand" side of water consumed needs to be evaluated or scrutinized as much as the "supply" side of the water supply. Many of the areas are historically native, and/or rural residential with minimal to no water use. Under current circumstances the project area is experiencing a G:\Agcncics\FrcsnoCity\EIR\Towcr District Specific Plan Upclatc\NOA_EIR Tower District Specific Plan.doc B2
B- 2-11
B2-10
B2-9
B2-8
B2-7
B2-6
Cont.

Sophia Pagoulatos
Re: NOA EIR, Tower District
May 29, 2019

Page 4 of 4 ends

modest but continuing groundwater overdraft. Should the proposed project result in a significant increase in dependence on groundwater, this deficit will increase.

FID recommends the City of Fresno require proposed projects balance anticipated groundwater use with sufficient recharge of imported surface water in order to preclude increasing the area's existing groundwater overdraft problem.

6. California enacted landmark legislation in 2014 known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The act requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based management plans. FID and the City of Fresno are members of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency which will manage the groundwater basin within the FID service area. This area is in an over drafted groundwater basin and SGMA will impact all users of groundwater and those who rely on it. The City of Fresno should consider the impacts of the project on the City's ability to comply with the requirements of SGMA.

Thank you for making available to us the Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report for our review and allowing us the opportunity to provide comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject documents for this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me Jeremy Landrith at (559) 233-7161 extension 7407 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Laurence Kimura, P.E.

Chief Engineer
Attachments
G:\/\gcncics\l'rcsnoCity\EIR\Towcr Dislrict Specific Pinn Updntc\NOA_EIR Tower Dislrict Specific Pinn.doc B2
B2-11
Cont.

B2-12
B2-13
�� 1RR.::::.,11ot,ctsTR.:::-r
Lt:9=fld
=�,o�
=Pn�-.,1.eC;,n:il
--►10 �P«hO
= = i?n�':11• P\ptt"H"'
�At,.:r"�ont"OC:-.lt�I ..... Nl,:,"'OJ11c,d �n:-
��t�mC�Ol.:C
:==::Othor-Ct-od<lRmr
--ou,��r""!
0,i, '1.$tt.('. f..trl.."'l)f,dr �OC:Tdl)"I�). tmd Le'II! G,,S U� (or,,�"t;n11\' �::::t St) Bou-.,.,,
--t-- Ri:alfColO
-- S.T�'"e &1-1:\W�
::>;,rco1
IZ:5Z] Ff.lFCOAr.:Qu.rc-c ��
LJ llMI CO Pro�� ,n�
)Q . .tn.l r.-t..1wiu:
�-t!:' lt.:O!l :.:a, :)o-.A1tPW'l1t C.."=mw r,•_1_1,,....,_:..:;.:..L '7nS m;ap ""...s proo.xed bY � ffestto .trrtg;itiC('I �stna ;inc is O'OYldi-0 ra- n:r«r.:Y..t :N:S 1..-rlarm.;:»':�n;,J pulj»'.'..ci: en"', ;ir� t. rd 1nk'r.O.� to �hew r:-.:p :z:::i� �"'V �r .:U hc.l1J;tli'C' m::p fo.xurc:.. ncr !er �I r::ur:,o::a.. ►:o rr�k= r.o ��.: n!9ii:1L'0-"9 tnc .:ccur.,cy :,f tha: l'n.'"P :c:: � f-=..:tun::; ::.ho...,n .,,-e h trdr �Xm.:f.t: loc:t'j:,n. J:'te.zc c:� �he fl'O Ero� De,:(. &l (559) 233•7l6l fo- ru-= iofOfmBtion oo FID f;,cllUes.

V..nl'r o:l·•_l •�•••�CJ!. 1,u ,A.o.\'tt'r_.,:1>1
0 I I
■I
N
@
1,000 2.000
I I
Fee,
B2
B2-14
Christopher Lundeen
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sophia Pagoulatos < [email protected]>
Friday, August 15, 2025 8:30 AM
LongRangePlanning
Tower District Specific Plan EIR Notice of Availability I Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE

TOWER DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Fresno (City), as the Lead Agency, has completed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tower District Specific Plan Update ("Specific Plan Update" or "proposed project"), which is being distributed for public review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Public Resources Code.

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project will apply to development in the Tower District located within the City of Fresno.

The Tower District Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) consists of approximately 1,869 acres, is centrally located within Fresno and is home to approximately 20,200 residents. The Tower District is generally bound by Shields Avenue to the north, Blackstone Avenue to the east, SR-180 to the south, and Fruit Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west. The Tower District is the geographic area for which the Specific Plan Update establishes policies related to conservation, future growth, and change.

The intent of the proposed project is to provide strategic and comprehensive guidance for mal<ing decisions regarding the Tower District's built environment and landscape character, land use and activities, public open space, community facilities, transportation, and other forms of infrastructure within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Update establishes a set of goals, objectives, policies, and implementing actions for both neighborhood conservation and the future growth and change of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Update also aids in implementing the broader goals and policies for the City of Fresno, outlined in the General Plan, in a manner that can better meet the needs of the Tower District. This update is intended to streamline development within the Specific Plan Area by updating the Specific Plan's environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA requirements, and by providing a current regulatory framework and applicable mitigation measures.

B2
The proposed project would also implement land use changes that would maintain and enhance the character-defining elements associated with the Tower District while allowing for future growth. The Specific Plan Update would promote more mixed-use development along commercial corridors by re designating a portion of Blackstone Avenue from neighborhood mixed use to corridor/center mixed-use and by re-designating a portion of Shields Avenue from office to neighborhood mixed-use areas, specifically on Blackstone Avenue and Shields Avenue. The Specific Plan Update would also expand the Apartment House (AH) Overlay zoning designation along Olive Avenue, from North Fruit Avenue to North Echo Avenue, and allow medium low density residential uses at Terrace Gardens, Porter Tract, and Wilson Island. Additionally, the existing Tower District Design Guidelines adopted in 2005 are proposed to be updated by the Tower District Design Standards and Guidelines as part of the proposed project. The updated Design Standards and Guidelines reflect the policy direction of the Specific Plan Update and are intended to result in compatible development.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
Hard copies of the Draft EIR, Specific Plan, and Design Standards and Guidelines are available for review at the following locations:

CitY- of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Third Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Monday through Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday: Closed City of Fresno Central Library
2420 Mariposa Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Monday through Thursday: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday: 10:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Gillis Branch Library
629 West Dakota Avenue
Fresno, CA 93705
Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. -7:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m.

Sunday: Closed
2 B2
The Draft EIR, Specific Plan, and Design Standards and Guidelines are also available on the City's website at:

Documents incorporated by reference can be viewed at the Planning and Development Department.

Please send your written comments to the Planning and Development Department and include your name, address, and phone number and/or email address so that we may contact you for clarification, if necessary. Comments may be made in person, by first class mail, facsimile or email to:

Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Third Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Em ail: l.Qngr.aog e plan [email protected] s D.Q_._g O'L

ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Draft EIR identifies potential significant effects in the following areas:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• GHG
• Noise
• Recreation
All other environmental issues were determined to have no impact, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation measures incorporated. Mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR would reduce the potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level in all areas except Recreation.

Sophia Pagoulatos I Planning Manager
Long Range Planning I Planning & Development
City of Fresno I 2600 Fresno St I Fresno CA 93721
559.621.8062
3 B2
[email protected]
AICP

CERTIFIED
Resources: Long Range Planning I GIS & Mapping
Citywide Development Code I Plans & Projects Under Review 4 B2
September 26, 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 Tower District Specific Plan Update
District CEQA Reference No: 20250949
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 Tower District Specific Plan Update. Per the DEIR, the project consists of providing strategic and comprehensive guidance for making decisions regarding built environment and landscape character, land use activities, public open space, community facilities and transportation (Project). The Project area is located East Shields Avenue to the north, North Blackstone Avenue to the east, State Route 180 to the south, North Fruit Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west, in Fresno, CA. A portion of the Project lies 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.

B3
B3-1
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
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 B3
B3-3
B3-2
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
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 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.

Land Use Planning
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from the Tower District Specific Plan Update 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 recommends that the Project incorporate strategies that reduce VMTs and 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 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 B3
B3-4
B3-3
B3-5
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
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 City assess the emission reductions measures and strategies included in the CERP and address them in the Project, as appropriate, to align the City work with the air pollution and exposure reduction strategies and measures outlined in the CERP.

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 Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to further reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, future development projects should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment
Currently, Mitigation Measure AIR-1b only requires environmental evaluation of development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. In urban areas, sources such as gasoline service stations, autobody shops, and metal fabricators have the potential to cause significant health impacts due to their operational emissions. Therefore, the District recommends that this mitigation measure be applied to all non-residential sources where operations have the potential to emit toxic air pollutants, regardless of the number truck trips and distance to sensitive receptors/land use.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambien Air Quality Standards. An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project- B3
B3-5
Conit.

B3-6
B3-7
B3-8
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/ceqa/.

Allowed Uses Not Requiring Project-Specific Discretionary Approval In the event that the City determines that a project be approved as an allowed use not requiring a project-specific discretionary approval, the District recommends the Tower District Specific Plan Update include language requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment, in consultation with the District, to determine if additional analysis and/or mitigation is required.

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.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Accordingly, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s ozone and particulate matter attainment plans rely on a significant and rapid transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies.

For future development projects, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
• Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.

B3
B3-8
Conit.

B3-9
B3-10
B3-11
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
• Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

If future development projects are expected to result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the Tower District Specific Plan Update include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors.

Under-fired Charbroilers
Future development projects have the potential to include restaurants with under- fired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors.

B3
B3-11
Conit.

B3-12
B3-13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/restaurant-charbroiler-technology-partnership/ Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
For future development projects within the Project area, and at strategic locations throughout the Project area in general, the District suggests the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
If future development projects consists of residential and commercial development, gas-powered residential and commercial lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yard-machines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emission-landscaping-equipment-voucher- program/.

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Tower District Specific Plan Update.

B3
B3-14
B3-13
Conit.

B3-16
B3-15
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
District’s Bikeway Incentive Program
Bikeways installation projects can achieve reduction in VMT and they may be eligible for funding through the District’s Bikeway Incentive Program.

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
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified B3
B3-17
B3-19
B3-18
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
Accordingly, future development projects within the Tower District Specific Plan Update 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:

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.

B3
B3-20
B3-19
Cont.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
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.

District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
Future development projects will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures.

To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.

Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolition-renovation/.

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 if it may B3
B3-21
B3-20
Cont.

B3-22
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 11 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/tkgjeusd/rule-4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents B3
B3-22
Conit.

B3-23
B3-24
B3-25
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 12 of 12 District Reference No: 20250949
September 26, 2025
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 Michael [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5818.

Sincerely,
Mark Montelongo
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
Daniel Martinez
Program Manager
B3
B3-25
Conit.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Capturing Stormwater since 1956
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\noa eir tower district spec plan update(dw).docx 5469 E. Olive Avenue • Fresno, CA 93727 • (559) 456-3292 • FAX (559) 456-3194 www.fresnofloodcontrol.org

File 310. “EE”, “RR2”, “UU2”
420.209

September 29, 2025

Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721

Dear Sophia,

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD)
Comments on the Notice of Availability of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan Update Drainage Areas “EE”, “RR2”, “UU2”

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) submitted comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan Update on June 9, 2025. These comments continue to be relevant and should be considered in the ongoing planning process. For your convenience and reference, a copy of the original letter is enclosed.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 456-3292.

Sincerely,

Denise Wade
Master Plan and Special Projects Manager

DW/lrl

Attachments
B4-1

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Capturing Stormwater since 1956
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\nop eir tower district spec plan update(dw).docx

5469 E. Olive Avenue • Fresno, CA 93727 • (559) 456-3292 • FAX (559) 456-3194 www.fresnofloodcontrol.org

File 310. “EE”, “RR2”, “UU2”
420.209

June 9, 2025

Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721

Dear Sophia,

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD)
Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan Update Drainage Areas “EE”, “RR2”, “UU2”

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has adopted storm drainage Master Plan systems for the areas located within the Tower District Specific Plan Update (Plan Area).

These Master Plan systems are based on the previously adopted General a nd Specific Plan land uses.

For areas that have existing drainage facilities and propose changes to land uses that generate more runoff than originally planned, some type of mitigation to accommodate the increased flow such as parallel pipes and/or on-site retention may be required. FMFCD has identified properties within the Plan Area that may require some form of mitigation as noted on attached Figure 3.2 from the subject Tower District Specific Plan Update.

The properties may either make improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may use some type of permanent peak reducing facility in order to eliminate adverse impacts on the existing system. Implementation of the mitigation measures may be deferred until the time of deve lopment. Should the properties choose to construct a permanent peak reducing facility, this system would be required to reduce runoff from a ten- year storm produced by the increased land use and release a two -year discharge which has been designed into FM FCD’s existing system. The developer will be required to submit improvement plans to the District for review and approval showing the proposed method of mitigation prior to implementation.

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\nop eir tower district spec plan update(dw).docx Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD)
Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan Update Drainage Areas “EE”, “RR2”, “UU2”
June 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

Drainage fees shall be collected pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance prior to approval of final maps and/or issuance of building permits at the rates in effect at the time of such approval. Instances when the proposed density is reduced and the Distric t’s Master Plan facilities have been constructed will be subject to the higher rate anticipated to be collected when the facilities were installed. Should land use densities of existing areas be increased, the property would be subject to drainage fee commensurate to the higher density and paid to offset the effects of the increased land use. Please contact the District for a final fee obligation prior to issuance of any construction permits.

FMFCD offers the following comments specific to the review of the Plan Area (the individual page is included and the section or sentence has been highlighted for your reference):

1. Page 100, Local Streets and Alleys – In reference to “Green alleys”, FMFCD recommends that the City incorporate policies addressing drainage capacity and structural elevation in alleys, particularly where upstream runoff could threaten adjacent property back yards and/or building structures. Alley grading shall be designed such that there are not adverse impacts to the passage of major storm flow. Additionally, development of alleys shall include surface flowage easements or covenants for any portions of the developing area that cannot convey storm water to public right -of-way without crossing private property.

F
MFCD does not recommend the use of permeable pavers and pavements as Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, as these conflict with FMFCD’s requirements for positive drainage to the street. LID features often necessitate ongoing monitoring and maintenance, and they may become ineffective over time due to clogging.

The City of Fresno, FMFCD, the County of Fresno, the City of Clovis, and the California State University, Fresno are currently covered as Co- Permittees for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) discharges through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Order No. R5 -2016-0040 and NPDES Permit No. CAS0085324 (Storm Water Permit) effective May 17, 2018. The previous Storm Water Permit adopted on May 31, 2013 required the adoption of Stormwater Quality Management Program (SWQMP) that describes the Storm Water Permit implementation actions and Co-Permittee responsibilities. That SWQMP was approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on April 17, 2015 and is effective until adoption of a new SWQMP, which is anticipated within the next two years.

Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD)
Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Tower District Specific Plan Update Drainage Areas “EE”, “RR2”, “UU2”
June 9, 2025

Page 3 ends

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\nop eir tower district spec plan update(dw).docx The Storm Water Permit requires that Co -Permittees update their CEQA process to incorporate procedures for considering potential stormwater quality impacts when preparing and reviewing CEQA documents. This requirement is found on Provision D.14 of the 2013 Storm Water Permit and in Section 7: Planning and Land Development Program – PLD 3 – Update CEQA Process.

The District has created a guidance document that will meet this Storm Water Permit requirement entitled Guidance for Addressing Stormwater Quality for CEQA Review, which has been attached.

In an effort to streamline future CEQA processing and maintain compliance with the Storm Water Permit, FMFCD recommends that all future CEQA review within the City of Fresno utilize the attached guidance document Exhibit “A”.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 456-3292.

Sincerely,

Denise Wade
Master Plan and Special Projects Manager

DW/lrl

Attachments

50 | TOWER DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
FIGURE 3.2 | Planned Land Use
j:\environmental\swqmp implementation\7 planning and land development program\ pld3 update to ceqa process\ceqa review guidance.docx

Page 1 ends

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
G uidance for Addressing Stormwater Quality for CEQA Review Stormwater Checklist for CEQA Review
a. Potential impact of project construction on stormwater runoff.

Stormwater runoff from construction activities can have a significant impact on water quality. To build on sites with over one acre of disturbed land, property owners must obtain coverage under the California Construction General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater (CGP). The CGP is issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The CGP requires sites that do not qualify for an erosivity waiver to create a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The SWPPP is a site-specific plan that is designed to control the discharge of pollutants from the construction site to local storm drains and waterways.
b. Potential impact of project post-construction activity on stormwater runoff.

FMFCD operates the Regional Stormwater Mitigation System, which consists of facilities to handle stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharges in the FMFCD service area. However, river discharging drainage areas and drainage areas without basin service are subject to FMFCD Policy: Providing for Compliance with Post-Development and Industrial Storm Water Pollution Control Requirements (Policy).

Development and redevelopment projects can result in discharge of pollutants to receiving waters. Pollutants of concern for a project site depend on the following factors:
• Project location;
• Land use and activities that have occurred on the project site in the past; • Land use and activities that are likely to occur in the future; and • Receiving water impairments.

As land use activities and site design practices evolve, particularly with increased incorporation of stormwater quality BMPs, characteristic stormwater runoff concentrations and pollutants of concern from various land use types are also likely to change.

Typical Pollutants of Concern and Sources for Post-Development Areas Pollutant Potential Sources
Sediment (total suspended
solids and turbidity), trash and
debris (gross solids and
floatables)
Streets, landscaped areas, driveways, roads, construction activities, atmospheric deposition, soil erosion (channels and slopes)
j:\environmental\swqmp implementation\7 planning and land development program \pld3 update to ceqa process\ceqa review guidance.docx

Page 4 ends

c. Potential for discharge of stormwater from areas from material storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas.

Development projects may create potential impacts to stormwater from non-stormwater discharge from areas with material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work area.

Some materials, such as those containing heavy metals or toxic compounds, are of more concern than other materials. Toxic and hazardous materials must be prevented from coming in contact with stormwater runoff. Non-toxic or non-hazardous materials, such as debris and sediment, can also have significant impacts on receiving waters. Contact between non-toxic or non-hazardous materials and stormwater runoff should be limited, and such materials prevented from being discharged with stormwater runoff. To help mitigate these potential impacts, BMPs should be included to prevent discharges from leaving the property.

Refer to FMFCD Post-Development Standards Technical Manual for more information or go to http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm.
d. Potential for discharge of stormwater to impact the beneficial uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits.

Identify receiving waters and describe activities that may impact the beneficial uses of the receiving waters or that project water quality benefits. Project that can impact beneficial uses or receiving waters may be mitigated by implementation of the FMFCD Post-Development Standards Technical Manual.
e. Potential for the discharge of stormwater to cause significant harm on the biological integrity of the water ways and water bodies.

Conservation of natural areas, soils, and vegetation helps to retain numerous functions of pre- development hydrology, including rainfall interception, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Each project site possesses unique topographic, hydrologic, and vegetative features, some of which are more suitable for development than others. Sensitive areas, such as streams and their buffers, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, and highly-permeable soils, should be protected and/or restored. Slopes can be a major source of sediment and should be properly protected and stabilized. Locating development in less sensitive areas of a project site and conserving naturally vegetated areas can minimize environmental impacts from stormwater runoff.

The evaluation of a project’s effect on sensitive natural communities should encompass aquatic and wetland habitats. Consider “aquatic and wetland habitat” as examples of sensitive habitat. j:\environmental\swqmp implementation\7 planning and land development program \pld3 update to ceqa process\ceqa review guidance.docx

Page 5 ends

f. Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff that can cause environmental harm.

The evaluation of a project’s effect on drainage patterns should refer to the FMFCD’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan and have their project reviewed by FMFCD to assess the significance of altering existing drainage patterns and to develop any mitigation measures in addition to our stormwater mitigation system. The evaluation should also consider any potential for streambed or bank erosion downstream from the project. g. Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas.

C1
C1-1
C1-2
C1
C1-2
Cont.

C1-3
C1-4
C1-5
C1
C1-6
C1-7
September 29, 2025
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
Attn: Long Range Planning and Sophia Pagoulatos
Re: Draft Tower District Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report On behalf of several businesses operating in and around the Tower District, we want to thank the City of Fresno, the Tower Committee, and community stakeholders for the time and commitment invested in developing the Draft Tower District Specific Plan (Plan) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The business community values this collaborative effort and shares in the goal of balancing neighborhood priori
ties with a strong, sustainable economic base.

As businesses rooted in this area, we are invested in both the success of our community and the ability to continue operating effectively. With this perspective, we respectfully submit the following comments for the City’s consideration:
• Plan Mappi
ng – Figures 1.4 (p. 14) & 2.3 (p. 38): Both maps label certain areas, including south of Belmont and west of Broadway, as “Proposed Historic Districts.” This terminology conflicts with the Plan narrative (p. 44), which calls for initiating a study of potential historic designation. To avoid confusion, the maps should be revised to reflect these areas as “Historic Designation Study Areas.” Consistency between the maps and narrative is essential. • EIR – Mitigation Measure AIR-1c (p. 1-11): This mitigation measure should be clarified to ensure it will not apply to new permitting for existing businesses, all of whom have made significant investments in the Tower District, and who could be prevented from upgrading or modernizing as a result of the restrictions contemplated under this measure. • EIR – Noise Mitigation Measures NOI-1a & NOI-1b (p. 1-29): As written, the requirement for project-specific noise studies appears to apply broadly to nearly any discretionary permit, regardless of scale or impact. This blanket approach risks creating unnecessary costs and barriers, especially for modest projects pursued by small businesses. A more tailored requirement would ensure a reasonable nexus between project type and environmental review.

We submit these comments not in opposition to the Plan, but to ensure it achieves its intended balance:
protecting community character while providing a clear, predictable framework that supports local businesses. We believe this approach will allow both businesses and residents to thrive together in the Tower District.

Thank you for considering these perspectives. We look forward to continuing dialogue with the City as the Plan advances.

C2
C2-1
C2-5
C2-2
C2-4
C2-3
9/29/2025
Attn: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno St, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Comments in response to Draft Tower District Specific Plan We appreciate this opportunity to review the draft Tower District Specific Plan Update. We are providing this formal letter to aggregate our feedback and suggest significant alteration to more fully document the history and current reality in the Tower District as well as to chart a more equitable future for our neighborhood.

First it is important for us to frame what perspective this letter comes from.

Leading this organization is our founding executive director, Kiel Lopez-Schmidt. They have a diverse experience in architecture, affordable housing development, community development finance. This has included leading numerous projects in the Tower District such as:

1. banquet hall adaptive reuse of the former Turpin’s Furniture at 1028 N Fulton St

2. architecture & sign design of affordable housing development, 541 @ South Tower

3. food truck commissary in former restaurant at 504 E. Belmont Ave

4. Nomination of the JR Turner Home at 815 E. Dudley Ave. to Local Historic Registry

5. Served 10 years on the Tower District Design Review Committee.

6. Design and manufacturer coordination of Tower Bike Racks

7. Conditional Use Permit for Goldstein's

8. Facade improvement design for Color Me Chula and En Las Nubes

9. Coordination of 4 public art murals in the neighborhood

10. Renovation of homes at 517 & 525 N. Farris Ave for affordable home ownership

11. Ongoing predevelopment of 8 units of new housing for affordable homeownership at 517 N.

Farris and 604 N. San Pablo Ave.

12. Ongoing acquisition and rehab of 617-619 N. Fulton Ave. to be a non-profit center

13. Ongoing CUP for The Belmont
Additionally, the board of directors of our organization included diverse backgrounds and experience:

1. Real estate agent
South Tower Community Land Trust 115 N. Calaveras St. Fresno, CA 93701 EIN:88-3488608 C3-1
C3

2. Two musicians

3. Artist

4. User experience design researcher

5. Two educators

6. Substance abuse counselor

7. Registered nurse

When the draft Specific Plan Update was made available, we organized a study session at Broadway PArque that 12 community members were able to attend. We broke out into 6 groups each group reading and discussing one chapter. The group discussion following the chapter break out groups generated numerous detailed comments that follow. Many of these topics were uplifted by our group throughout the Specific Plan outreach process. Hopefully this letter will have a greater impact on the final plan.

Page 32 ends

of White Flight and redlining with racial covenants excluding many demographics from renting or owning homes or businesses north of Olive.

South Tower Community Land Trust 115 N. Calaveras St. Fresno, CA 93701 EIN:88-3488608 C3-1
Cont.

C3-2
C3

Page 33 ends

structure loss with industrial expansion.

Page 41 ends

massing and materials of both do not respect or reflect the buildings adjacent to them. A good example of context sensitive design is 541 @ South Tower. It is new construction but with urban massing and art deco design built in 2016. But it does not appear anywhere in the Specific Plan or Design Standards Page #44: CHP 1.5 The historic survey of South of Belmont West of Broadway should place priority on identifying historic buildings and assets at risk from industrial expansion and deferred maintenance.

CHP 1.7
● comment: The Belmont phoenix palms and the deodar cedars should be mentioned here or under 2.2
Page #47: CHP 2.1
● comment: This would be stronger if it said “hold accountable property owners…” instead of the more passive “work to preserve…”
03 Land Use
During the land use map initiation meeting with Fresno City Council, Councilmember Nelson Esparza motioned to study 604 N. San Pablo Ave for rezone from RS-5 to Mixed Use. That motion was seconded and voted affirmatively by all councilmembers. That rezone does not appear to be included on any map or text in the plan or EIR. The 604 N. San Pablo Ave. The property is owned by South Tower CLT and we have aspirations to develop a mixed use development on site. We would like to see that Council vote honored and included in this plan.

Table 3.B in the EIR on page 3-21 the table assumes the loss of 6 housing units. However a total of 24 units of existing housing are zoned industrial. We don’t understand why any homes should be lost for industrial expansion especially in the context that there are few mitigations to protect other housing that will become adjacent to industrial when those homes are lost and converted to industrial uses.

EIR 3.6.2.3 states “Light industrial uses are located along the southwest boundary of the Specific Plan Area. These areas are important historical and economic centers, as they bring employment South Tower Community Land Trust 115 N. Calaveras St. Fresno, CA 93701 EIN:88-3488608 C3-2
Cont.

C 3-3
C3-4
C3
opportunities. Some of these businesses have been in the neighborhood for many decades and have long-standing relationships with local residents and institutions.” Page #66 : Figure 3.2
● Comment: “Please show the community feedback that requested this downzoning.” ● Comment: The Cheese building and properties to its south need to be Public Facility with a NMX or CMS dual designation. It’s original designation should have been considered spot zoning.

Keeping it industrial today is not incentivizing the property owner to maintain it per their covenant; instead it is incentivizing the continued use of the lot as an industrial parking lot in a residential neighborhood.
● Comment: Light industrial zoning needs to have an asterisk similar to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan to indicate the zoning will change when existing users leave. Or, there needs to be a policy committing the City to rezone this area should that occur. Office and Business Park should be examined as more neighborhood friendly alternatives.

Page #67: 3.6 Industrial and Employment Compatibility
● Comment: This statement is out of balance. While they are an old company, they haven’t always benefited the community. Instead they have a history of expansion into the neighborhood.

Quantify “important” and what is the value of that importance compared to the health of their neighbors? Or opportunity costs of lack of space for other uses and lowered property values for the neighborhood?
Page #67: 3.6 Industrial and Employment Compatibility
● Comment: How many employees? I’ve only heard a statistic referencing a distance of ten miles which includes Clovis and therefore is not just the neighborhood.

Page #67: 3.6 Industrial and Employment Compatibility
● Comment: Can the City verify that a dairy plant is a light industrial use and not a heavy industrial use and what keeps it from being considered a heavy use? Page #79: LU 4.3
● Comment: Drive throughs should not be allowed anywhere in the Tower District. Also, they are already not allowed in CMS.

South Tower Community Land Trust 115 N. Calaveras St. Fresno, CA 93701 EIN:88-3488608 C3-4
Cont.

C3-5
C3
● Comment: What about requiring CBAs anytime an industrial business wants to expand in the Tower?
Page #82: LU 6.4 Support the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in monitoring emissions. ● Comment: What is the point of this policy if it doesn’t require more than what’s already required?
04 Parks and Public Spaces.

Page 90 ends

● Comment: Bradway Parque is complete and should not be noted as “planned” ● The vacant property on Clinton on the western edge of the plan area is under development now.

Page #93: Figure 4.3 Measure P Park Prioritization for Future Parks ● Comment: The data shows that there needs to be a stronger commitment to parks. Potential new parks should be shown on the land use map to give the City more opportunities to potentially add park space.

Page #94: Planned Parks
● Comment: disagree, the original subway was probably better Page #96: Canalside Parks
● Comment: herndon
Page #97: 4.4 Public Schools and Libraries
● Comment: highlighted typo of the word, “currently”
Page #101: POS 1.5 Pursue joint-use partnerships with schools in the Tower District. ● Comment: parking or parks?

C3-6
C3-7
C3
05 Circulation
H Street and Weber are ideal for bicycle and pedestrian traffic to and from Tower District and Downtown. These roads should include pedestrian oriented lighting standards and protected bike lanes to keep those active transportation methods safe from truck traffic. 06 Utilities

Page 155 ends

Canal. The right of way along the canal has not been kept open to allow for a trail adjacent to the canal in many places. Undergrounding the canal into a pipe would allow for a trail above the canal and would reduce drowning risk, water contamination and evaporation. FID would be an essential partner in that work. Also FID is a potential blocker for development. Their requirements nearly stopped the development of the 541 @ South Tower development. FID needs to be proactively engaged.

Although the City does not have direct control over electricity provision, it may be worthwhile to provide information on it since it can inhibit the development of new housing units, including ADUs. It also factors into sustainability and affordability. a. Recommendation: Work with PG&E to determine priorities for transformer replacement and undergrounding of power lines.

6.4 Solid Waste - Trash enclosure requirements for commercial and multifamily residential or mixed use projects can be a barrier to designing quality urban site plans. a.

Recommendation: Allow for flexibility for urban developments on tight in-fill sites to utilize hand cart for solid waste, recycling and green waste rather than dumpsters. This will free up precious square footage for other uses while also encourage limiting waste produced on site.

Broadband internet access is a key equity issue.

Recommendation: Identify areas of Tower District that lack broadband access.

Work with broadband providers to encourage full coverage. 07 Implementation

Page 164 ends

committee of citizens appointed by the Mayor and City Councilmembers is not listed among the review South Tower Community Land Trust 115 N. Calaveras St. Fresno, CA 93701 EIN:88-3488608 C3-8
C3-9
C3
bodies. Will that committee be dissolved? This may have some overlapping purpose with the description of the Tower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee and the Council District Project Review Committee. Additionally, the Council District Project Review Committees are listed twice.

Page 166 ends

Community Land Trust [South Tower CLT]
Appendix B Health and Equity Evaluation
Page #190: Policy recommendations grid (orange)
● Comment: This row should have more negatives by to reflect the negative healthy and equity outcomes of keeping industrial in the neighborhood.

Noise Pollution - Despite public comments about noise pollution from the Producers Dairy industrial facility at Palm & Belmont, the three noise monitoring locations included in the EIR are nowhere near the Producers Dairy or an industrial zoned facility adjacent to residentials. Without proper study of the existing noise levels near the industrial section of South Tower, there is no baseline for noise mitigation measures. Only 3 sound monitors were included in this plan. We believe an additional monitor should be included at Palm & Franklin to capture the industrial noise levels adjacent to residential. Given other comments about concern of night life noise levels on the Olive corridor, it is appropriate to capture data somewhere along the Olive corridor.

Light Pollution - The bright lights at Light Industrial businesses adjacent to residential uses has been uplifted during public comments as inappropriate for the peaceful enjoyment of those homes. A study of light pollution should be include in the EIR and mitigation measures should be proposed to limit light pollution bleeding from Industrial properties to residential ones.

EIR
Table 4.1.A does not include pollutants known to be included at the Producer’s Dairy facility. See 2019 settlement between EPA and Producers Dairy related to anhydrous ammonia. “Producers Dairy Foods’ industrial refrigeration system uses large quantities of anhydrous ammonia, a toxic chemical highly corrosive to skin, eyes and lungs.”
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epa-settlement-producers-dairy-foods-improves-chemical-safety- fresno-california
Design Standards - Most notably the design standards & guidelines contain no section for Industrial Districts. A large amount of residential single family and mixed-use zones are adjacent to light industrial zones. The conflict and lack of mitigation of negative impacts by industrial has been the topic of many public comments through this process. The Design Standards are an excellent places to include standards for those mitigations but that opportunity is completely ignored.

South Tower Community Land Trust 115 N. Calaveras St. Fresno, CA 93701 EIN:88-3488608 C3-9
Cont.

C3-10
C3-11
C3-12
C3-13
C3
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment and we hope these comments will be thoughtfully considered for their impact of health and equity of Tower District residents and for the advancement of developments being led by South Tower CLT.

With gratitude,
Kiel Lopez-Schmidt
Executive Director
South Tower Community Land Trust
South Tower Community Land Trust 115 N. Calaveras St. Fresno, CA 93701 EIN:88-3488608 C3-14
C3
From: Diana
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Tower District Specific Plan Update public comment Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:17:30 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
[email protected]
Thank you for this opportunity to provide public comment on this important issue.

Thanks to a long series of the City's choices, currently Tower's primary industry is drinking, and our secondary industry seems to be targeting the drinkers and their cars for crimes, which very much negatively impacts the health and equity of most residents regardless of their specific location.

"This Specific Plan Update prioritizes health and equity" but redlining is still very much evident in the Update, as special designation is given to the areas formerly holding racial covenants while the third grade "C" and fourth grade "D" south of Olive continue the ongoing disinvestment, south Tower not meriting any of the bespoke vintage-style Tower street signage below Olive AND even having our residential Dunbar Tracts at Dennett and Yosemite rezoned from residential to Commercial Main Street in this Plan.

Expanding commercialization into residential areas while housing is desperately needed AND there's a real issue with Tower vacancy rates seems doubly wrong headed.

Will this Plan protect all residents?
Will everyone's "character-defining streetscape elements" be protected or only in certain areas, again? The 1991 TDSP mentions how valued are our street trees, yet not one of the 8 we've lost on Dennett since have ever been replaced.

So much of Tower has already been lost to inappropriate development, and sadly these neighborhoods continue to suffer because through no fault of their own but through decades of the City pandering to developers, these areas are no longer "intact" enough to be considered "historic" and worthy of these special designations and protections, and so the decline continues while the formerly racially-covenanted properties continue to receive disparate benefits and special designations.

I am also concerned that more high density and mid density housing is planned, because C4-1
C4-2
C4-3
C4
C4-1
Tower already has had more than her fair share. Our street was built out with mostly SFRs, and of the 13 houses, only 6 remain. The other 7 were cut into apartments or replaced with apartments after a damaging fire. The ENTIRE City of fresNo needs to get aboard the density train, not just distressed areas of Tower. Stop telling us we're "lucky to get anything new" and then building a high-density tightly-packed eyesore.

The updated Plan mentions "nurturing the mutually supportive relationship between residential and vibrant commercial areas." Page 22 has a photo of a community meeting showing a large "be a good neighbor" sign and I'm wondering where does the Plan address the good-neighborship of the "vibrant commercial areas"? Because "equity"? residents already compromise a lot. A LOT.
18-wheelers travel our residential streets daily delivering liquor and consumables to Olive, there are numerous commercial dumpsters along Olive that require daily services accessed from side streets, the City blows the Tower parking lot at 6 a.m. to dislodge the sleeping unhoused, residents listen to Scrubcan and City trucks as public trash cans are serviced at 4 a.m., and our Olive sidewalks are covered with food and liquor garbage, urine and vomit that never seems to get washed away unless there's a City pressure-washing project.

It's noisy here, 24 hours a day. Tower residents recognize that the "vibrant commercial areas" need services to operate. But WHERE are the "vibrant commercial areas" compromising for the residents? The City doesn't even enforce the mandate to secure commercial trash, which is certainly part of the reason Tower streets are so trashy. Meanwhile, local Tower businessman publicly announces that he's not obliged to clean up outside his Wishon bar, because his "excessive City taxes" should cover those services.

How Tower noise complaints currently work: residents are awakened by window-rattling music at 1 a.m., and call the non-emergency police number where after waiting on hold for 10+ minutes, they are told that a specific address is required before the PD can accept any complaint.

C4-5
C4-6
C4-7
C4
busy right now but maybe later they can send someone to the area. Having just walked past 3 or 4 parked patrol cars, this is disheartening to hear. The morning of the next day, the resident calls the non-emergency police number to follow up, and is told that there's no record of any noise complaint from last night.

When the City changes the character of a neighborhood by promoting nightlife and an "entertainment district" and licenses and inspects businesses adjacent to residential, the City should be aggressive and diligent in discovery of new or non-conforming business entities to ensure that they are appropriate and a good fit for a family neighborhood, and not over- represented - too many smoke shops, e.g.

The City sends the police to Tower to set up enforcement traps and DUI checkpoints, and parks patrol cars at Detention or Roger Rocka's to monitor the crowd drinking on the street.

But issues for Tower residents go unaddressed - neighbors report break-ins, broken windows, even hot prowl burglaries, and the police never respond. The City process seems to only serve business needs.

The Plan Update discourages front yard fences as "unwelcoming" and specifically mentions how these older residences have street-facing entrances and street-facing windows, and yet these are the very same streets where the City invites hundreds of rowdy people every night to park in our residential neighborhoods where they drink in their cars, urinate in our driveways, and noisily party in the street until 3 a.m. instead of spending their money at the businesses on Olive. Where is the "human focused design" in that? Looking forward to the updated Plan's "enhanced livability" because imposing an expanding nightlife on residents is the opposite of that. Also looking forward to the "sustainability" cited by the Update because approving increasing numbers of drinking places in a small residential neighborhood is NOT a sustainable business model when more and more entities are fighting for the same dwindling number of entertainment dollars.

Little two-lane Olive now has the additional traffic from the closed Hwy 99 exits at Belmont and McKinley, plus the HSR construction. This is an unprecedented amount of industrial and commuter traffic dumped into our historic residential neighborhood via an extremely narrow road. The Plan Update does not address mitigating the impact of this. We already suffer excess traffic short-cuts from drivers frustrated by the lane changes, protected bike lanes, mobile vendor food trailers, and the parklets, on top of the nightly tourist cars and those who come to prey upon the visitors. This traffic will affect air quality, noise, and our quality of life.

The Plan Update is fairly silent about our parking issues. Our driveways and the fire hydrant are blocked or obstructed daily by parking tourists, and despite our "walkability" and notable C4-7
Cont.

C4-8
C4-9
C4
pedestrian traffic, not even the crosswalk Daylighting laws are enforced in Tower. There are regular stop sign traps, but only on weekend nights. So much for Safe Routes To School.

Much of the City-owned Tower Theater parking lot is often blocked off to the public for paid reserved parking. It is not fair for the City to permit the residential streets to be used for pre- and post-game tailgating from 10pm until 3am. The City should study the parking issue and provide tourists with signage and maps instead of inflicting these issues on residents.

A residential parking permit district sounds awesome, or even metered parking for evenings and events. Our street is already crowded with parked cars: a 19-unit Airbnb with zero offstreet parking, a 400-person event venue with a shared 20-space parking lot, an 8-unit apartment complex with 24 bedrooms and only 10 parking spaces.

On weekends between the hours of 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., our street often looks like the Walmart parking lot on Christmas Eve - lines of cars jockeying for parking, drivers honking and shouting, loud stereos and car alarms. Meanwhile, there's not ONE car parked on Wishon or Fulton or at the Golden, Veni, or Babylon parking lots despite being so much closer to the nightlife. Why are so many seeking privacy for parking AND what is the impact of that decision on residents?
How about installing (optional) "residential quiet zones" so that the families in these family neighborhoods can sleep at night?
Utilities should be underground or concealed as much as possible in some sort of period- appropriate or decorative box especially when installed on private property or on residential streets, and City staff should be working to identify these eyesores and attractive nuisances and have them removed or improved because keeping Comcast property graffiti-free is a full time job in Tower.

It was difficult to read the updated Plan, knowing all too well how readily the first Plan has been disregarded all these years. Many of the issues listed have been previously raised with the City repeatedly since 1991 only to go absolutely nowhere or be rudely blown off. Hoping that this Plan isn't also just pretty words to be ignored every time it's financially or politically expedient.

C4-9
Cont.

C4-10
C4
More protections for residents, please. The houses will still be here long after the businesses go broke.

Thank you.

Diana Diehl
Dennett Avenue
fresNo, 93728
.

C4-10
Cont.

C4
From: Neva Popenoe
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Tower District Specific Plan Update
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:50:47 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello,
I would like to offer a few comments regarding the proposed Tower District Specific Plan Update. Below are a few items that I don’t believe were sufficiently addressed and some suggested edits:

1. Adjust industrial zones to exclude housing units. Industrial zones include several residential properties and they should not be included in the industrial zoning.

2. Provide more park areas with green space. The plan lists schools and Ted C Wills as public areas and parks, but they have limited hours, and often do not allow families to have access to green space on weekends. Provide open space areas throughout the District, and don’t include areas that are limited in access and space.

3. Restrict truck traffic through areas with residential properties. While many areas may be designated travel corridors, these are areas where people live, and should not be subject to air pollution because they have more affordable housing in these pockets. The people living along the corridors or in or adjacent to industrial zones do not deserve to have higher levels of pollution.

4. Require air monitoring throughout the district, particularly in industrial areas and travel corridors. Air quality monitors should be available for public viewing.

5. Do not limit density in any area. Infill should not be restricted in historical areas. Houses throughout the Tower district are more than 100 years old, and there is no reason one block should have special treatment because its historic connection as a better graded property zone. There is something troubling about continuing such a designation.

6. Provide better and more shelters at bus stops. In the hottest time of the year, I’ve seen people look like they were about to pass out waiting for the bus at the northeast corner of Olive and Van Ness and this is a designated sheltered bus stop. There is no shade at the seats during certain times of the day, and should not be considered a sheltered bus stop, as there is no shade near the bus stop. The bus stops along Olive and Fulton are some of the busiest and they have very few sheltered stops, and as stated, the shelters are grossly inadequate.

Thank you,
Neva Popenoe
C5
C5-1
C5-7
C5-5
C5-2
C5-6
C5-3
C5-4
Exhibit P - Attachment 2:

Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
1 M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists mitigation measures recommended in the Tower Speciﬁc Plan Update 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.

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

2 This page intentionally left blank

3 M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

AIR QUALITY
AIR-1a: Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical health risk assessment (HRA) evaluating potential project construction phase-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology for assessing construction impacts. If construction-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD adopted threshold of signiﬁcance, project applicants for new development projects shall be required to incorporate mitigation measures into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities.

Mitigation measures can include, but are not limited to:
 Maintain construction equipment and provide current certiﬁcate(s) of compliance for CARB’s In-Use Oﬀ-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2449.1] to SJVAPCD; and
 Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s speciﬁcations. The equipment must be checked by a certiﬁed mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.

Documentation of a certiﬁed mechanic’s inspection and determinations shall be maintained by the Construction Manager and available for City inspection upon reasonable request.

The identiﬁed measures shall be included as part of the project Conditions of Approval. If the recommendations of the HRA are insuﬃcient to reduce impacts to levels at or below SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million, such development with signiﬁcant cancer risk (i.e., that exceed that threshold) shall be prohibited.

Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed air
quality consultant
Planning and
Development
Department
Assessments completed in conformance
with SJVAPCD methodology to be
completed during environmental review
and prior to approval of discretionary
project. The City shall ensure that
project-speciﬁc mitigation is incorporated
into project plans for approval prior to
issuance of any grading or construction
permits.

AIR-1b: Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, the City of Fresno (City) shall evaluate new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a HRA to the City Department of Development and Resource Management. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Oﬃce of Environmental Health Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed air
quality consultant
Planning and
Development
Department
Assessments completed in conformance
with SJVAPCD methodology to be
completed during environmental review
and prior to approval of discretionary
project. The City shall ensure that
project-speciﬁc mitigation is incorporated
into project plans for approval prior to
issuance of any grading or construction
permits.

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

4 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
 Restrict idling on site by shutting equipment oﬀ when not in use or reducing idling time to 3 minutes as enforced by an identiﬁed compliance oﬃcer within the construction crew. Idling restrictions shall be enforced by highly visible posting at the site entry, posting at other on-site locations frequented by truck drivers, conspicuous inclusion in employee training and guidance material and owner, operator or tenant direct action as required;
 Electrify warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter; Reque use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
 Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or
 Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.

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

AIR-1c: Locate new sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buﬀer distances identiﬁed in the most current version of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buﬀer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced ﬁltration units or submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City.

Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed air
quality consultant
Planning and
Development
Department
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to be
completed during environmental review
and prior to approval of discretionary
project. The City shall ensure that
project-speciﬁc mitigation is incorporated
into project plans for approval prior to
issuance of any grading or construction
permits.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1a: Avoidance Measures for Bats.

1. A qualiﬁed biologist with experience in assessing trees for bat roosts will survey all trees to within 500 feet of the construction footprint for suitability as bat roosts. If Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed
biologist
Planning and
Development
Department
Pre-construction clearance survey to be
completed during environmental review
of project and prior to approval of
5 M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
a tree planned for removal is deemed suitable, the qualiﬁed biologist will conduct a night emergence survey of the suitable roost tree 1 to 2 nights prior to tree removal using night vision and/or infrared-sensitive camera equipment and bioacoustic recording equipment. If surveys are negative, trees should be removed immediately.

2. If night emergent surveys are positive, trees should be removed using a two-step process for 2 consecutive days and should be monitored by a qualiﬁed biologist.

On the ﬁrst day, small branches and small limbs that do not contain potential roost habitat (e.g., cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark) will be removed using chainsaws.

On the second day, the remainder of the tree will be removed. The disturbance caused by chainsaw noise and vibration, coupled with the physical alteration of the tree will cause colonial bat species to abandon the roost tree after nightly emergence for foraging. Removing the tree the next day prevents re-habituation and re-occupation of the altered tree.

3. Any trees suitable as bat roost will be removed during one of the following periods to avoid harm to young or hibernating bats:
a. Between approximately March 1 and April 15 (or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit [°F], and less than 0.5 inch of rainfall in 24 hours occurs).
b. After maternity season and prior to winter torpor or hibernation, September 1 through about October 15 (or before evening temperatures fall below 45°F, and prior to greater than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours).

For trees that will not be removed but which are actively in use as a roost, a no disturbance buﬀer shall be implemented. If a maternity roost is conﬁrmed, the no disturbance buﬀer will be 500 feet until it is conﬁrmed that the young are no longer reliant on parental care or the bats have left the area. For all other roosts, the no disturbance buﬀer will be determined by the qualiﬁed biologist based on the conditions at the site and the planned construction activities. The qualiﬁed biologist may identify other avoidance measures to be implemented during construction, such as restricting work to speciﬁc times of day, to support no disturbance buﬀers of less than 50 feet.
discretionary project. The City shall
ensure that project-speciﬁc mitigation is
incorporated into project plans for
approval prior to issuance of any grading
or construction permits.

BIO-1b: Pre-activity Nesting Bird Surveys.

If future development and site-speciﬁc project activities facilitated by the implementation of the Speciﬁc Plan Update must occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31), pre-activity nesting bird surveys will be conducted by a Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed
biologist
Planning and
Development
Department,
California
Pre-construction clearance survey to be
completed during environmental review
of project and prior to approval of
discretionary project. The City shall

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

6 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
qualiﬁed biologist in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction at the construction site, and a 250-foot buﬀer for songbirds and a 500-foot buﬀer for raptors (other than Swainson’s hawk [Buteo swainsoni]) will be installed. If no active nests are found, no further action is required; however, note that nests may become active at any time throughout the summer, including when construction activities are occurring. If active nests are found during the survey or at any time during future project construction facilitated by implementation of the Tower District Speciﬁc Plan Update, the project proponent shall install an avoidance buﬀer ranging from 50 feet to 350 feet will be required, as determined by a qualiﬁed biologist. The avoidance buﬀer will remain in place until the biologist has determined that the young are no longer reliant on the nest. Work may occur within the avoidance buﬀer under the approval and guidance of the biologist.

The qualiﬁed biologist will have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show signs of distress.

Department of
Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)
ensure that project-speciﬁc mitigation is
incorporated into project plans for
approval prior to issuance of any grading
or construction permits.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1a: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the ﬁnd and a qualiﬁed historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualiﬁed historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City of Fresno 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 in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as deﬁned under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identiﬁed by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate 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 City of Fresno approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts 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.

Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed
historical resources
specialist
Planning and
Development
Department
Planning and Development Department
to review contract speciﬁcations to
ensure inclusion of provisions included in
project-speciﬁc mitigation measure.

Following discovery of previously
unknown resource, a qualiﬁed historical
resources specialist shall prepare and
submit recommendations to the Planning
and Development Department. Timing
for recommendations shall be
established by project-speciﬁc mitigation
measure.

CUL-1b: Prior to approval of any discretionary project that could result in an adverse change to a potential historic and/or cultural resource, the City shall require a site- Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed
Planning and
Development
Cultural resources study to be completed
during environmental review and prior to
7 M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
speciﬁc evaluation of historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualiﬁcations. The evaluation shall provide recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to historic and/or cultural resources and shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Development.

During project-speciﬁc environmental review of development under the proposed plan, before altering or otherwise aﬀecting a building or structure that is 50 years old or older, the City shall require project applicants to retain a qualiﬁed architectural historian meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualiﬁcations Standards to record the building or structure on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 form or equivalent documentation, if the building has not previously been evaluated. Its signiﬁcance shall be assessed and documented by a qualiﬁed architectural historian in accordance with the signiﬁcance criteria set forth for historic resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The evaluation process shall include the development of appropriate historical background research as context for the assessment of the signiﬁcance of the structure in the history of the City and the region. For buildings, structures, and other resources determined through this evaluation process not to meet the CEQA historical resource criteria, no further mitigation is required. For any building, structure, and or other resource that qualiﬁes as a historic resource, the architectural historian and the future project-speciﬁc applicant shall consult to consider measures that would enable projects under the proposed plan to avoid direct or indirect impacts to the historic building or structure.

These could include preserving the building on site, using it “as is,” or other measures that would not materially alter the historically signiﬁcant components of the building or structure. If the project cannot feasibly avoid modiﬁcations to the historically signiﬁcant features of the historic building or structure, the following measures shall be undertaken as appropriate:
 If the building or structure can be preserved on-site, but remodeling, renovation or other alterations are required, this work shall be conducted in compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (NPS 2017).
 If a signiﬁcant historic building or structure is proposed for major alteration or renovation, or to be moved and/or demolished, the City shall ensure that a qualiﬁed architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated landscaping and setting. Documentation shall include still and video photography historical/cultural
resources
specialist
Department approval of discretionary project. The
City shall ensure that project-speciﬁc
mitigation is incorporated into project
plans prior to project approval.

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

8 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
and a written documentary record of the building to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, including accurate scaled mapping, architectural descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available. A copy of the record shall be provided to the City. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site-speciﬁc history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site speciﬁc and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate.

If preservation and reuse at the site are not feasible, the historical building shall be documented as described in item (2) and, when physically and ﬁnancially feasible, be moved and preserved or reused.

CL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of grading plans for future development projects facilitated by the Speciﬁc Plan Update, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a ﬁeld survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.  If prehistoric resources are not found during either the ﬁeld survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the ﬁnd and a qualiﬁed archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualiﬁed archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City of Fresno 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 in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as deﬁned under Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identiﬁed by the monitor and recommended to the City of Fresno. Appropriate 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 prehistoric archaeological artifacts 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.

Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed
archaeologist
Planning and
Development
Department
Cultural resources study to be completed
during environmental review and prior to
approval of discretionary project. The
City shall ensure that project-speciﬁc
mitigation is incorporated into project
plans prior to project approval.
9 M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
 If prehistoric resources are found during the ﬁeld survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for signiﬁcance. If the resources are found to be signiﬁcant, measures shall be identiﬁed by the qualiﬁed archaeologist. 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.

CUL-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary ﬁndings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLDs regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed
historical/cultural
resources
specialist
Planning and
Development
Department
Planning and Development Department
to review construction speciﬁcations to
ensure inclusion of provisions included in
mitigation measure.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: Paleontological/Geologic Features.

Subsequent to a preliminary City of Fresno 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 Project Applicant
and qualiﬁed
paleontologist
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 start

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

10 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
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 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 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. of grading activities. Additional
monitoring of project site during
construction period shall be determined
by a qualiﬁed paleontologist and
consistent with project-speciﬁc
mitigation measure.
11 M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Fresno (City) for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), Project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology. While neither the City nor the SJVAPCD currently have established threshold of signiﬁcance for evaluating the GHG emissions impact of a proposed project, if either the City or the SJVAPCD develop GHG thresholds in the future (i.e. CEQA qualiﬁed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan/Climate Action Plan or SJVAPCD project-speciﬁc GHG thresholds), the evaluation of project-related GHG emissions shall demonstrate consistency with those thresholds of signiﬁcance. In the absence of project-speciﬁc GHG thresholds established by the City or SJVAPCD, projects shall demonstrate compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG requirements, consistent with State GHG emissions reduction and equity prioritization goals, by implementing the following design elements, where feasible:
 Projects shall not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing.  Projects shall achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the 2022 Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meets the City’s locally adopted target reduction (13 percent reduction).
 Projects shall not result in any wasteful, ineﬃcient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
 Projects must achieve compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

Should a proposed project exceed established thresholds of signiﬁcance, the City shall require that the proposed project implement GHG emission reduction measures to reduce emissions below applicable thresholds or to a level commensurate with implementing the recommended project-design features outlined above. Such mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to, energy eﬃciency measures, water conservation and eﬃciency measures, solid waste measures, and transportation and motor vehicles measures. The identiﬁed measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

Project Applicant Planning and
Development
Department
Planning and Development Department
shall review project plans during
environmental review of proposed
project, and shall review construction
speciﬁcations to ensure inclusion of
applicable measures.

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

12 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
NOISE
NOI-1a: Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), and prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, the construction contractor shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on oﬀ-site sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site. The project-level construction noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Community Development Director. Measures shall be implemented to reduce construction noise to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria or below if construction noise impacts are identiﬁed. Measures may include, but are not limited to the installation of temporary construction barriers.

Project Applicant
and construction
contractor
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permits, the construction
contractor shall include speciﬁcations for
the installation of a minimum 10-foot-
high temporary construction noise
barrier along the project boundary, if
necessary, to meet FTA daytime noise
standards. Barriers shall be continuous
with no gaps and made of materials with
a minimum STC rating.

NOI-1b: Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), a project-speciﬁc noise study shall be prepared by a qualiﬁed acoustical consultant to determine the noise levels generated from long-term operations of future projects associated with implementation of the Tower District Speciﬁc Plan Update, and measures will be included as necessary to reduce noise levels and ensure compliance with the City of Fresno’s stationary noise standards. The project speciﬁc noise study will be submitted to the city for review and approval. Noise reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or soundwalls) or by using equipment that has a quieter rating.

Project Applicant
and acoustical
consultant
Planning and
Development
Department
A project-speciﬁc noise study shall be
prepared by a qualiﬁed acoustical
consultant to evaluate operational noise
levels and identify necessary measures to
ensure compliance with the City’s
stationary noise standards. The noise
study shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval.

NOI-2: Future development would require that the construction contractor for the project shall restrict heavy construction (e.g., large bulldozers) or require the use of light construction equipment (e.g., small bulldozers and trucks) within 10 feet of a historic building, 9 feet of an older residential structure, or 6 feet of a new residential or modern industrial/commercial building, to be conﬁrmed by the City of Fresno or lead agency.

Project Applicant
and construction
contractor
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permits, construction plans
shall include restrictions on heavy
construction equipment within proximity
to existing structures. Speciﬁcally, heavy
construction shall be restricted or
replaced with light equipment. Distances
shall be conﬁrmed by the City or lead
agency during plan review.

RECREATION
REC-1a: As new development occurs in the Speciﬁc Plan Area, the City of Fresno (City) shall periodically (every 5 years) monitor residential population growth compared to development of new parklands for the purpose of evaluating the strength of the Planning and
Development
Department
Planning and
Development
Department
The City shall monitor residential
population growth and parkland
development within the Speciﬁc Plan
13 M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Agency
Monitoring
Timing/Schedule
Tower District Speciﬁc Plan Update to meet the ratio of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. If the ratio is not met, the City shall explore additional ways to increase the amount of dedicated parkland in the Speciﬁc Plan Area, including but not limited to designating additional lands for parkland development.

Area at ﬁve-year intervals following the
adoption of the Speciﬁc Plan Update. The
evaluation shall assess whether the
parkland-to-population ratio is being
improved or maintained. If the ratio is
not achieved, the City shall identify and
consider options to increase dedicated
parkland.

REC-1b: As future parks and recreational facilities are planned, the City shall evaluate if speciﬁc environmental eﬀects would occur. Typical impacts from construction and operation of parks and recreational facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traﬃc, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts includes:
 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity.
 Noise: Barriers and setbacks placed on parks and recreational facilities.  Traﬃc: Traﬃc devices for circulation.
 Lighting: Provision of hoods and deﬂectors on lighting ﬁxtures for stadium lights.

Planning and
Development
Department
Planning and
Development
Department
The City shall evaluate project-speciﬁc
environmental impacts during
environmental review, including air
quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise,
traﬃc, and lighting. If signiﬁcant impacts
are identiﬁed, appropriate mitigation
measures shall be incorporated into
project design. The City shall ensure that
project-speciﬁc mitigation is incorporated
into project plans prior to project
approval.

T OWER DISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
N OVEMBER 2025

14 This page intentionally left blank
Exhibit P - Attachment 3:

Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations
Th
is page intentionally left blank
November 2025

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT O F
O

VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
T

OWER DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025050309
F

RESNO, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
November 2025

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT O F
O

VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
T

OWER DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025050309
F

RESNO, CALIFORNIA
S
ubmitted to:

C
ity of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
P
repared by:

L
SA
2491 Alluvial Avenue, PMB 626
Clovis, California 93611
559.490.1210
Pr
oject No. 20241643
This page intentionally left blank

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

November 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 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Project Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 4 No Project Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 4 Recreation Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 PROCEDURAL FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 5

4.0 RECORD OF PROCEDINGS ..................................................................................... 7

5.0 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ....................................................................... 9

5.1 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 10 Findings Regarding No Impact or Less Than Significant Impacts (No Mitigation Required) ........................ 11 Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level ...................................................... 17 Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level ................................... 31 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts not Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level ....................... 34 Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts not Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level ............................. 36

5.2 Mitigation Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 37

5.3 Significant Irreversible Environment Effects ................................................................................ 37

5.4 Growth Inducement ..................................................................................................................... 38

5.4.1 Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth .......................................................................... 39

5.4.2 Promotion of Economic Growth .................................................................................................. 39

6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 41

6.1 Alternatives Considered in the EIR ............................................................................................... 41 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative .......................................................................................................... 41 Alternative 2: Recreation Alternative .......................................................................................................... 41

6.2 Findings Regarding Alternatives ................................................................................................... 42

7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 43

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

This page intentionally left blank

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

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 Tower District Specific Plan Update (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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

2 This page intentionally left blank

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

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 is located in Fresno County in the central San Joaquin Valley, approximately 200 miles north of Los Angeles and 170 miles south of Sacramento. The Tower District (District) is an 1,869-acre area located immediately north of Downtown Fresno and the State Route (SR) 180 freeway and one mile east of the SR-99 corridor. To the north of Fresno is Madera County, to the northeast and adjacent to Fresno is the City of Clovis, and unincorporated land is located to the east, south, and west of Fresno.

The Tower District Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) for the proposed project encompasses the Tower District, which is centrally located within Fresno and is home to approximately 20,200 residents. The District is generally bound by Shields Avenue to the north, Blackstone Avenue to the east, SR-180 to the south, and Fruit Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west. The Specific Plan Area is the geographic area for which the Specific Plan Update establishes policies conservation, future growth, and change, and conservation.

2.2 PROJECT
The intent of the proposed project is to provide strategic and comprehensive guidance for making decisions regarding the Tower District’s built environment and landscape character, land use and activities, public open space, community facilities, transportation, and other forms of infrastructure within the Speciﬁc Plan Area. The Speciﬁc Plan Update establishes a shared set of goals, objectives, policies, and implementing actions for the both neighborhood conservation and the future growth and change of the Speciﬁc Plan Area. The Speciﬁc Plan Update also aids in implementing the broader goals and policies for the City of Fresno outlined in the General Plan in a manner that can better meet the needs of the District. This update is intended to streamline development within the Speciﬁc Plan Area by updating the Speciﬁc Plan’s environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA requirements, and by providing a current regulatory framework and applicable mitigation measures.

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.

1. Enhance the livability and social diversity of the Tower District’s residential neighborhoods and create housing opportunities that make the District inclusive and welcoming.

2. Nurture the mutually supportive relationship between the Tower District’s residential neighborhoods and vibrant commercial areas.

3. Conserve and revitalize the Tower District’s historic resources.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

4 4. Shape the character of new development to complement the Tower District’s character as a walkable place not dominated by the automobile.

5. Provide effective transportation access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users, and emphasize the importance of pedestrian-friendly environments.

6. Increase opportunities for recreation within walking distance of Tower District residents.

7. Promote environmental sustainability and climate resilience.

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

No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Specific Plan Update would not be adopted.

Development within the Specific Plan Area would continue to be implemented in accordance with the existing 1991 Specific Plan and land use and zoning changes allowed under the General Plan.

Despite the lack of an update under the No Project Alternative, the distribution and location of projected growth within the Specific Plan Area would occur in a manner consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning documents. The identified improvements proposed in the Specific Plan Update for the Tower District would not be implemented. Land use and zoning changes would not be implemented, and any future development would be consistent with the current allowed land use and zoning designations. The existing land use and zoning designations anticipate that the Specific Plan Area would result in an increase of 2,271 additional residential units, for a total of 9,607 residential units within the Tower District, as the 1991 Specific Plan and General Plan is implemented through the Horizon Year of 2035. Similar to existing conditions, future development within the Specific Plan Area that trigger significant impacts under CEQA would be required to prepare Environmental Impact Reports and adopt statements of overriding consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

Recreation Alternative
The Recreation Alternative would continue to implement the Specific Plan Update, with the provision to utilize vacant sites and dedicate additional land for the development of parks and recreation facilities. Conceptually, this alternative would involve the development of vacant sites within the Specific Plan Area with recreational uses including active and passive park facilities such as trails, picnic areas, playground and tot lots, landscaped areas, and open spaces. Most of these sites would require purchase by the City, as they are under private ownership. Under the proposed project, the majority of these sites are included in the development capacity for future residential development. By prioritizing parks and recreation facilities and designating additional land for parkland development at vacant sites, this would also slightly decrease the projected residential units to be developed through implementation of the proposed project.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

5 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. 2025050309) 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 May 7, 2025, 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 May 27, 2025, 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 on August 15, 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 July 15, 2025, to the California tribes that are culturally and geographically affiliated with the Planning Area.

Representatives for the following tribes were notified: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians, Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe, Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, Table Mountain Rancheria, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eschom Valley Band.
• One response was received from the Table Mountain Rancheria tribe during the 90-day response period, and no resources have been identified as Tribal Cultural Resources. On this basis, the consultation process under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1(b) was concluded.
• A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was mailed on August 15, 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: www.fresno.gov/tdsp. Hard copies of the Draft EIR were made available at the City’s offices at 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA and the City of Fresno Central Library and the Gillis Branch Library.
• A 45-day State review and public comment period for the Draft EIR began on August 15, 2025, and ended on September 29, 2025.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

6 • 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 November 7, 2025, and consists of the following items:
○ The Draft EIR released on August 15, 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 N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

7 4.0 RECORD OF PROCEDINGS
In accordance with California Public Resources Code (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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

8 This page intentionally left blank

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

9 5.0 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
California Public Resources Code (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).

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

10 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 N OVEMBER 2025

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

11 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 No Impact or 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 “no impact” or “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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

12 • 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 AIR-1: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact AIR-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 AIR-4: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not 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. • Impact BIO-3: The project would not 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. • Impact BIO-4: The project would not 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. • 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.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

13 • 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.

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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

14 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.
• 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;

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

15 ○ 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.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

16 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.

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-2: The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
• 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. • Impact TRA-5: The project, in combination with other projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to transportation.

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.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

17 • 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.

Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level 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.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

18 AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-3: The proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Future development associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan Update would have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Information regarding operational characteristics of future specific development projects and the associated emissions cannot be determined at the time of this analysis; therefore, growth within the city could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including potential TAC emissions.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1a:

Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical health risk assessment (HRA) evaluating potential project construction phase-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology for assessing construction impacts. If construction-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD adopted threshold of significance, project applicants for new development projects shall be required to incorporate mitigation measures into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. Mitigation measures can include, but are not limited to:
• Maintain construction equipment and provide current certificate(s) of compliance for CARB’s In- Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2449.1] to SJVAPCD; and
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated. Documentation of a certified mechanic’s inspection and determinations shall be maintained by the Construction Manager and available for City inspection upon reasonable request.

The identified measures shall be included as part of the project Conditions of Approval. If the recommendations of the HRA are insufficient to reduce impacts to levels at or below SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million, such development with significant cancer risk (i.e., that exceed that threshold) shall be prohibited.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1b:

Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), the City of Fresno (City) shall evaluate new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

19 units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a HRA to the City Department of Development and Resource Management. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restrict idling on site by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing idling time to 3 minutes as enforced by an identified compliance officer within the construction crew. Idling restrictions shall be enforced by highly visible posting at the site entry, posting at other on-site locations frequented by truck drivers, conspicuous inclusion in employee training and guidance material and owner, operator or tenant direct action as required; • Electrify warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter; Reque use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or • Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.

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

Mitigation Measure AIR-1c:

Locate new sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

20 warehousing uses to evaluate operational-related health risk impacts to further ensure that operational-related emissions are reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR- 1c identifies the use of the discretionary review process for residential and other sensitive land uses near freeways to impose site plan and design features aimed at minimizing exposure to environmental pollution. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1a, AIR-1b, and AIR-1c would serve to ensure that the impacts due to the implementation of the proposed project are assessed to determine if they would expose sensitive receptors to potentially significant impacts from TAC emissions. Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measures AIR-1a, AIR-1b, and AIR-1c would ensure the potential TAC health risk impact associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages 4.1-41 through 4.2-43).

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 the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

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: Implementation of the Specific Plan Update would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a 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 development under the proposed project would be largely focused within developed areas, the proposed improvements could still adversely impact sensitive special-status species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Avoidance Measures for Bats.

1. A qualified biologist with experience in assessing trees for bat roosts will survey all trees within 500 feet of the construction footprint for suitability as bat roosts. If a tree planned for removal is deemed suitable, the qualified biologist will conduct a night emergence survey of the suitable roost tree 1 to 2 nights prior to tree removal using night vision and/or infrared-sensitive camera equipment and bioacoustic recording equipment. If surveys are negative, trees should be removed immediately.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

21 will be removed. The disturbance caused by chainsaw noise and vibration, coupled with the physical alteration of the tree will cause colonial bat species to abandon the roost tree after nightly emergence for foraging. Removing the tree the next day prevents re-habituation and re- occupation of the altered tree.

3. Any trees suitable as bat roost will be removed during one of the following periods to avoid harm to young or hibernating bats:
a. Between approximately March 1 and April 15 (or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit [°F], and less than 0.5 inch of rainfall in 24 hours occurs). b. After maternity season and prior to winter torpor or hibernation, September 1 through about October 15 (or before evening temperatures fall below 45°F, and prior to greater than

0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours).

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Pre-activity Nesting Bird Surveys.

If future development and site-specific project activities facilitated by the implementation of the Specific Plan Update must occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31), pre-activity nesting bird surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction at the construction site, and a 250-foot buffer for songbirds and a 500-foot buffer for raptors (other than Swainson’s hawk [Buteo swainsoni]) will be installed. If no active nests are found, no further action is required; however, note that nests may become active at any time throughout the summer, including when construction activities are occurring. If active nests are found during the survey or at any time during future project construction facilitated by implementation of the Tower District Specific Plan Update, the project proponent shall install an avoidance buffer ranging from 50 feet to 350 feet will be required, as determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer will remain in place until the biologist has determined that the young are no longer reliant on the nest. Work may occur within the avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance of the biologist. The qualified biologist will have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show signs of distress Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b would require avoidance measures for bats and nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.

As such, future development under the proposed project would require project-specific level and site-specific analysis as needed to reduce impacts to bats and nesting birds. Thus, the

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

22 proposed program would not result in significant impacts to sensitive special-status species. (Draft EIR pages 4.2-24 through 4.2-27)
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 special-status species and associated habitat 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.

While future development under the proposed project would be largely focused within developed areas, development could still adversely impact previously unknown resources during grading and construction activities. As development 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-1a:

If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City of Fresno (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 in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate 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.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1b:

Prior to approval of any discretionary project that could result in an adverse change to a potential historic and/or cultural resource, the City shall require a site-specific evaluation of historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications. The

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

23 evaluation shall provide recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to historic and/or cultural resources and shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Development. During project- specific environmental review of development under the proposed plan, before altering or otherwise affecting a building or structure that is 50 years old or older, the City shall require project applicants to retain a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to record the building or structure on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 form or equivalent documentation, if the building has not previously been evaluated. Its significance shall be assessed and documented by a qualified architectural historian in accordance with the significance criteria set forth for historic resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The evaluation process shall include the development of appropriate historical background research as context for the assessment of the significance of the structure in the history of the City and the region. For buildings, structures, and other resources determined through this evaluation process not to meet the CEQA historical resource criteria, no further mitigation is required. For any building, structure, and or other resource that qualifies as a historic resource, the architectural historian and the future project-specific applicant shall consult to consider measures that would enable projects under the proposed plan to avoid direct or indirect impacts to the historic building or structure. These could include preserving the building on site, using it “as is,” or other measures that would not materially alter the historically significant components of the building or structure. If the project cannot feasibly avoid modifications to the historically significant features of the historic building or structure, the following measures shall be undertaken as appropriate:
• If the building or structure can be preserved on-site, but remodeling, renovation or other alterations are required, this work shall be conducted in compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (NPS 2017). • If a significant historic building or structure is proposed for major alteration or renovation, or to be moved and/or demolished, the City shall ensure that a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated landscaping and setting. Documentation shall include still and video photography and a written documentary record of the building to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, including accurate scaled mapping, architectural descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available. A copy of the record shall be provided to the City. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site-specific history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate.
• If preservation and reuse at the site are not feasible, the historical building shall be documented as described in item (2) and, when physically and financially feasible, be moved and preserved or reused.

Significance after Mitigation. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1a and CUL-1b would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5, and impacts

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

24 associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages 4.3-16 through 4.3-23)
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.

The absence of prehistoric resources previously documented within the Specific Plan Area, and severe disturbance associated with development, suggest that sensitivity for in situ pre-contact archaeological resources is low. However, the establishment of Fresno as a streetcar suburb in the early 20th century and the subsurface debris and associated trash within the Specific Plan Area indicate that the area retains some potential for archaeological resources which could be discovered during implementation of the proposed project, particularly in previously undisturbed areas.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2:

Subsequent to a preliminary City review of grading plans for future development projects facilitated by the Specific Plan Update, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed. • If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City of Fresno 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 in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the City of Fresno. Appropriate 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 prehistoric archaeological artifacts 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 prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

25 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 an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological 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. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages 4.3-23 through 43-25)
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-3: The project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

The absence of prehistoric resources previously documented within the Specific Plan Area, and severe disturbance associated with development, suggest that sensitivity for in situ pre-contact archaeological resources is low. However, the Specific Plan Area retains some potential for archaeological resources which could be discovered during implementation of the proposed project, particularly in previously undisturbed areas.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3:

In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLDs regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

26 Significance after Mitigation. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan would not disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and the impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages

4.3-25 and 4.3-26)
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.

Impact CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to impact TCRs, the disturbance of which could result in a significant impact under CEQA.

Future development under the proposed project has the potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), particularly in previously undisturbed areas. Impacts resulting from future development within the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the Specific Plan Update could impact unknown archaeological resources including Native American artifacts and human remains.

Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a, CUL-1b, CUL-2, and CUL-3
Significance after Mitigation. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1a, CUL-1b, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not have the potential to impact TCRs, the disturbance of which could result in a significant impact under CEQA, and impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR page 4.3-27)
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.

Although many areas within the Specific Plan Area have been previously disturbed by development, implementation of the Specific Plan Update could include future development that would require excavations or construction within previously undisturbed soils containing unique paleontological resources geologic features.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological/Geologic Features Subsequent to a preliminary City of Fresno 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:

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

27 • 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 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 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. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources through the field surveys, literature searches, and retention of a qualified paleontologist should resources be discovered. (Draft EIR page 1-23) 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 paleontological resources, identified in the DEIR.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.

The proposed project would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction and operational sources. Construction activities would generate emissions from off-road construction equipment and on roadways as a result of construction-related truck hauling, vendor deliveries, and worker commuting. Operational GHG emissions are typically associated with mobile sources, area

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

28 sources, indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources, and water sources.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1:

Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Fresno (City) for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), Project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology. While neither the City nor the SJVAPCD currently have established threshold of significance for evaluating the GHG emissions impact of a proposed project, if either the City or the SJVAPCD develop GHG thresholds in the future (i.e. CEQA qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan/Climate Action Plan or SJVAPCD project-specific GHG thresholds), the evaluation of project-related GHG emissions shall demonstrate consistency with those thresholds of significance. In the absence of project-specific GHG thresholds established by the City or SJVAPCD, projects shall demonstrate compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG requirements, consistent with State GHG emissions reduction and equity prioritization goals, by implementing the following design elements, where feasible:
• Projects shall not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. • Projects shall achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the 2022 Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meets the City’s locally adopted target reduction (13 percent reduction). • Projects shall not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Projects must achieve compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

Should a proposed project exceed established thresholds of significance, the City shall require that the proposed project implement GHG emission reduction measures to reduce emissions below applicable thresholds or to a level commensurate with implementing the recommended project- design features outlined above. Such mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to, energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, solid waste measures, and transportation and motor vehicles measures. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 would serve to ensure that the potential impacts of the proposed project are assessed to determine if they would have a significant impact on GHG. Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure the potential GHG impacts associated with the continued implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages 4.4-25 through 4.4-29)

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

29 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 GHG-2: The proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to building decarbonization and transportation electrification.

Future development under the proposed project would result in greenhouse gas emissions which have the potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Future development would be required to prepare site specific analysis to assess consistency with building decarbonization and transportation electrification goals.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would serve to ensure that the impacts of the continued implementation of the proposed project would meet the building decarbonization, transportation electrification, and VMT goals. Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure the potential GHG impacts associated with the continued implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages 4.4-19 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 substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise, identified in the EIR.

NOISE
Impact NOI-1: Implementation of the proposed 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 in other applicable local, State, or Federal standards.

Implementation of the Specific Plan Update would have a significant impact if it would expose new and existing receptors to incompatible levels of noise from both the construction and operations resulting from future development facilitated by the Specific Plan Update. The proposed project would result in both short-term and long-term noise impacts. Therefore, implementation of the project has the potential to 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 in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a:

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

30 analysis to evaluate potential impacts on off-site sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site. The project-level construction noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Director. Measures shall be implemented to reduce construction noise to the FTA construction noise criteria or below if construction noise impacts are identified.

Measures may include, but are not limited to the installation of temporary construction barriers.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1b:

Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA (i.e. non-exempt projects), a project-specific noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to determine the noise levels generated from long-term operations of future projects associated with implementation of the Tower District Specific Plan Update, and measures will be included as necessary to reduce noise levels and ensure compliance with the City of Fresno’s stationary noise standards. The project specific noise study will be submitted to the city for review and approval. Noise reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or soundwalls) or by using equipment that has a quieter rating.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b would serve to ensure that the impacts due to the implementation of the Specific Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pages 4.5-16 through 4.5-21) 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 proposed project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels during construction of future development under the proposed project. The greatest vibration levels are anticipated during the site preparation and grading phases.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2:

Future development would require that the construction contractor for the project shall restrict heavy construction (e.g., large bulldozers) or require the use of light construction equipment (e.g., small bulldozers and trucks) within 10 feet of a historic building, 9 feet of an older residential structure, or 6 feet of a new residential or modern industrial/commercial building, to be confirmed by the City of Fresno or lead agency.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which restricts heavy construction (e.g., large bulldozers and loaded trucks) or requires the use of light construction equipment (e.g., small bulldozers and trucks) within 10 feet of a historic building, 9

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

31 feet of an older residential structure, or 6 feet of a new residential or modern industrial/commercial building, would reduce vibration levels to below the vibration damage threshold for the respective building types. Therefore, vibration levels generated from project construction would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-

2. (Draft EIR pages 4.5-21 through 4.5-23)
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 related to groundbourne vibration and groundbourne noise levels, identified in the DEIR.

RECREATION
Impact REC-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan Update could require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Buildout under proposed project could include construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

The development of new parks or the expansion of existing parks that could be a result of the implementation of the Specific Plan Update could result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The construction and operation of new or expanded parks facilities could result in significant adverse environmental impacts such as air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting
Significance after Mitigation. Compliance with Mitigation Measure REC-1b would reduce potential construction impacts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan Update, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pages 4.6-21 and 4.6- 22)
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 construction or expansion of recreational facilities, identified in the DEIR.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level 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.

AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-5: The proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment if it – in combination with other projects – would contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to air quality.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

32 Cumulative growth within the city could result in potential TAC health risks exceeding applicable standards and cumulatively contributing to elevated health risks in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Significance after Mitigation.Compliance with Mitigation Measure AIR-1a would require future development projects in the Planning Area to evaluate and mitigate potential TAC exposure related to project-level construction activity. Mitigation Measure AIR-1b would ensure that mobile sources of TACs not covered under SJVAPCD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review. Mitigation Measure AIR-1b would require the preparation of project-specific technical health risk assessments for certain discretionary large industrial or warehousing uses to evaluate operational-related health risk impacts to further ensure that operational-related emissions are reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR- 1c identifies the use of the discretionary review process for residential and other sensitive land uses near freeways to impose site plan and design features aimed at minimizing exposure to environmental pollution. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1a, AIR-1b, and AIR-1c would serve to ensure that the impacts due to the implementation of the proposed project are assessed to determine if they would expose sensitive receptors to potentially significant impacts from TAC emissions. Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measures AIR-1a, AIR-1b, and AIR-1c would ensure the potential TAC health risk impact associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages 4.1-41 through 4.2-43).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-7: Implementation of the Specific Plan Update could result in cumulative impacts to biological resources.

While the Specific Plan Area is largely a built-out environment, future cumulative development and redevelopment under the proposed project could result in significant impacts to biological resources, including special-status species, within the Specific Plan Area.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b would serve to ensure that the impacts of the implementation of the proposed project would reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pages 4.2- 27)
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 state or federally protected wetlands, identified in the EIR.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

33 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-5: The project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources.

Future development within the Specific Plan Area as well as other cumulative development could result in impacts to known and unknown historical resources. All future development facilitated by the implementation of the Specific Plan Update would similarly require separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-level potential impacts to historical resources and to identify any required mitigation.

Significance after Mitigation. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1a, CUL-1b, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would serve to ensure that the impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan Update would reduce cumulative impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR page 4.3-27 and 4.3-28)
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 project that avoid or substantially lessen cumulative impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources, identified in the EIR.

GEOLOGY AND SOLS
Impact GEO-7: Result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to paleontological resources.

Implementation of the Specific Plan Update could result in the discovery paleontological/geological resources during excavation and/or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils.

Although current regulations to preserve cultural resources are expected to reduce potential impacts resulting from future development, the project’s contribution to impacts on paleontological resources would be considered cumulative considerable. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-3: Implementation of the proposed project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to GHG emissions.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

34 GHG emissions are a global issue and it is unlikely that the proposed project would generate enough GHG emissions to influence GHG emissions on its own. However, GHG emissions are inherently cumulative in nature, and future development under the proposed project would require site specific analysis to determine its GHG impact and compliance with applicable State related goals for reducing GHG emissions.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would serve to ensure that the impacts due to implementation of the proposed project are assessed to determine if they would have a significant impact on GHG and ensure that future development projects would comply with State goals related to the reduction of GHG emissions. Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure the potential GHG impacts associated with the continued implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pages 4.4-29 and 4.4-30)
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.

NOISE
Impact NOI-4: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise.

Buildout of the Specific Plan Update, along with construction of related projects in the Specific Plan Area, would introduce construction activities that could potentially overlap and result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan Update could result in cumulative impacts with respect to noise.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a, NOI-1b, and NOI- 2 would serve to ensure that noise and vibration impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulative significant impact. (Draft EIR pages 4.5-23 through 4.5-25)
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 a Less than Significant Level 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.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

35 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.

RECREATION
Impact REC-1: The proposed project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks or recreation facilities, or the need for new or physically altered parks or recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
The population increase projected under the proposed project is within the population growth contemplated by the General Plan and the 2023–2031 Housing Element. However, the Specific Plan Update does not implement the creation of new parks or recreation facilities, and there are approximately 84.6 acres less than the total parkland acreage needed to meet the citywide parks and open space standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, potential impacts related to the provision of parks and recreation services could be significant.

Mitigation Measure REC-1a:

As new development occurs in the Specific Plan Area, the City of Fresno (City) shall periodically (every 5 years) monitor residential population growth compared to development of new parklands for the purpose of evaluating the strength of the Tower District Specific Plan Update to meet the ratio of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. If the ratio is not met, the City shall explore additional ways to increase the amount of dedicated parkland in the Specific Plan Area, including but not limited to designating additional lands for parkland development Mitigation Measure REC-1b:

As future parks and recreational facilities are planned, the City shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from construction and operation of parks and recreational facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts includes:
• Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity. • Noise: Barriers and setbacks placed on parks and recreational facilities. • Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation.
• Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures for stadium lights Significance with Mitigation. Mitigation Measures REC-1a and REC-1b would reduce potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan Update on parks and public facilities; however, because the existing amount of parkland and recreational facilities within the Specific

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

36 Plan Area does not meet City standards, and no construction of new park facilities is planned through the implementation of the Specific Plan Update, this potential impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR Pages 4.6-16 through 4.6-20) Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact REC-2: The proposed project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of a facility would occur or be accelerated.

Implementation of the Specific Plan Update would result in a population increase of approximately 8,621 residents for a total of 30,429 residents within the Specific Plan Area by full build out in horizon year 2046. The additional residential growth would result in an increase in demand for parks and recreation facilities. Based on the City’s General Plan and Parks Master Plan standard of 3.0 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would require the dedication of approximately 91.311 of useable parkland to meet the standard. While the proposed project includes park opportunity areas for future study, as well as objectives and policies to guide the development of future park and recreation facilities, no new parks are actively proposed to be constructed or expanded under the Specific Plan Update. Implementation of the Specific Plan Update would facilitate increased population which could 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.

Significance with Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1a would reduce potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan Update on parks and public facilities; however, because the existing amount of parkland and recreational facilities within the Specific Plan Area does not meet City standards, and no construction of new park facilities is planned through the implementation of the Specific Plan Update, this potential impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pages 4.6-20 and 4.6-21) Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts not Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level 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.

RECREATION
Impact REC-4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts with respect to recreation.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

37 Implementation of the Specific Plan Update is projected to generate an increase in the population of approximately 8,621 requiring the dedication of approximately 91.3 acres of useable parkland.

Useable parkland refers to pocket, neighborhood, and community parks. The Specific Plan Area currently has approximately 8.2 acres of parkland, of which 6.7 acres is usable. While the Specific Plan Update introduces park opportunity areas for future study, as well as objectives and policies to guide the development of future park and recreation facilities, no new parks are actively proposed to be constructed or expanded under the Specific Plan Update. Implementation of the Specific Plan Update, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts with respect to recreation.

Significance with Mitigation. Mitigation Measures REC-1a and REC-1b would reduce potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan Update on parks and public facilities; however, because the existing amount of parkland and recreational facilities within the Specific Plan Area does not meet City standards, and no construction of new park facilities is planned through the implementation of the Specific Plan Update, this impact would be considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pages 4.6-22 and 4.6-23) Finding on Proposed Mitigation. The City finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

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
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 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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

38 • 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 Chapter

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.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would provide a framework for future development and redevelopment within the Specific Plan Area. The project’s land use changes would guide long-term urban form and commit future generations to development consistent with the updated plan. However, because the Specific Plan Area is largely developed and surrounded by other urban land uses with similar characteristics, implementation would not establish land use patterns inconsistent with surrounding areas or result in the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses.

Construction and operation of future development under the proposed project would involve the irreversible consumption of nonrenewable resources, including energy, water, and raw materials.

These resources include lumber, aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt, metals, and fossil fuels consumed during construction and ongoing operations. While such use represents a permanent and irretrievable commitment of limited resources, the scale of consumption would be typical of urban infill development and consistent with regional growth projections. Energy use associated with the project was evaluated in the Initial Study (Appendix C of the Draft EIR) and found to be less than significant.

Potential environmental accidents associated with demolition, grading, and construction activities were also evaluated. These activities would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing hazardous materials management, which would minimize the potential for accidental releases. Furthermore, industrial activities would remain confined to existing light industrial areas in the southwest portion of the Specific Plan Area, reducing the likelihood of large- scale environmental incidents. Therefore, while the project would result in the irreversible commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, these impacts would not be considered significant given the project’s infill nature, regulatory oversight, and consistency with City sustainability policies. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would align with the Fresno General Plan’s sustainability goals, further ensuring that long-term resource commitments are balanced with environmental stewardship objectives.

5.4 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Under CEQA, a project is considered growth-inducing if it directly or indirectly fosters substantial population or economic growth, or stimulates the construction of additional housing in the surrounding area. Growth-inducing impacts can occur when a project extends or expands infrastructure systems beyond what is required to meet project-specific needs, removes physical or regulatory barriers to development, or generates new economic activity that encourages further growth. Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires discussion of how a project may facilitate such growth, including the elimination of obstacles to population growth, such as added

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

39 wastewater or roadway capacity, and the potential for economic expansion. Direct growth may occur when a project itself brings new residents or jobs, while indirect growth may result when the project’s infrastructure enables or supports additional unrelated development. Projects located within areas already planned and served by existing infrastructure are generally not considered adversely growth-inducing, as they accommodate anticipated development rather than promote unplanned expansion..

5.4.1 Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth
Growth-inducing impacts under CEQA can occur when a project eliminates physical or regulatory obstacles to population growth, such as extending infrastructure or changing land use regulations that previously limited development. Physical obstacles include the absence of essential public services, such as roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, while regulatory obstacles can involve restrictive zoning or development policies. Removing these barriers can make new areas available for residential or commercial development, thereby facilitating population growth.

The proposed Specific Plan Update would not eliminate any physical obstacles to population growth, as it does not include the construction of new major infrastructure or public service extensions beyond those already serving the Specific Plan Area. Existing water, wastewater, storm drainage, and roadway systems would continue to support the area, and implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not create excess capacity that could induce additional unplanned development.

Instead, the Specific Plan Update focuses on accommodating projected growth within the City’s existing urban framework through infill and redevelopment.

While the Specific Plan Update does include regulatory adjustments that promote housing diversity, mixed-use development, and affordability, these are intended to improve livability and reduce displacement rather than to remove growth constraints. The policies of the Specific Plan Update align with the City’s General Plan and Housing Element objectives for managed, urban-centered growth. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not remove significant obstacles to population growth or facilitate new development beyond what has already been anticipated in the City’s long-term planning documents.

5.4.2 Promotion of Economic Growth
Promotion of economic growth refers to a project’s potential to increase economic activity and generate a multiplier effect, where initial investments stimulate additional spending, employment, and development in related sectors. Projects that create new commercial opportunities, attract visitors, or enhance local business conditions can contribute to regional economic vitality.

The proposed Specific Plan Update is intended to guide long-term reinvestment within the Specific Plan Area by strengthening existing commercial areas, encouraging small businesses, and enhancing the district’s role as a cultural and entertainment destination. The Specific Plan Update promotes neighborhood-serving retail, supports pedestrian-oriented commercial corridors, and encourages compatible light industrial and mixed-use activities. These strategies are designed to reinforce the Tower District’s economic base and preserve its historic urban character while improving local quality of life.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

40 While the Specific Plan Update encourages economic revitalization within an already developed area, it would not trigger large-scale or unplanned regional economic expansion. The policies are aimed at supporting sustainable, localized growth, such as improving business diversity, maintaining existing employment centers, and promoting cultural events, rather than inducing extensive new economic development. As a result, the proposed project would promote moderate economic growth consistent with existing City planning objectives without generating substantial indirect growth effects beyond the Specific Plan Area.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

41 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 proposed Specific Plan Update would not be adopted. Development within the Specific Plan Area would continue to be implemented in accordance with the existing Tower District 1991 Specific Plan (1991 Specific Plan) and land use and zoning changes allowed under the General Plan. • Alternative 2 – Recreation Alternative: The Recreation Alternative would prioritize providing more parks and recreation facilities within the Specific Plan Area, specifically on vacant sites, including the areas highlighted as “park opportunity areas for study” in the Specific Plan Update.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Specific Plan Update would not be adopted, and development within the Tower District would continue under the existing 1991 Specific Plan and General Plan designations. Growth would still occur consistent with existing zoning, resulting in an estimated 2,271 additional residential units by 2035 for a total of 9,607 units. However, the land use changes and improvements envisioned in the updated Specific Plan, such as new mixed-use zoning and expanded residential areas, would not be implemented. As a result, future development would remain limited to what is presently allowed, and opportunities for coordinated revitalization and enhanced neighborhood design would not be realized.

Alternative 2: Recreation Alternative
The Fresno General Plan and Parks Master Plan set a goal of providing 3.0 acres of neighborhood and community parks and 2.0 acres of regional and open space parks per 1,000 residents. Within the Tower District, existing parks total 6.7 acres, providing 0.33 acre per 1,000 residents which is below the City’s established service goal. The Recreation Alternative would address this deficiency by prioritizing the development of new park and recreation facilities on vacant sites identified as park opportunity areas within the Specific Plan Area. However, because most of these 79 vacant sites are

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

42 small and privately owned, they would largely produce pocket parks and would require City acquisition. Shifting these parcels from residential to recreational use would modestly reduce the number of housing units achievable under the proposed project, but would increase local access to open space and recreation amenities.

6.2 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, would not adopt the proposed Specific Plan Update, and development within the Tower District would continue under the existing 1991 Specific Plan and existing General Plan. Growth would still occur within current land use and zoning designations, resulting in approximately 2,271 additional residential units by 2035 for a total of 9,607 residential units. However, this alternative would not implement the updated plan’s mixed-use zoning, enhanced residential opportunities, or revitalization strategies. As a result, development would remain limited to existing entitlements, and opportunities for coordinated redevelopment, design improvements, and community enhancement would not be achieved.

Alternative 2, the Recreation Alternative, would prioritize the creation of new parks and recreational amenities within the Tower District to address the area’s current parkland deficiency. This alternative would focus future development of recreational facilities on vacant parcels, many of which are small and privately owned, into pocket parks and other open space features, thereby increasing public access to recreation. However, it would also reduce the number of parcels available for housing and slightly decrease the total potential residential buildout under the proposed plan. Additionally, as the Tower District is a highly-developed and urban area, the vacant sites that could be utilized for potential parks and recreation facilities are not all readily available to the City or easily accessible to the general public. The vacant sites within the Specific Plan Area are constrained by the acreage of the parcels, and therefore could only be developed as pocket parks and would not meet the need for a neighborhood park (2-10 acres) or a community park (10-40 acres). The location of these parks would also be dependent on the vacant sites, which are not spread geographically equally throughout the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the potential parks would not serve all residents of the Tower District, as the service area radius for pocket parks is only up to 0.5-miles.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a project shall require the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative, and 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. The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would result in no new environmental impacts and would reduce some of the proposed project impacts; however, it would not meet the Project Objectives. Therefore, the Recreation Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Build Alternative, as it has similar impacts as the proposed project and slightly reduced impact to recreation. The Recreation Alternative would result in modest environmental benefits compared to the No Project Alternative by expanding community open space and improving neighborhood livability. However, it would not fully meet the objectives of the proposed project related to housing diversity, mixed-use development, and economic revitalization.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

43 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:
○ Enhance the livability and social diversity of the Tower District’s residential neighborhoods and create housing opportunities that make the District inclusive and welcoming. ○ Nurture the mutually supportive relationship between the Tower District’s residential neighborhoods and vibrant commercial areas.

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

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

44 ○ Conserve and revitalize the Tower District’s historic resources. ○ Shape the character of new development to complement the Tower District’s character as a walkable place not dominated by the automobile.
○ Provide effective transportation access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users, and emphasize the importance of pedestrian-friendly environments. ○ Increase opportunities for recreation within walking distance of Tower District residents. ○ Promote environmental sustainability and climate resilience.

2. The project would enhance livability and social diversity within the Tower District by supporting mixed-use infill, reinvestment in aging infrastructure, and new housing opportunities at varied affordability levels. This would improve neighborhood vitality and help meet the City’s housing goals while maintaining the area’s historic character.

3. The project would encourage small business development, cultural programming, and entertainment uses that strengthen the Tower District’s role as a local and regional destination.

These activities would generate employment, expand the local tax base, and reinforce the district’s identity as Fresno’s historic arts and cultural hub.

4. The project would support walkability, bicycle and transit connectivity, and multimodal street design consistent with the Fresno General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. By promoting sustainable infill growth, energy efficiency, and reduced vehicle trips, the project would contribute to sustainability and climate-adaptation goals citywide.

5. The project is consistent with and would contribute to achieving the policies, goals, and objectives established by the City of Fresno General Plan. Objectives and policies relating to Conservation and Historic Preservation, Land Use, Parks and Public Facilities, Circulation, and Utilities would provide regulatory guidance to facilitate growth and development in the Specific Plan Area consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan. Specifically, the Specific Plan Update implements key policies of the Fresno General Plan and Parks Master Plan by guiding equitable development, improving access to open space, and fostering complete neighborhoods. Although the City’s parkland service ratio would remain below target levels, the plan identifies strategies and opportunity areas for long-term recreation improvements for future development.

Accordingly, the City finds that these collective benefits substantially outweigh the remaining significant and unavoidable impact related to recreation, and that approval of the Tower District Specific Plan Update is warranted in light of the project’s enduring community, environmental, and economic advantages.

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

T OWER D ISTRICT S PECIFIC PLAN U PDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA

45 This page intentionally left blank

Fresno City CouncilNovember 20, 2025

Fresno City Council
November 20, 2025