Fresno City Council
December 18, 2025

From: Cheryl Smith
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Opposition to SEDA
Date: Saturday, March 22, 2025 8:30:16 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my concern about SEDA. City money should e going toward existing neighborhoods, not new developments where the developers make a huge profit at the expense of those in the city that need attention and ongoing services. I live in the hIstoric Huntington area and Jackson Neighborhood. We need ongoing maintenance for our sidewalks, streets, lights, police presence, funding for school, etc. The city owes established neighborhoods their money and attention.

Thank you,
Cheryl Dueck Smith
604
605
606
607
608
From: Susie Rodriguez
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Re: annexation
Date: Monday, March 24, 2025 12:04:27 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
On Mar 23, 2025, at 11:52 PM, Susie Rodriguez
wrote:

3.1 Aesthetics, Light and Glare
Why would we want to look like Los Angeles with the addition of 44,000 new homes, the Valley is known for its beauty

3.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
We provide the world with our agriculture products, building homes and eliminating precious land will harm the world. Not to mention the mountains and its precious resources

3.3 Air Quality
More housing and businesses will create more air pollution

3.4 Biological Resources
Natural resources will suffer by taking away farmland, animals and water resources

3.5 Cultural Resources and Tribel Cultural Resources
We need to keep our Cultural history resources, this is our past and present

3.6 Energy
Use our energy to improve what we already have, new is not always better

3.7 Geology, Soils and Seismicity
We have natural resources, mountains, rivers, lakes and fertile soil to grow our precious crops

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
More housing and businesses will contribute to greenhouse gases 609

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
More construction, bigger chance of more hazardous materials being used and a risk to health, safety and property

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water quality in the city is awful, existing home owners who have great tasting well water are being asked to hook up with the city, This doesn’t make sense!!!

3.11 Land Use and Planning
Land west of Fresno is a better idea for this horrible plan, east side has more farm land, mountains, rivers and lakes

3.12 Mineral Resources
More housing, less mineral resources

3.13 Noise
More houses, more noise WHY???

3.14 Population and Housing
According to the report from one of our property owners, the findings don’t justify the new development of 44,000 homes. Within city limits, there are plenty of abandoned houses empty land where new houses, townhomes and condos could be built, water and sewer hookups are already there.

3.15 Public Services
Emergency services, local and state services will be less available.

3.16 Recreation
Money could be better spent on existing city recreation projects.

3.17 Transportation and Traffic
Fresno already has horrible traffic problems, adding more housing would only create more congestion. Public transportation is not used often.

3.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would have to build new fire department, hospital and police to accommodate the population growth.

3.19 Wildfires
610
More population, more fires!!! City wants us to be metered for water, who can afford to water 2 or more acres, we would have to stop watering because of the cost and our properties would look like an abandoned dry land, a huge risk for fire. i feel Fresno city should pay our water bill since they wand us to hook up to meters. I understand new housing being hooked up to the city, but it doesn’t make sense to force established retired property owners with acreage to belong to the city. We have wells with great drinking water and our own septic tanks, the city wants us to pay $50,000 to remove our well and $50,000 to remove our septic tanks, city should pay that bill.
611
612
just never leave. Fixing already established roads is projected to cost $500 million, and even though that never becomes a priority and roads get worse, somehow a $2-4 billion project is doable. Fixing roads will not only help people in Fresno, but people traveling through or to Fresno. It will help cars have less wear and tear, and can prevent accidents caused by potholes and roads being cracked open from roots.

I have lived in Fresno for nearly 2 decades, and see the same trends over and over.

Developmental properties continuously move outwards, costing money and adding pollution, taking away farmland and ecosystems for plants and wildlife. The houses created are rarely if ever Affordable Housing. Just new houses built poorly that are designed to last 10-15 years before the next major development starts and builds new houses for those people to flock to yet again. We need to stop creating new hotspots of comfortable living and leaving what proceeded it to become dilapidated. It is absolutely appalling this trend that is purely from a place of greed continues. Houses aren’t built to last anymore but to look shiny shortterm for those who can afford it. This likely won’t even help our local housing market, as many people have been buying second or third homes and renting them out at high prices as a way to pay for their new home’s mortgage. Worse, the houses remain empty even though people live on the streets, 5 people will share a 2 bed 1 bath apartment, and young adults are forced to live at home during or after college because they can’t afford a house of their own. Fresno needs to do better.
613
From: Valerie Johnson
To: LongRangePlanning
Cc: Annalisa Perea; Mike Karbassi; Miguel Arias; Tyler Maxwell; Nick Richardson; Nelson Esparza; Todd Stermer Subject: Concerns regarding SEDA
Date: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:41:50 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
I am writing to express my concerns about the SEDA Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Below are key areas that I find alarming:
4-2 Growth-Induced Impacts
The SEDA plan relies on outdated population growth projections to justify its development. The report claims Fresno will grow by 226,000 people by 2035, but new data from the California Department of Finance shows a much smaller growth of just 72,000 and only 19,000 more by 2070! There is no need to expand as suggested in the SEDA Plan when Fresno’s population is growing much slower than originally predicted.

3.3.4 Air Quality
Fresno already has some of the worst air quality in the nation, and the SEDA plan admits it will create high levels of pollution. Why worsen our air when the project isn’t even necessary?
4-1 Impact AG-1 (Farmland Loss)
The project will destroy 6,700 acres of farmland—land that helps clean our air and supports local agriculture. Replacing it with development will increase pollution and hurt our local economy.

3.17 Transportation & Traffic
The report claims that by 2025, people in SEDA will drive only 5 miles per day—80% less than what experts predict. This assumption is unrealistic and ignores Fresno’s existing car-dependent infrastructure.

Invest in Fresno’s Existing Communities (an example)
I live near and there are terrible streets in that area, particularly on Shaw Ave and terrible sidewalks in disrepair on where my daughter’s family lives. I would like the city to fix the streets and sidewalks instead of putting our money at risk for the SEDA Plan. I urge the City of Fresno to prioritize reinvesting in existing neighborhoods rather than moving forward with SEDA.

Sincerely,
Valerie Johnson
CC [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
614
615
From: Wes Bigham
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: SEDA EIR
Date: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:36:56 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
EIR 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES : FARMLAND IS THE BACKBONE OF FRESNO,CO. THE SOUTHEAST AREA IS PRIME LAND. HOW DOES THE CITY PLAN TO REPLACE THIS LAND.

EIR 3.3 AIR QUALITY:HOW WILL THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND

CONSTRUCTION IMPACT THE AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC EIR 3.10 WATER QUALITY: WATER IS A COMMODITY IN THIS VALLEY. THIS PROJECT WILL CAUSE THE WATER TO DROP IN THE SEDA AREA.WHAT IS THE CITIES PLAN FOR THIS PROBLEM.
616
From: Randy White
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: We oppose SEDA
Date: Monday, March 24, 2025 8:46:34 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To Whom it may concern,
My wife and I are retired and live in the Jackson Neighborhood (near Jackson Elementary). We are invested in our community and local school. We are deeply concerned about the proposed SEDA development. Here are our concerns:

1. This massive investment in housing is based on old city growth data. Current growth is far below the growth of 15 years ago, the data of which is being used in the justification of SEDA. A development of this size is not necessary.

2. It will further sprawl in our city, which not only eats up more land, but over-taxes our city resources for water, fire, police, recreation, etc.

3. It reduces the incentive to do in-fill housing, which we need in the core of our city.

4. And just as important, it reduces the financial resources available for the maintenance and repair of our current neighborhoods, including the Jackson Neighborhood where we live. This neighborhood, like many others in our urban core, has been neglected. The streets and alleys need repair, the trees trimmed, the local greenspace needs development, and better maintenance.

We urge the city to reconsider this massive development.

Sincerely,
Randall & Tina White
617
618
the Fresno budget is in the tank,
our water supply is limited by ongoing droughts,
and the infrastructure of numerous residential areas is in need of repair? To the latter point, the Wilson Island has been waiting for a year for the City's response to our traffic calming issues. We have recently been told street enhancements and repairs have been delayed, again, until summer. Late spring if we're lucky. Potholes in our streets, insufficient lighting, and an influx of the homeless are current issues. Need I mention the recent activities that have attracted a noticeable police presence.

Is it asking too much for you to turn your attention to existing issues rather than creating new ones???
Respectfully,
Jeannine Raymond
Wilson Island Neighborhood Group, Chair
619
620
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

points made in each of those letters as well. The RDEIR should disclose and respond to all previously submitted comment letters on the DEIR.

The SEDA project would be a massive development project with extensive impacts that must be carefully planned and mitigated. It has been accurately described as follows:
[the project will] transform nearly 9,000 acres southeast of Fresno into a new Clovis on Fancher Creek.

The project up for the city council’s vote will be one of the biggest suburban sprawl projects in Fresno’s history. The Dyer administration’s plan includes 45,000 homes and up to 150,000 people, on a stretch of land that is currently a patchwork stretch of farmland, rural homesteads, two-lane country roads, and stop-signs.

Known as the Southeast Development Area (SEDA), the transformed community would rival the size of Clovis – 16 times the size of the Copper River project in northeast Fresno, and seven times as large as Riverstone and Tesoro Viejo, the major new communities across the San Joaquin River in Madera. (Weaver, Fresnoland, August 25, 2023, “Another Clovis, but in southeast Fresno? City moves forward on mega-development plans” , available at https://fresnoland.org/2023/08/25/city-of-fresno-eyes-seda/. ) Our understanding of tax sharing agreements that were reached between the City of Fresno and County of Fresno at the end of 20243 is that there would now be economic incentives to the City to encourage growth in the Southeast area of the City rather than in other areas where growth should be incentivized. The existence and effect of these tax sharing agreements should be disclosed and analyzed in the EIR. It has been reported in Fresnoland that “The agreement represents a sea change in city development policy, shifting financial incentives towards growth in the city’s southeast development area, called SEDA, with nominal changes to incentives to annex areas west of 99, formerly the city’s top growth priority.” (https://fresnoland.org/2024/12/20/fresno-countysupervisors-approve-tax-sharing-deal-as-southeast-rural-residents-questions-remain/.) As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Fresno (City) must address the impacts of this massive project, along with its cumulative 3 https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/sharedassets/county/v/1/resources/press-releasedocuments/2024-press-releases/2024-12-20-county-city-tax-sharing-agreementannouncement.pdf 621
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

impacts with other similar developments in the region. CEQA has been described as a bill of rights for an environmental democracy. It is intended to provide a “road map” and a “price tag” for proposed projects:

The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the public, of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the entire project, from start to finish. This examination is intended to provide the fullest information reasonably available upon which the decision makers and the public they serve can rely in determining whether or not to start the project at all, not merely to decide whether to finish it. The EIR is intended to furnish both the road map and the environmental price tag for a project, so that the decision maker and the public both know, before the journey begins, just where the journey will lead, and how much they-and the environment-will have to give up in order to take that journey.
(NRDC v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, 271.) Unfortunately, the SEDA EIR falls woefully short of providing the public and decisionmakers with sufficient information to evaluate and mitigate the project’s impacts.

These deficiencies must be rectified and a legally adequate EIR recirculated for public review and comment.

A. Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Impacts are Not Sufficiently Mitigated.

The SEDA DEIR, in its Agricultural Resource and Forestry Resources section, identifies the amount of farmland threatened with conversion to urban uses. The Plan’s proposed development will effectively eliminate approximately 6,741 acres in agricultural production, which are specified as 2,475 acres of Prime Farmland, and approximately 1,352 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 1,189 acres of Farmland of local importance, and approximately 1,725 acres of Unique Farmland. (DEIR p. 3.2-16.)
The prominent problem of the SEDA DEIR pertaining to agricultural resources is that its proposed farmland mitigation measures for these thousands of acres of farmland rely upon inadequate policies that have not been adequately implemented. When Fresno’s General Plan was adopted, farmland mitigation was perhaps the most contested and difficult policy of the entire document. Inevitably, after intense debate, the final 2014 Fresno General Plan contained key values and provisions that were structural in nature, including no sphere of influence extension, a prioritization of infill over greenfield development, and defining an easily implementable farmland mitigation policy. 622
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

Specific to the structural land use policies promoting farmland conservation, the 2014 Fresno General Plan stated, “Policies in the Plan will help preserve farmland by incentivizing new development within and adjacent to already-urbanized land, only extending public utilities to new development that adheres to the Plan, and not expanding the City’s SOI.”4
So, the proposed development of the Southeast Development Area effectively punctures the previously agreed upon sphere of influence boundary and violates the integrity of the city’s hoped for revitalization as it re-initiates a historic pattern of sprawl development and proposes new annexation (RDEIR, p. 2-3 [project “requires” annexation]). LAFCO should have been notified and consulted about this proposal.5

The achievement of a farmland mitigation policy was another important outcome of the 2014 Fresno General Plan. Originally, this General Plan specified under policy RC-9-c that when farmland was converted to urban uses, the City of Fresno would “permanently protect an equal amount of similar farmland elsewhere through easement.” This simple, straightforward and implementable policy was consistent with other farmland mitigation programs that typically require mitigation at a 1:1 ratio on soils of similar quality under a conservation easement, however RC-9-c was later amended in ways that made it more muddled, less definitive and more difficult to implement.6

The Fresno General Plan policy RC-9-c (the amended portion in italics) states:
“Farmland Preservation Program. In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation 4 Fresno General Plan Adopted: December 18, 2014, Resource Conservation and Resilience Chapter, Farmland Section 7.6, pg. 7-42.
5 On March 9, 2022, LAFCO considered SEDA.
6 The hearing to consider General Plan Amendment Application No. P18-03553 and related Environmental Finding was initiated by the Fresno City Council on March 3, 2017 through Council Resolution No. 2017-61. The final resolution approved the General Plan Text Amendment No. P18-03553 amending Farmland Preservation Program RC-9-c. 623
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

Banks, Fee Title Acquisitions, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some of all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.”7
After a decade, the 2014 General Plan’s originally clear farmland mitigation policy has been amended, diluted, and as yet remains unimplemented. Even worse, its explicit direction to establish a “Farmland Preservation Program” remains incomplete.

This reticence toward implementation erodes confidence that such measures will now be taken up within the Southeast Development Area’s Specific Plan.

Given the lack of compliance with earlier planning policy plans and directives related to farmland conservation, it is recommended that the City of Fresno institute a SEDA-specific urban growth boundary requiring fifty percent vote of city residents to all future proposed greenfield developments in the Plan Area. This would raise the level of planning diligence, democratic participation, and environment promoting policies as each future development project is considered. In addition, each future development proposal in the area should be authorized under a similarly constituted initiative process in authorizing community benefit agreements on each proposed development project to ensure its equity values can be programmatically achieved, such as in future apprenticeship programs and local hire mandates. Environmentally, community benefit agreements would better ensure that proposed “school and neighborhood gardens, community orchards, agricultural education centers and small farming operations in green belts and on the buffer edge” will be realized. (DEIR p. 3.2-17.) Both urban growth boundaries and community benefit agreements ensure resident-involved planning and democratic, participatory involvement through voter initiatives on each proposed future development projects within the Specific Plan area.

Specific to farmland mitigation, the SEDA DEIR inadequately identifies mitigation that can be expected to be meaningfully implemented. A proposed “Buffer District” is a much lesser threshold to breach in the future than an existing sphere of influence boundary in a general plan. Yet this is just the mitigation policy remedy being suggested in SEDA’s DEIR policy framework. (DEIR p. 3.2-17.) The proposed Buffer District is purely aspirational without explicit mechanisms to hold the line on future greenfield development and residential sprawl. Most troubling is that the SEDA EIR’s primary farmland mitigation policy proposal yet again relies upon the dormant 2014 7 Fresno General Plan Adopted: December 18, 2014, Resource Conservation and Resilience Chapter, Farmland Section 7.6, pg. 7-43.
624
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

Fresno General Plan policy RC-9-c guiding farmland mitigation, and MM AG-1.1 that was supposed to establish a Farmland Preservation Program (FPP), now planned to be initiated by 2025. (DEIR p. 3.2-15.)
Given the past lack of planning policy follow through, the SEDA EIR makes contingencies, “because the FPP has not yet been developed, the proposed project would implement project-specific MM AG-2, which requires all future development to mitigate the loss of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, on a project-by-project basis before the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities.” (DEIR p. 3.2-17.) A project-by-project policy makes oversight of mitigation policy unworkable though it becomes necessary given the City of Fresno’s past reticence and resistance to mitigate for the loss of farmland.

Farmlands must be protected, including those that are contracted and uncontracted under the Willamson Act. The following maps are prepared by Greg Weaver. All parcels on this map must be accounted for in terms of how their protections will be maintained.

In order for the Williamson Act to succeed as a long term conservation tool, regulation of noncontracted lands cannot be overlooked. SEDA must account for their preservation. 625
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

The status and restrictions of the Williamson Act contracted lands must be considered and protected, as must the status of uncontracted lands. (See RDEIR, p. 3.2-

16.)
626
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

B. Air Quality Impacts Would be Significant And are Insufficiently Mitigated

1. Fresno’s Current Air Quality Situation is Dire and Would be Worsened By the Project.

There is no dispute that the air quality in Fresno is abysmal. The prestigious American Lung Association’s annual report State of the Air 2023 lists Fresno as the fourth-most polluted city in the country for ozone8
, and the second most polluted for
short-term particulate pollution, and the third-most polluted city for year-round particle 8 The listing is for Fresno-Madera-Hanford, at https://www.lung.org/research/sota/cityrankings/most-polluted-cities; last visited 8/24/23. 627
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

pollution9. The federal EPA classifies the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, of which Fresno is a part, as in “extreme” nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, and in “serious” nonattainment for fine particulates (PM2.5). The San Joaquin Valley is one of only two air basins in the entire country classified as in “Extreme” nonattainment for ozone. (EPA Green Book, at
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jnc.html, last visited 8/24/23. Classification of the San Joaquin Valley as in “Serious” nonattainment of the federal standard for PM2.5 is at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/rnc.html, last visited 8/24/23.)) Fresno is an unhealthy place to breathe, and especially so for sensitive groups, including children, the elderly, and the sick.

Both state and federal law require air basins to comply with the health-based state and federal Air Quality Standards. [E.g., 42 USCA §7401, et seq.).] The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Agency (APCD) has devised an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to reduce the levels of health-damaging pollution in the air and make the air healthier to breathe. According to the DEIR, a new AQMP for ozone was due for submission to the EPA by August of 2022. There is no information in the DEIR as whether it was submitted or when an evaluation of the new AQMP by EPA might be expected; the fact remains that the Valley is in extreme nonattainment. A new plan for PM2.5 was submitted in June of 2020. (DEIR p. 3.3-25.) EPA has postponed the deadline for the Valley to meet the PM2.5 standard until 2024, but has not yet approved or disapproved the APCD’s new plan to meet the federal standard. The Valley remains in serious nonattainment for PM2.5. However, these facts appear to matter little, since the DEIR clearly and unequivocally states that carrying out the SEDA plan is not consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan now in operation to meet health-based federal and state Air Quality Standards, and would conflict with that Plan and with project significance thresholds established by APCD to prevent increases in ozone. (DEIR, pp.

ES-6, ES-14, 3.3-45.) The DEIR states at page 3.3-45:
[T]he proposed Specific Plan would generate long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed the Valley Air District’s regional operationphase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the [San Joaquin Valley Air Basin]’s nonattainment designations. Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing 9 The listing is for Fresno-Madera-Hanford, at https://www.lung.org/research/sota/cityrankings/most-polluted-cities; last visited 8/24/23. 628
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of the AAQS.
(DEIR, p. 3.3-45, emphasis added.)
The DEIR also states, at page 3.3-51, that the Project will cumulatively increase the airborne pollution to which Fresno residents are exposed daily:

The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (DEIR, p. 3.3-51.)

2. Project Construction Emissions Would Be Significant For Every Pollutant Category.

The DEIR explains that, by itself, construction of the Project will cause emissions of every pollutant for which the Valley is in nonattainment in amounts that exceed APCD significance thresholds during each and every year of Project construction, 2023-2043, except the very last year. (DEIR, Table 3.3-8, p. 3.3-53.10) The DEIR makes no comparison between the emissions that Project construction will cause to the emissions provided for in the AQMP, a critical failure to provide the information that should be in the DEIR.11 It also asserts that it is “unavoidable” - if the SEDA plan is carried out – that “sensitive receptors” (e.g., children, the elderly, and people who already have respiratory illnesses) will be exposed not only to air that far exceeds the health-based state and federal Air Quality Standards, but they may also be exposed to toxic pollutant emissions, including carcinogens, during construction of the Project. Such carcinogens and other toxic chemicals are contained in diesel particulate emissions (commonly referred to as “DPM,” for diesel particulate matter”), an airborne soup of chemicals and small particles, 10 We note that, while the DEIR states that “[b]uildout of the proposed project would occur over approximately 25 years, or longer,” the Table showing pollutant emissions from construction goes out only 19 years. There will, apparently, be even more pollutant emissions than the Table shows.
11 Nor is Appendix B, the Air Quality Appendix, much help. It contains only the same Table (in a slightly different format) and the outputs of the computer model used to predict Project emissions (these cannot easily be read by laypersons). It does not compare Project construction emissions with the AQMP.
629
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

many of which either are carcinogenic, or have carcinogens adhered to them, that are emitted by diesel trucks and diesel-powered construction equipment.12 The potential health impacts from diesel particulate emissions are quite significant, as the DEIR shows at page 3.3-17. The DEIR, at page 3.3-59, tersely acknowledges that “Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a [Toxic Air Contaminant].”13 The DEIR disclaims the ability to estimate DPM emissions from the Project, but it admits that, as to toxic emissions, especially DPM:
[I]t is possible that the proposed project would result in cumulatively significant impacts to sensitive receptors, even if individual projects were each less than significant.
(DEIR, pp. 3.3-60 to 61.). The DEIR’s inability to estimate the amount of DPM emissions the Project would cause is severely undercut by the DEIR’s ability to calculate the particulate emissions of the Project, both gross particulates and fine particulates, which should include many components of diesel particulate emissions. Some reasonable estimate should be possible, and it is a failure of information required by CEQA for the DEIR not to make a good-faith attempt to provide this information.

Overall, the DEIR concludes that air pollutant emissions attributable to the Project, even after all feasible mitigation is applied, would have a “significant and unavoidable” impact, including on sensitive receptors. (DEIR, p. 3.3-61.) In short, the DEIR demonstrates that carrying out the SEDA Project is a recipe for Fresno to continue having some of the very dirtiest, unhealthful air in the nation for decades into the future, and a blueprint for allowing the Project to dump more ozone-causing emissions and particulate matter into the air Fresno residents breathe every day. It is a plan for forcing another generation of Fresno’s children to grow up breathing air that compromises their lungs and may permanently harm their health. (See State of the Air 2023 Report, pp. 24- 25 [health effects of particulates] and 26—27 [health effects of ozone].)) 12 For context, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) estimates that 50% of the risk of cancer from airborne carcinogens in the greater Los Angeles comes from exposure to DPM. (Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V, SCAQMD, 2021, page ES-7. (Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/matesv/mates-v-final-report-9-24-21.pdf; last visited 8/24/23.) 13 Diesel exhaust has been formally designated a Toxic Air Contaminant by the California Air Resources Board. (Cal. Code of Regs., title 17, section 19000.) 630
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

3. The DEIR Does Not Show That it has Applied All Feasible Mitigation.

As set out above, the DEIR thus acknowledges that the Project would make Fresno’s already abominable air even worse, which creates significant impacts on the environment. It then asserts that:

No further measures to reduce operation-phase criteria air pollutant emissions are available beyond the applicable Valley Air District rules and regulations in addition to the proposed project’s policies and design46.) guidelines [as set out in the DEIR].
(DEIR, p. 3.3-46.) The DEIR asserts that there are no further feasible mitigation measures. In fact, the DEIR implies that the Project is too big for its air quality impacts to be feasibly mitigated (DEIR p. 3.3-46), a concept that is antithetical to CEQA’s purposes and requirements. Instead, the City should consider making the Project smaller, so that mitigation is feasible. CEQA requires that once significant impacts from a Project have been identified, the project should not be approved if there are feasible mitigation measures that would lessen or prevent such impacts. (Public Res. Code § 21002.) The City must re-think mitigation. The SEDA is a major project, one that will greatly expand the City’s population and infrastructure, and one whose construction will stretch out for a quarter-century, up to the time when California is committed to being carbon-neutral. (AB 1279; EO B-30-15.) Its operation will last much longer. The City is approving a Project that will define Fresno and its legacy for the rest of this century. If aggressive and effective mitigation for air pollutant emissions is not enacted now, when it will be most effective because it acts on a relatively blank slate, when will it be enacted? To avoid a future of decades of continued air that sickens Fresno’s residents, we urge the City to adopt additional mitigation measures now that are specific and effective, and not just aspirational. We believe that there are many mitigation measures set out in the DEIR that could be made more effective, that would reduce the pollutant emissions of the Project, and that are feasible. Below is a summary of the more prominent ones.

4. Mitigation Measures Already in the DEIR Must be
Strengthened.

The DEIR lists policies in the Fresno City General Plan and the SEDA plan as potentially lessening the air quality impacts of the Project. Many, if not most, of these policies are so conditional and aspirational as to be unenforceable. Examples include policies that include wording such as “support,” “promote,” “incentivize,” or “pursue.” 631
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

(E.g.: Land Use Policies LU-2(b), LU 3(c;, HC 3.d; MT-2(c), (g) and m; Open Space Policy OS-10.5; Conservation Policies RC1.1, RC 1.3 (a) and (b), RC 1.4.) Particularly important are those mitigation measures listed as “Municipal,” which are under the City’s direct control and discretion (e.g., Conservation Policies RC 4 (f) and (j), and 8(j).) Where a mitigation measure is within the City’s direct control (such as setting energy efficiency standards for municipal buildings), and where the environmental impacts to be mitigated are as dire as violating the AQMP, the City must enact mitigation measures that are fully enforceable. (CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1) and (2).)
DEIR mitigation measures specific to the Project must also be made mandatory.

Specifically, MM AIR 2.1’s full list of controls for diesel-powered construction equipment should be made mandatory unless individual measures are proven infeasible under clearly defined standards, and MM AIR-3.1’s measures to control emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants should be mandated for use, not merely for identification.

In addition, many measures in the DEIR could be made enforceable by defining terms in the measures (such as “feasible” in MM AIR-2.1) or by setting schedules and enforceable deadlines for measures calling for the adoption of controls or plans, or for the setting of standards. (E.g., Resource Conservation Policies RC-4(b), 4(g), and 4(k), RC8(j), and others.) We also note that several mitigation measures that should be made mandatory for individual developers for projects within SEDA could also be used to provide offsets for their projects’ pollutant emissions, if also carried out outside SEDA. These include creation of off-site renewable energy projects, such as installation of solar panels on rooftops in existing Fresno neighborhoods, tree planting, and replacement of inefficient appliances in homes in existing neighborhoods, and installation and maintenance of electric vehicle charging stations in Fresno neighborhoods or at facilities like shopping centers and sports facilities.

5. Because The DEIR is Inadequate as an Informational
Document, Vital Information Must be Added, and the DEIR Recirculated.

The CEQA Guidelines require an agency to “use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can” in an EIR. (Guidelines § 15144.) The City has failed to do so here. Table 3.3-9, at page 3.3-55, which is the only table showing operational pollutant emissions from the Project, is an example of how uninformative the EIR is. It 632
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

shows only a single year’s emissions total: 2050, the year of full build-out of the Project, and seven years after the last year (2043) for which construction emissions are projected.

Presumably, many individual SEDA projects, from housing developments to transportation facilities, will be completed in the years prior to 2050 but their emissions are undisclosed. This is a critical failure of the DEIR to provide full disclosure of environmental impacts from the Project; the public has no clue about operational emissions from the Project for 46 years prior to 2050. There is not even information as to when the first individual SEDA projects will begin to operate and will have operational emissions.

The SEDA projects’ expected operational emissions appear for the first and only time as they are expected to be in 2050. It is beyond credulity to assume to none of the SEDA component projects will emit any conventional pollutants until 2050, and that all of the individual SEDA projects will begin emitting at once, several years after construction emissions end. The DEIR states that “[r]egional construction and operational emissions reported in this analysis were modeled using CalEEMod using version 2020.4.0” (DEIR, p. 3.3-40), so the City presumably has at least some of this information. If it does not have it, the City must have, or must generate, this information to the extent it is feasible to do so, and the DEIR must provide it. The DEIR does state that, if climate change causes temperatures to rise, the number of days when ozone will form in the Valley will also rise:

If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
(DEIR, pp. 3.8-9 to 10.) Further, the DEIR states:
[Fresno] temperatures are predicted to increase by 4.5°F (degrees Fahrenheit) under the medium emission scenario and 8.5°F under the high emissions scenario.

DEIR, p. 3.8-10.)
The increase in pollutant emissions and the increase in temperatures and number of days when ozone is likely to form add up to a potential public health crisis, necessitating the fullest information that can be provided. Further, since this information is essential to any understanding of the health impacts of the Project, the DEIR must be 633
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

recirculated with that information prior to certification. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.) It is imperative that the decision makers and the public have this information.

Further, Table 3.3-8, at DEIR page 3.3-53 shows projected unmitigated yearly emissions of conventional pollutants from construction over the life of the Project. In the first year, 2024, the Table shows 1770.60 tons of volatile organic compounds VOC), a precursor of ozone, projected to be emitted. In the second year, 2025, the figure drops by more than half, showing 668.30 tons of VOC projected to be emitted. After those two years, projected VOC emissions plummet, with the 2026 VOC emissions projected to be

30.45 tons. No reason is given for this remarkably high VOC emissions level and the subsequent drop-off and extreme drop-off, respectively, of the next two years’ VOC emissions. Clearly, there must be a reason for this weird pattern of VOC emissions that must be disclosed by the EIR.

The emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from construction listed in the Table show a steady decline over the years, as do other pollutants. Notably, PM2.5, which almost certainly contains carcinogenic DPM from construction equipment and diesel trucks, remain fairly steady throughout the years, with 2024’s emissions and 2043’s emissions being within 6 tons per year of each other.

Possible explanations for the high early VOC numbers are that the City knows of specific projects planned for construction in 2024 and 2035 that emit high levels of VOC, or that the emissions modeling failed to accurately predict or report VOC emissions in the first two years of the Project. However, the City is not sharing those- or any - explanations with the public. This is a further failure of the DEIR to provide full information to the public.

Finally, the DEIR does not predict pollutant concentrations in the ambient air that will result from both construction and operation of the Project.

6. The DEIR does not Correlate Pollutant Emissions From the Project with Resulting Health Impacts.

The California Supreme Court, in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (“Friant Ranch”), held that that the EIR on the Friant Ranch Project approved by the County of Fresno “fail[ed] to provide an adequate discussion of health and safety problems that will be caused by the rise in various pollutants resulting from the Project's development.” (6 Cal.5th 502, at 527.) The DEIR here also fails to comply with the requirements of the Friant Ranch decision.

We first note that the DEIR does describe some health effects of ozone and PM2.5. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-12 to 3.3-12.) However, its description of the health impacts of 634
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

PM10 and PM2.5 fails to point out the disproportionate impact of airborne particulate matter on disadvantaged communities. The APCD stated in a 2021 letter to the California Air Resources Board:
“As recent research indicates, there is a disproportionate health impact of PM2.5 exposure to people of color, and the burden of mobile sources to the Valley contribute significantly to these health effects. The State’s CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool indicates that a significant number of communities in the Valley are among the most disadvantaged in California for a number of indicators, including overall pollution burden, and diesel PM exposure (Figure 1). In fact, 20 of the top 30 most disadvantaged communities in California are within the San Joaquin Valley. As emissions from mobile sources contribute a significant portion to the overall pollution burden in these disadvantaged communities, achieving emissions reductions from mobile sources is paramount to improving the health of the most impacted residents in the State.”
(APCD Comment Letter on Revised Draft 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, May 14, 2021, footnotes omitted. [https; ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/8- SJVAPCD_Comment_RevisedDraft2020MobileSourceStrategy.pdf; last accessed 4/6/23.]) Here, the DEIR does not discuss the disparate effects air pollutant emissions increases may have on the disadvantaged communities within SEDA and elsewhere within the City.

In fact, the DEIR does not predict the impacts of its pollutant emissions on the ambient air at all, except to say that those emission will not be consistent with the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45 [“implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of the AAQS.”]) Beyond that, the DEIR says nothing about the magnitude of the increase in frequency and/or severity its new emissions will cause. Instead, it says tersely: “Air dispersion modeling is not applicable at a program level.” (DEIR, p. 3.3-42.) No further explanation is provided.

However, the California Supreme Court in Friant Ranch was presented with a similar claim, and held that “if it is not scientifically possible to do more than has already been done to connect air quality effects with potential human health impacts, the EIR itself must explain why, in a manner reasonably calculated to inform the public of the scope of what is and is not yet known about the Project’s impacts.” (Friant Ranch, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 520.) Here, the DEIR has not done the analysis of the impact on human health of the Project’s new emissions (or even shown what all emissions are projected to be). Nor has the public been given an explanation of why it cannot provide that impact analysis, other 635
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

than one short sentence saying it can’t be done. As the Supreme Court in Friant Ranch made clear, more explanation is required.

Further, such an analysis can be done. When Cal State San Diego proposed a master plan to develop a new community, it eventually certified an EIR that did perform a Friant Ranch analysis, correlating the project’s emissions with impacts on human health (although it acknowledged that the analysis was not perfect). That analysis is available at https://missionvalley.sdsu.edu/pdfs/feir/appendices/4-2-3-sdsu-mv-healtheffects-memo.pdf, and is hereby incorporated into this letter by reference. We also formally submit it into the administrative record for this Project by reference, as demonstrating that an analysis correlating emissions from a major project with impacts on human health is feasible.

The City has proposed a huge, multi-year Project that will transform Fresno. It must perform an analysis of the effects on human health of that Project’s pollutant emissions, with the degree of precision that is currently possible and has been demonstrated in practice. The DEIR must be recirculated with the analysis when it is completed. CEQA and the public health demand no less.

7. Project Construction Emissions Of GHG Are Underreported.

The RDEIR is extremely deficient in its analysis of SEDA’s potential greenhouse gas emissions. It states that construction emissions of greenhouse gases (“GHG”) are a one-time event, and as such, will not cause significant impacts. (EIR, p.3.8-42.) However, the RDEIR also acknowledges that GHGs stay in the atmosphere for very long periods of time, carbon dioxide (“CO”) emissions remaining for 50 to 200 years (RDEIR p. 3.8-4); hardly a one-and-done event. The EIR states at page 3.8-6 that “GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, several years to several thousand years. GHGs persist in the atmosphere for a long enough time to be dispersed around the globe.” Further, the RDEIR admits that certain Project construction emissions can cause significant impacts, saying of water supply and wastewater treatment:

GHG Emissions–Construction of utility facilities and treatment plants would result in the generation of GHG emissions. Construction emissions would occur only in the short-term; however, since the timing of the construction of the expanded and new facilities is not known, there could be more than one facility under construction at one time. Therefore, there is a possibility that a substantial amount of GHG emissions could occur. In addition, the operation of treatment plants and construction of other utility infrastructure (pipes, basins, etc.) could contribute to 636
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

emissions associated with the buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. These emissions would be potentially significant.
(RDEIR, p. 3.8-55, emphasis added.) This is only one component of the Project; presumably, the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts, meaning that the GHG emissions from the construction of the entire project may be significant.

What is certain is that emissions from Project construction are not only not onetime events – construction would extend over nearly a decade (RDEIR, p.,3.3-48) – such emissions would be huge, totaling a whopping 2,316,578 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (“MTC02e”). For perspective, the total carbon dioxide emissions estimated in the City of Fresno’s Greenhouse Reduction Plan as being emitted by motor vehicles in the entire City under Business as Usual conditions in 2020 is 2,383,023 MTC02e. (City of Fresno –Fresno General Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, p. 29, available at https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/F-2-GreenhouseGas-Reduction-Plan.pdf.) Construction of this single Project will cause the emission of nearly as much climate-changing pollution as all the cars and trucks in the entire City of Fresno. The EIR has presented no substantial evidence to support its conclusion that Project construction emissions of GHGs would not be significant.

8. Operational Emissions Will Be Significant.

Nor will the Project’s operational emissions be less than significant. The EIR presents information as to the Project’s operational emissions solely for its Buildout Year, at least a decade after construction begins, and after various measures will have been taken at the federal and state level to reduce GHG emissions from various sources, notably from motor vehicles. (RDEIR, pp. 3.8-47 to 48.) Even with such reductions, total operational GHG emissions from the Project are estimated by the EIR as 601,912 MTC02e per year, with transportation emissions accounting for over two-thirds of that total, at 432,219 MTC02e per year. (RDEIR, p. 3.8-43.)14 The total GHG emissions from the Project are not estimated in the body of the EIR; indeed, the lifespan of the Project is not estimated. However, the lifespan of a house extends over several decades, perhaps even as long as a century. (https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/whats-the-life-span-of-ahouse/#:~:text=You%20can%20count%20on%20a,endure%20the%20test%20of%20time 14 The RDEIR makes an adjustment to the total of the GHG emissions by subtracting existing emissions, but since the RDEIR only does this for the total amount of Project operational emissions, not broken down by sector, we were unable to make such an adjustment for transportation emissions.
637
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

.) However, multiplying the estimated annual GHG emissions of the Project, viz., 510,791 MTC02e per year, by ten, the Project can be estimated to emit over five million metric tons of C02e during each decade of its useful life. Once again, the RDEIR presents no substantial evidence that emissions of such magnitude will have less-than-significant impacts. In fact, the RDEIR makes no effort to provide substantial evidence as to the total time that the Project can be expected to be occupied and useful. CEQA Guidelines section 15144 mandates that an agency preparing an EIR “must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.”15 The RDEIR has failed to do so in estimating the total GHG emissions that can reasonably be expected from this Project.

9. FAX Transit Service Levels Are Not Substantiated.

The RDEIR’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”), air quality, and GHG calculations are based, at least in part, on the assumption that Fresno Area Express (“FAX”) will provide high-quality transit services to the SEDA as it develops. (See RDEIR Policy R1.2(a) at p.3.3-34 and 3.8-36.16) However, no bus lines currently serve the area (RDEIR, p. 3.17-6), and no portion of the RDEIR provides information on when bus transit services will be provided, the extent (e.g., hours, headway, or capacity of the services) or how they will be funded, despite the fact that FAX is a City agency and under City 15 CEQA Guidelines section 15145 provides that “[i]f, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should not its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.” However, the City does not present evidence that it made any attempt to estimate the useful life of the Project. 16 See, the generalized, non-specific assertion at RDEIR p. 3.17-7:

Transit Facilities
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the local bus system for the City. Currently, there are no bus lines that run through the Plan Area. Bus Routes 1, 22, and 35 run on Clovis Street near the Plan Area but do not directly serve the Plan Area. There are plans to extend the Fresno bus rapid transit line (Route 1) into the Plan Area in the future and to add local transit routes to significant origins and destinations with the project area.

See, also, the generalized description of future FAX transit service in Appendix H, at page 16:

3.4 EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the local bus system for the City of Fresno. Currently, there are no bus lines that run through the Plan Area. Bus routes 1, 22, and 35 runs on Clovis Street near the Plan Area, but do not directly serve the Plan Area. There are plans to extend the Fresno bus rapid transit line (Route 1) into the Plan Area in the future and to add local transit routes to significant origins and destinations with the project area 638
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

control. (https://www.fresno.gov/transportation.fax.history.)17 While the RDEIR depends on FAX services as mitigation for potential transportation impacts, no details whatsoever as to service timing or extent is provided (see, MMTRANS 1-d, RDEIR p. ES-50 [the entire text of this so-called Mitigation Measure is “MM TRANS-1d: Collaborate with Fresno Transit (FAX) to provide new transit services to the proposed project and within the proposed project area.”]) Without details of how the high-quality transit service upon which the EIR relies to reach various conclusions as to lack of significant impacts from the Project on air quality, climate change, and VMT will be provided – or funded - the conclusions reached by the EIR that rely on FAX’s future transit service to the SEDA area are speculative and unsupported by substantial evidence.18

9. No Substantial, Quantified Evidence Supports The RDEIR’s Conclusion That No Mitigation Is Required.

The RDEIR states that Legislature and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) have determined that local areas must reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT”) by prescribed amounts; this will reduce GHG emissions. The RDEIR reports that:

Fresno County targets for SB 375 are a 5 percent per capita reduction by 2020 and a 10 percent per capita reduction by 2035 relative to 2005 levels. (SB 375 is implemented with the Fresno COG RTP/SCS).
(RDEIR, p.3.8-44.) The RDEIR goes on to assert:

The strategies included in the proposed Fresno SEDA Specific Plan are consistent with the measures included in the RTP/SCS [the transportation and sustainable community plan required by SB 375] and would serve to support a per capita reduction in VMT in the Plan Area after the implementation of the proposed project.
(Ibid.) This is a wholly qualitative analysis, providing no quantitative proof that the mandated VMT reductions will be met, either by the Fresno area as a whole or the 17 The EIR itself points out the importance of City control of polluting facilities. See EIR, p. 3.6- 14, regarding municipal facilities: “It is important to include greenhouse gas reductions and energy conservation at City facilities, over which the City has direct control and can allocate resources for this purpose.” Surely this control and ability to allocate resources is also true of City agencies like FAX, and can be used to devise and carry out mitigation. 18 CEQA Guidelines section15150 provides that references to material outside the EIR are permitted, but mandates that they do have to be locatable through citations or other means of identifying and finding the material. There are no such guideposts in the EIR to FAX’s future plans.
639
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

Project. No calculation of the per capita reduction in VMT that the SEDA strategies would “support” is made.

Instead, the RDEIR takes the position that if SEDA does not openly and specifically contradict CARB’s Scoping Plan to meet the statutory GHG emissions reduction goals and the SB 375-mandated VMT reduction targets, that the Project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the State’s climate goals or the SB 375- required reductions, even as it will cause millions of metric tons of GHGs to be added to the atmosphere. (RDEIR, p. 3.8-44.) So long as Fresno does its unquantified “fair share” to not obstruct to the Scoping Plan through approving the SEDA Project, the RDEIR concludes that the Project will have no significant impact on the environment or the State’s attempts to meet its climate goals. (RDEIR, p.3.8-56.) No mitigation measures are proposed or adopted.

This analysis and the RDEIR’s conclusions of no significant impact and no significant cumulative impact are not supported by quantified analysis or specific, substantial evidence. They are invalid.

C. GHG/Climate Change Impacts Are Not Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated.

As with its analysis for conventional air pollutants, the DEIR’s analysis for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fails to provide the most basic information to the decision makers and the public. It also fails to adopt all feasible mitigation measures for the impacts of its emissions of climate-forcing gases, and it appears to be selfcontradictory as to what the standard is as to the significance of those emissions.

1. The GHG Analysis Fails as an Informational Document
While the DEIR bestows considerable attention on the existing legal framework of the federal and state laws and regulations applicable to GHG emissions, it is remarkably short on information as to the GHG emissions to be expected from the Project. Like its description of SEDA emissions of conventional and toxic pollutants, described above, the DEIR provides only very limited information on the GHG emissions to be expected from the Project, and downplays the significance of those it does acknowledge.

In Table 3.8-2, at page 3.8-44, the DEIR sets out the Project’s expected GHG emissions from construction. These are reported year by year for the years 2024 to 2043 (only 19 years from now, despite the DEIR’s statement that “[b]uildout of the proposed project would occur over approximately 25 years, or longer” at page 3.3-57). 640
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

The emissions expected from construction total 2,316,578 tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent GHGs.19 The DEIR downplays the potential significance of this emission of over two million tons of GHGs by saying that “[s]hort-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change.” (DEIR, p. 3.8-44.) This is nonsensical, since the fact that construction emissions are “one-time” for each individual project is somewhat meaningless, given that the DEIR has already shown that GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries; carbon monoxide itself has a residency time of 50 to 200 years. (DEIR, p.

3.8-4.) It is their long period of residence in the atmosphere that enables GHGs emitted anywhere in the world able to affect the entire planet, as the DEIR observes at page 3.3-6 (“GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, several years to several thousand years. GHGs persist in the atmosphere for a long enough time to be dispersed around the globe.”) The DEIR itself states that “although it is unlikely that a single project will contribute significantly to climate change, cumulative emissions from many projects affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system.” (DEIR p.3.8-7.) The Project’s construction emissions cannot be made less than significant by calling them “one-time,” since their effects will last for many decades or even for centuries.

As it does with the Project’s expected emissions of conventional pollutants, the DEIR provides the Project’s expected operational GHG emissions for only one year:
2050. (DEIR, Table 3.8-3, at p. 3.8-45.) The DEIR reports a surprisingly low total:
515,791 tons of GHGs. (Id.) We note that 2050 is the time by which the state is expected to carry out its many programs to reduce GHG emissions, including mandating zeroemission cars, setting low carbon fuels, reducing the carbon footprint of transporting water, and mandating electricity that is mostly or exclusively produced by non-carbon, renewable sources. (DEIR, p. 3.8-49.) Therefore, the 2050 GHG figure is almost certainly not representative of the Project’s GHG emissions in all, or even most, of the years of its operation, before all the state programs have had full effect.

The DEIR is required to make a good-faith effort to discover and provide all the information it can. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(i), 15144.) Here, the City had enough information to provide the expected total 2050 GHG emissions from operations. It also had enough information to provide the expected the GHG emissions from construction for each year between 2024 and 2043, showing that it has data on the expected year-by19 Because of the widely divergent longevity in the atmosphere of various GHGs, they are usually described in terms of the amount of their climate-forcing ability when compared with a single GHG, viz., carbon monoxide. This is called carbon monoxide equivalence. (DEIR, p. 3.8-

3.)
641
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

year pace of construction and, by extension, on the pace at which SEDA projects would begin to operate. The DEIR used a widely accepted computer modeling system to predict the GHG emissions from the Project.

The short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions associated with future buildout of the Plan Area allowed under the proposed Specific Plan were estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a Statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects.

The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from electricity use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MT CO2e), based on the GWP of the individual pollutants.
(DEIR, p. 3.8-43, italics added.) CalEEMod would have given the City information on the operational GHG emissions from the Project. With all this information, the DEIR could -and should- have provided approximate figures on the Project’s operational GHG emissions year by year, giving the decision makers and the public a much better understanding of the amount of GHGs that would be emitted by SEDA. As it is, the DEIR has not performed a good-faith analysis and has not provided all the information it can. It does not comply with CEQA and cannot support the approval of the Project.

D. The EIR Fails to Address the Consequences of the City’s General Plan Deficiencies.

1. The City General Plan is Inadequate and its Deficiencies Preclude Approval of SEDA, Since Such Approval Relates to the General Plan’s Deficiencies.

The general plan is the “constitution for future development ... located at the top of the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use .... " (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763, 773, internal citations omitted.) Government Code section 65300.5 requires that all general plan elements be consistent with one another. County and city zoning ordinances also must be "consistent with the general plan." (Gov. Code § 65860(a); San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 508-509.) If a city or county’s general plan is inadequate, it cannot support project approvals. (Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 334, 352 [County could not approve subdivisions because some of its general plan elements were 642
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

inadequate].) A permit may be challenged due to general plan inadequacy where the inadequacy is factually related to the characteristics or implications of the permit. (Garat v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 259, 293.)

2. The General Plan Does Not Comply With AB 170.

AB 170, passed in 2003, enacted as Government Code section 65302.1 subdivision (b), requires that all cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley amend their General Plans to add specific information on air pollution in their jurisdictions. This information must include “(1) A report describing local air quality conditions including air quality monitoring data, emission inventories, lists of significant source categories, attainment status and designations, and applicable state and federal air quality plans and transportation plans. (2) A summary of local, district, state, and federal policies, programs, and regulations that may improve air quality in the city or county. (3) A comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives that may improve air quality consistent with the strategies listed in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a). (4) A set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out those goals, policies, and objectives.” (Govt. Code section 65302.1(c).) Government Code section 65302.1, subd. (e), set a deadline for compliance with GC 65302.1 of “no later than one year from the date specified in Section 65588 for the next revisions of its housing element that occurs after January 1, 2004.”
A publication by the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (bearing the revision date of 04/02/09) reads, “AB 170 requires cities and counties to comply no later than one (1) year from the date specified in Government Code Section 6588 for the next revision of the housing element after January 1, 2004 (Section 65302.1.e). Based upon the schedule outlined in the bill, jurisdictions in Fresno and Kern counties are required to adopt these amendments by June 30, 2009. Jurisdictions in Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties have until June 30, 2010 to comply.”] [Emphasis added.]. It appears the City has adopted no such amendment.

3. The City General Plan Has No Environmental Justice Element, an Element Mandated by SB 1000.

Effective January 1, 2017, SB 1000, codified as Government Code section 65302, subdivision (h)(2), required the adoption into cities’ and counties’ general plans of an Environmental Justice Element, or adoption of the objectives and policies of an Environmental Justice Element in other General Plan Elements, such Element to be adopted on the first occasion after January 1, 2018, when the city or county adopts or revises two or more general plan Elements. Until it actually adopts an Environmental 643
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

Justice Element that fully complies with SB 1000, the City does not have an adequate General Plan, and may not approve development projects, including SEDA. The City claims to have adopted environmental justice policies (https://www.fresno.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2023/03/upload_temp_Consolidated-GP-10-13-2022_compressed.pdf, p. 1-11) but there is no environmental justice element in the General Plan nor specific identification of which policies the City claims address environmental justice issues.

4. The Project’s GHG Emissions Will Undercut the Effectiveness of Fresno’s Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Fresno's Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted in 2014 and updated in 2018 and 2022, was "intended to identify integrated land-use and transportation strategies that lower per capita GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from cars and light-duty trucks, and foster communities that are more equitable, healthy, and sustainable."20 As required by SB 375, the Fresno RTP/SCS is based on assumptions about future development "that are consistent with adopted local general plans."21 And the RTP/SCS specifically relies on the City of Fresno's 2014 General Plan as a basis for changes in land use and transportation that will help meet state-mandated GHG reduction targets:

Scenario B [the basis for the land use projections in the 2022 RTP/SCS] was built primarily from existing local general plans, regional growth projections and insights from the REMI economic forecasting model. . . . The City of Fresno’s updated general plan calls for 50 percent of new growth in designated infill development areas and proposes no sphere of influence expansion through 2035, which will help rein in fringe development in a traditionally sprawling region. 22 Construction of thousands of acres of low-density development to the southeast of Fresno would vitiate these benefits, dramatically increase vehicle miles traveled, and make it impossible to meet state-mandated GHG reduction goals as contemplated in the RTP/SCS.
20 Fresno Council of Governments. 2022. Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available at https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communitiesstrategies-fall-outreach/. 21 Fresno COG, 2022. 22 Fresno COG, 2022 (Emphasis added).
644
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

E. The EIR’s Water Supply Analysis Is Inadequate.

The water supply for SEDA is only shown to be adequate up to 2035, and only if groundwater conditions do not change due to climatic changes or regulatory changes due to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

The DEIR does not show that adequate water will be available to meet the anticipated demand from SEDA in addition to the demand from the rest of the City of Fresno past 2035, and not out to the purported build-out date (and the build-out date used in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas sections of the DEIR, as discussed earlier in these comments.)23
The City has long relied heavily on pumped groundwater to satisfy its water needs, as set out at DEIR, page 3-18-3. The DEIR states that prior to 2004, the City obtained 100 percent of its water from groundwater, but had reduced that by half in 2019 and 2020. (DEIR, p. 3.18-5.) However, the City is located over, and has been obtaining pumped groundwater from, the Kings River Subbasin, which has been designated as a critically overdrafted (i.e., over-pumped) basin. (DEIR, p. 3.18-4.) The Kings Subbasin is within the jurisdiction of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), which is required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management (AB 1739 [Dickinson], SB 1168 [Pavley], and SB 1319 [Pavley]) to attain sustainability of groundwater basins by 2040. (DEIR, p. 3.18-3 to 4.)
Accordingly, the City has increased its purchases of surface water, obtaining surface water from the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)’s Central Valley Project and the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The City is now attempting to recharge the Kings Subbasin, but the amount of water it can devote to recharge is less in dry years. (DEIR, p.

3.18-4 to 5.) The DEIR acknowledges that the water from the Central Valley Project is not always available, stating that “there have been extremely dry years in which no water is [sic] supplied”; this previously occurred in 2014 and 2015. (EIR, p. 3.18-6.) In those years, Fresno received only somewhat more than half of its usual Central Valley Project water.

The addition of 45,000 people in the SEDA Project will, of course, increase demand for water in Fresno. (DEIR, p. 3.18-7 [“Water supply for the Specific Plan Area 23 The DEIR is riddled with analyses that focuses on 2035 at the expense of analyzing to the 2050 horizon year. For example, see pages 3.14-13 (Land Use), 3.15-8 (Public Services), 3.15- 33 (also Public Services), p.3.17-32 (Transportation), and pages 2-5 and 406. 645
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

will be met with existing supplies initially but will require additional supplies to meet buildout demands.”]) The DEIR acknowledges that additional pipe infrastructure will need to be planned, sited, and laid (DEIR, p. 3.18-10). Plans for doing so are sketchy, at best, and it is not clear that the air quality and GHG impacts of that construction were included in the emissions totals in Tables 3.3-8 and 3.8-2. If they are not so included, those Tables are incomplete and misleading, and must be revised in a recirculated DEIR.

The effects of supplying water in future years will impact other water users and must also be analyzed.

However, there is another, fundamental, problem with the DEIR’s analysis of water supply for the Project. The DEIR appears to analyze only the impacts of the Project on water supply to Fresno up to 2035 and not to 2050, when the full expected buildout and population of SEDA is expected. (Appndx. F, Water Technical Study, p.1.) The Fresno General Plan’s Horizon” date is 2035, although full buildout is not expected until 2050 or beyond. (Id.).

The DEIR analyzes water demand for SEDA only out to 2035. (Water Technical Study, pp. 24-25.) The analysis makes clear that the DEIR is not exact; many “reasonable assumptions” about demand have been made. (Water Technical Study, p. 19.) Still the most favorable (to the City and future developers) conclusion that the Technical Study can reach is that “existing City of Fresno water supplies could be sufficient to supply the future development in SEDA in addition to the existing demands.” (Water Technical Study, p. 24, italics added.). However, the Technical Study’s estimate of water supply to Fresno, including SEDA, bears the disclaimer that the conclusion is valid only “assuming groundwater characteristics are not altered due to climatic events or regulatory influences from SGMA.” (Water Technical Study, p. 24.) That same disclaimer appears in many discussions of groundwater in the main text of the DEIR (see DEIR, pp. 3.18-4, 5, 66, 67 and 68; RDEIR, p. 3.10-8, 9, 38, and 39).

The DEIR appears to base much of its analysis of groundwater availability on the premise that climate conditions will not change, and the North Kings GSA will not impose conditions that change the current situation. Given both the DEIR’s Table 3.8-2 (at p.3.8-11) showing the alarmingly high expected temperature increases in the Fresno area and the over-drafted condition of the Kings Subbasin together with the North Kings GSA’s legal mandate to restore over-drafted basins by 2040, it seems more than likely that the Kings Subbasin will experience changes that would not be in the DEIR’s favor.

The DEIR simply has not shown that water supply will be adequate for the Project to the buildout date of 2050, or even to the date most discussed in the Water Technical Study, 2035. The DEIR is both procedurally and substantively deficient as to water supply, and it should be revised and recirculated.
646
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

F. The Final EIR Must Respond in Writing to Comments Made on the NOP and Draft EIR.

When the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for the SEDA project, you received various letter regarding the scope of the EIR. We request that you respond to each of these NOP comment letters as if they were a comment on the Draft EIR and RDEIR, especially the letters of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Conservation.

Additionally, we specifically incorporate by reference the letter of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, CCEJN, Fresno Building Healthy Communities, and Fresno Barrios Unidos dated March 25, 2022. (https://www.fresno.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2023/07/Appendix-A-EIR-Noticing-and-Public-InvolvementCOMBINED.pdf, p. 70.) This letter rightfully comments as follows; we request that you respond to each of these points and every other point made in this letter:

First, given the significance of the SEDA to the future development of Southeast Fresno communities, it is of the utmost importance that the City proactively and meaningfully engage residents within and around the planning area. This means that the City must incorporate residents' input into the SEDA and EIR by revising land use designations to include community-led development like higher density housing, green space, affordable commercial and residential spaces, and so on. It must also have policies and implementation measures for active investment into Southeast Fresno neighborhoods by businesses and the City alike in essential infrastructure, services, amenities, and community greening. To do less is to perpetuate the long-held City practice of denying Southeast Fresno residents their rights to shape the future of their neighborhoods and access to opportunity on the same terms as other Fresno residents.

Below you will find additional comments in response to the Notice of Preparation:

I. The Proposed Land Use Map is Inconsistent with Local and State Climate, Housing, and Transportation Goals and Policies to Build Equitable Climate Resilient Communities

As previously noted, it is unclear and of significant concern to what extent authentic public participation took place during this process from over a decade ago. The former process took place at the tail end of the housing bubble when building single-family homes in the outskirts of the city limits was the priority and norm. This type of “leapfrog” development remains reflected in the SEDA land use map as a large portion of the 9,000 acres is zoned for low-density singlefamily housing. This is inconsistent with the current climate, housing, and transportation goals that aim to build communities with a variety of development 647
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

and density to make them accessible to various incomes and for communities to get around by alternative modes of transportation.

Further, the second-largest land use is zoned for flexible research and development, which leaves space for more light industrial use, further industrializing south Fresno BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] communities. This current process is in stark contrast with other specific plans prepared and adopted by the City in recent years, which have emphasized resident self-determination in shaping their built environment, planning for complete and healthy communities, smart growth-promoting land use compatibility, and investment strategies and implementation measures designed to bring those plans’ vision to life. The City must not proceed with its efforts to further cement unjust and exclusive land-use patterns in City planning practices.

Fourteen years later, we have learned that this growth pattern is economically and environmentally unsustainable as the City now struggles to balance the need to build out the infrastructure and maintain public services in these communities while attending to decades of deferred maintenance in established neighborhoods.

This is reflected in the 2015 General Plan praised for limiting unsustainable sprawl growth and focusing on efficient infill development.
(Letter of Groups, pp. 1-2, available at https://www.fresno.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2023/07/Appendix-A-EIR-Noticing-and-Public-InvolvementCOMBINED.pdf, pp. 70 et seq of PDF.) G. Affordable Housing Must Be Promoted.

The RDEIR predicts that by 2050, approximately 31% of the City’s housing capacity -roughly one-third - will be located in the SEDA area. (RDEIR, p. 3.14-13.) Accordingly, it is vital to ensure that housing is available in the Project that is affordable to households of all income ranges. The Legislature has emphasized the importance of affordable housing in Government Code section 65580(f). While the RDEIR repeatedly states that the three principles around which the Project is organized are “fiscal responsibility, equity, and environmental sustainability” (see,e.g., RDEIR, pp. ES-1, 1-1, 2-7, 3.1-8, and elsewhere), the EIR itself reflects more of a commitment to rhetoric than to actual equity, at least as to affordable housing.

The actual Policies discussed in the RDEIR regarding affordable housing are overwhelmingly phrased as essentially aspirational, not mandatory. For example, Policies LU-2-b (concerning the potential creation of affordable housing incentives in infill areas) and Policy HC-2.2 (concerning the potential to use publicly owned land for affordable 648
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

housing through creation of a community trust to own such land for that purpose) both begin with “Consider,” making the execution of those policies voluntary and uncertain.

This tenuousness is even clearer in Policies UF-1-1 (regarding protection of “unique neighborhoods,” including those with affordable housing opportunities [at RDEIR pp.

3.1-4, 3.11-5]); LU-5-f (concerning designation of high-density neighborhoods to support [inter alia] affordable housing [at RDEIR pp. 3.3-28,3.11-8]); HC-2.3 (concerning the spreading of affordable housing throughout SEDA to avoid concentrations in any one area [at EIR, pp. 3.11-15,3.14-10]); and H-1-c ( concerning the development of affordable, special-needs housing near transit or smart-growth areas [at RDEIR, p. 3.14- 6, 3.14-10]). Each of these Policies begins with the word “Promote,” again making their execution difficult to monitor or evaluate.24
It appears that the City is more of a cheerleader than an actual leader in the effort to create additional affordable housing.

Conclusion.

The RDEIR must be revised and recirculated with proper instructions for commenting to the public and to public agencies.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Douglas P. Carstens
Michelle Black
24 Nor is this hesitancy to require action, not merely endorse it, limited to affordable housing. A word search showed the word “promote” was used 159 times in the RDEIR. 649
From: Deborah Bigham
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Comment on EIR
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 5:03:55 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Section 3.19 Wildfire
With the easily spread of fires, how do you plan to protect those people in these high density housing areas due to their close proximity? As of the recent Palisades fires what is Fresno City’s plan to protect their occupants from this same thing happening here. 650
From: Deborah Bigham
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Comment to EIR
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:41:03 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Section 3.17 Transportation and Traffic
What is the proposed infrastructure cost for this project? What is your budget? It needs to be disclosed before the EIR is accepted. It has been reported that it will be figured out after the council approves the massive project. That is unacceptable and needs to be disclosed prior to any approval.
651
From: Deborah Bigham
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Comment to EIR
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 4:52:36 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Section 3.15 Public Services Question
Who’s paying for the massive bill to build schools to accommodate high density population located in Sanger district? Sanger Unified has real concerns and has replied in writing. What plan do have for funding the schools in this district. Why have estimated costs not been given? Is the concern that the truth would be detrimental to the project? This needs to be corrected before going forward. Asking tax payers to fund a blank check is wrong and needs to be corrected. How does your conscience not bother you. Are you so deceived that you can’t be upfront?
652
From: Deborah Bigham
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Comment to EIR
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 5:00:38 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Section 3.5 Tribal Cultural Resources
How will the loss of the Hmong culture revenue impact the Hmong culture? Please site the studies that support consideration for the Hmong farmers. Hurting a minority is unacceptable and needs to be addressed and must be corrected.
653
From: Deborah Bigham
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: Comments on EIR
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:01:37 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Section 3.19
With the easily spread of fires, how do you plan to protect those people in these high density housing areas due to their close proximity? As of the recent Palisades fires what is Fresno City’s plan to protect their occupants from this same thing happening here. 654
City of Fresno March 15, 2025
Planning and Development Department
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Email: [email protected]
Comments on Recirculated Draft Program EIR for Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project
State Clearinghouse Number 2022020486 – Comments by Mark Reitz and Dale Reitz We would like to congratulate and thank the city of Fresno for their work in preparing this significant document and moving towards adoption of a Specific Plan for the Southeast Development Area that has been discussed and anticipated since 2007. As long-time property owners of a family home and farm within this area for over 100 years at 1080 S. Temperance (east of Temperance between the Railroad and Church Avenues), we and our neighbors welcome the opportunity to provide input to this Plan and hopefully provide local perspective to responsible growth and for the benefit of the city of Fresno for years to come.

We have watched the city grow to the southeast over the past 50 years, and we are excited for a well-planned and responsible expansion of Fresno. Currently, there are three new major residential subdivisions directly across the street from our farm property on Temperance Ave as well as a new Sanger Unified High School at Jensen and Fowler and a planned new elementary school on the west side of Temperance Avenue just eighth of a mile south of our property.

We and our neighbors have attended numerous planning meetings and public presentations.

We have offered our written recommendations and alternative maps regarding land use planning in our area going back to 2007. These documents have been passed on to various members of the Fresno Planning Department staff who have been very gracious in reviewing them and providing further direction for us on how we should submit our recommendations and input. We were essentially told to follow the development of this PEIR and to provide our input to the original land use map that was proposed back in 2006 (almost 20 years ago) and no changes would be made to it during this preparation period and that we need to provide our input to the City Planning Department and to the Planning Commission and City Council during the adoption period.

Below are a few of the justifications we presented in our prior letters and documents for relocating a portion of the Land Use Plan Area bounded by Temperance Ave. to the west, 655
Church Ave. to the south, the Briggs Canal to the east, and the Railroad to the north, from Flexible Research and Development/Regional Business Park to a mixture of Community Center, Mixed Residential, and Neighborhood Residential. We request this change or some version of it for the reasons outlined in the documents previously submitted and summarized below. Also, considering there is a serious shortage of housing in Fresno and California this change should be desirable.
• The Sanger Unified School District has recently purchased and zoned a 15-acre parcel on the west side of Temperance about midway between the Railroad and Church Ave. This school as well as the new High School at Jensen and Fowler Avenue would benefit by having more residential homes and apartments closer to these schools to reduce car miles driven and allow walking to school.
• A community center, a small commercial center, and similar job-creating uses at this site will serve the proposed residential and mixed residential areas as well as the very large residential areas (4 square miles) to the west of Temperance between Kings Canyon Road and Jensen Avenue. Currently there are no shopping/commercial areas for over 3 driving miles to the Kings Canyon/Clovis Avenue center. Adding a small community center/office/ commercial center and some mixed residential would greatly reduce trip miles, air pollution, and noise. These uses would not conflict with the large community center proposed at DeWolf and California Avenue and would complement it by reducing trip miles between shopping/office space needed in both areas. The proposed four-lane California Avenue would support both developments and conveniently connect the Temperance and DeWolf arterial streets for both bicycle and foot traffic. • There is significant pressure/demand on this area to develop employing these land uses due to the SR 180 Freeway completion. Temperance Avenue will be a major connector between SR 180 and Jensen Avenue for communities to the south and east such as Sanger, Del Rey, Reedley, Parlier, and Selma. There are no services, such as gas stations, grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants, etc., to serve this traffic volume. The streets and large community centers proposed over a mile to the east will not develop for 20 to 30 years or more and will not be able to serve the immediate needs. This inconvenient situation will create more trip miles, air pollution, and noise.
• More jobs will be created by the uses we proposed compared to the Business Park/Flexible R&D land uses. If these proposed Business Park lands develop in this area in the distant future, it would be primarily warehouses, storage areas, or agricultural-related processing industries. There are already many large industrial areas in the Fresno area along Jensen Avenue to the west, at the Fresno airport only 5 miles away, and in Clovis. There is no demand in this area for such land use, and it would cause this area to develop last, if ever.

By making this area Flexible R&D, it will essentially stop or severely slow development of 656
this area and cause development to leapfrog over to areas east of the Briggs Canal. This would cause an expensive and undesirable situation for City services, such as roads, water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, and electrical, to be extended far to the east without development west of the Briggs Canal. Stranded areas of land development are sure to cause unnecessary environmental impacts, future inconvenience, and wasted money. • The industrial area to the north of the railroad at Temperance up to Butler Avenue is primarily an agricultural/wet industry (La Destria, formerly Bonner Packing). This is a significant industrial development that has existed for over 150 years at this large site.

Zoning of Business R&D may not be consistent with this existing use due to significant odors, noise, rail (double rail spur), truck traffic, and similar environmental impacts. We suggest that this entire area north of the railroad up to Butler Avenue be kept as industrial only. The railroad would provide a good buffer and transition to the community center/office/Mixed Residential uses we are proposing.
• If it is necessary to have a certain number of Industrial or Business Park/Flexible R&D acres in the plan, we suggest moving this zoned area to south of Jensen Avenue and west of Temperance Avenue. The present plan shows some residential in these areas, which would be an environmentally unsound choice due to the heavy traffic noise, and air quality impacts created by a future six-lane roadway such as Jensen Avenue. An example of this undesirable situation can now be found on the north side of Jensen between Clovis and Fowler Avenues, where homes are being built adjacent to this busy highway. • As evidenced by our previously proposed application in 2008 for this modification, over 70 percent of the property owners (17 parcels) in this area do not want the Industrial/Flex R&D zoning in this area. These property owners have owned and paid taxes on these properties for many years, in some cases over 75 years. Many of the parcels are small (less than 10 acres) and are not conducive to developing the larger parcels necessary for Business Park/Flexible R&D, which would further hamper the sales and development of the area for these uses. This condition would promote further leapfrogging over this area. • The Phasing of Development shown as Exhibit 6 provided at the May 3rd 2022, public meeting showed our area to be developed third of four phases. We disagree with this phasing order and feel the area shown as third should be second and the area shown as second moved to third. The area south of Jensen is entirely agricultural now with no major roads completed other than Jensen Ave. There are also no utilities extended near this area.

Development of this area would be much more expensive and cause additional deleterious environmental impacts. The State Center Community College is no longer planned for this area, so there is no reason for the land to be developed before the area east of Temperance Avenue between SR 180 south to Jensen Ave. The latter area is already developing due to the new Freeway and the near future extension of Temperance Ave as a super arterial. Also, the new Southeast Fresno regional water treatment plant is just to the northwest and can 657
be used to bring water to this area more economically. We would appreciate your consideration in this logical and environmentally sound change if phased development of the SEDA area is proposed.

In reading Chapter 5 of the Recirculated Draft Program EIR prepared by the City of Fresno, the city considered various Land Use Alternatives. One of these, listed as Alternative 2, Consolidated Business Park Alternative, is described as follows:

Under the Consolidated Business Park Alternative (Alternative 2), the SEDA Specific Plan would occur as planned, but this alternative maintains the Flexible Research and Development land designations from the General Plan for the area south of Jensen Avenue. It would accommodate approximately 42,900 homes and 36,000 jobs within the 9,000-acre planning area. This is approximately 2,100 fewer homes and 1,000 fewer jobs, when compared with the proposed project. Alternative 2 would have slightly less density of development than the proposed project. The area identified in the SEDA Specific Plan as Flexible Research and Development to the east of Temperance Avenue and north of Jensen Avenue would be developed as Neighborhood Residential and Mixed Residential with two community centers and five neighborhood centers. Additionally, this alternative would change the land use designations for the planned Mixed Residential and Neighborhood Residential, along with the Community and Neighborhood Centers south of Jensen Avenue. Under Alternative 2, that area would be designated as Flexible Research and Development and Offices. Please refer to Exhibit 5-1 for a visual representation of this alternative.

The Exhibit 5-1 Land Use Map is enclosed with this letter as well as Exhibit 1-1 which is the called the “Proposed Project” in this document. This “Proposed Project” is the same land use document that has been unchanged since the original work on SEGA plan was done in 2007.

The Alternative 2, Consolidated Business Park Alternative, essentially agrees with what we and our neighbors have been proposing since 2008, and we are extremely pleased that it was analyzed to the same degree as the “Proposed Project” in the Draft EIR. The results of this analysis, as described in detail in Chapter 5, were determined to be an environmentally superior alternative as compared to the “Proposed Project” when all aspects are considered.

This determination was illustrated in Table 5-1 of the Recirculated Draft Program EIR and is enclosed with this letter. Below are excerpts from the Recirculated Draft Program EIR that reflect this determination as well as the project objectives related to new dwelling units and jobs.

5.2 - Project Objectives
As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, the objectives of the proposed project are to:

Quantified Objectives
• Accommodate between 40,000 and 45,000 dwelling units of varying types, sizes, densities, and affordability levels.
658
• Accommodate between 30,000 and 37,000 jobs.

5.6 - Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires identification of an environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior, CEQA requires selection of the “environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative” among the project and the alternatives evaluated. The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the proposed project are summarized in Table 5-1.

Land Use and Planning
Alternative 2 would have slightly less density than the proposed project. Alternative 2 would not physically divide an established community. This alternative would allow for planned development and growth and would increase connectivity and support, strengthen, and connect new communities. However, this alternative might reduce impacts to land use by consolidating Office Center and Flexible Research and Development land uses to the area south of Jensen Avenue.

Therefore, impacts to land use would be expected to be less than significant, similar to but slightly less than the proposed project.

5.6 - Environmentally Superior Alternative
“The Consolidated Business Park Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it has similar, but slightly less, impacts as compared to the proposed project and meets the project objectives.”
Also enclosed as a separate attachment is a brief executive summary of the relevant discussions in Chapter 5 of the Draft Program EIR that reinforce our conclusions and recommendations.

In summary we wish to thank the city and city staff for allowing us and our neighbors to comment on the Recirculated Draft Program EIR. For the reasons stated above and also as stated in your own Recirculated Draft Program EIR, we request that the Consolidated Business Park Alternative (Alternative 2), be adopted as the preferred land use plan and be adopted as such. We hope that the City Planning Department and the City Planning Commission will make this recommendation to the City Council for adoption based on the desires of the property owners in this area as well as the analysis performed by their EIR consultant in accordance with the CEQA process. If you have any questions, you may contact me at the address and contact information below.

Sincerely
659
660
661
662
Comments on Recirculated Draft PEIR, SEDA Specific Plan Project #2022020486 After a review of the SEDA General Plan, Recirculated Draft PEIR Specific Plan, and the three Alternatives in Chapter 5, I believe the Consolidated Business Park Alternative 2 offers the best course of action to satisfy the PEIR Project objectives.

Alt 2 would maintain existing R&D land designations from the General Plan for the area south of Jensen Avenue but allow the area east of Temperance Avenue to be developed at Neighborhood and Mixed Residential with two community centers and five neighborhood centers (p. 5-6). This scenario would permit proper organized and phased development on potentially stranded land east of Temperance and west of the Briggs Canal. Consolidation of Flexible R&D land south of Jensen Avenue would offer the opportunity for synergies of planning and phased development in one contiguous area instead of two separate tracts.

Alt 2 would accommodate 42,900 homes and provide 36,000 jobs within the 9,000 ac planning area (p. 5-14). These estimates are 95% of the maximum in the range outlined in the project objectives of the SEDA Specific Plan (p. 5-7) and 97% of the maximum jobs in the range outlined in the Plan, while offering the benefit of slightly less development density and environmental impact.

Alt 2 would consolidate the proposed Office Center and Flexible R&D land uses to the area south of Jensen Avenue, thus preserving more undeveloped space (p. 5-15). Alt 2 would not physically divide an established community, allow planned development, and increase connectivity to support and strengthen new communities (p. 5-18).

Alt 2 would provide similar development to the proposed project, but with slightly less intense impacts to GHG emissions, agricultural, forestry, and biological resources (p.5-15). In fact, the 2025 Recirculated Draft Plan made no mention of any significant net increase in GHG emissions for Alt 2 (5-21). The previous 2023 Draft Plan had stated that “Alt 2 would still have a significant net increase in GHG emissions and would have a significant GHG impact per the City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update (5-17).”).
663
Alt 1, No Project Alternative, would use current land use and zoning maps from the General Plan. This alternative would include an estimated 17,900 homes and 29,600 jobs (p. 5-6). These numbers are below the range of homes and jobs identified as “quantified objectives” in the SEDA Specific Plan. Alt 1 would have similar, but slightly less, impacts than the proposed SEDA Specific Plan.

Alt 3, Farmland Conservation Alternative, envisions no future development or ground disturbing activities on specific farmland (648.61 ac) designated for conservation (p. 5-22). In addition, a Rural Cluster Residential Buffer (832 ac) on the east side of the Plan area would be excluded from development. Preserving this buffer farmland would reduce the transitional buffer and cause residential lands to be in closer contact with active agricultural land (p. 5-25). This unavoidable conflict of land use continuity would likely contradict the Specific Plan Policy UF-1.6 and create a significant environmental impact (Table 5-1). This land use conflict creates an incrementally greater environmental impact, rendering it inferior under CEQA Guidelines (p. 5-29).
“Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, would not meet the project objectives. Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet many of the project objectives. The Consolidated Business Park Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it has similar, but slightly less, impacts as compared to the proposed project and meets the project objectives.” (p. 5-29).

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Dale Reitz and Mark Reitz
664

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FRESNO SOUTHEAST DEVELOPMENT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

CITY OF FRESNO, FRESNO COUNTY, CA
State Clearinghouse Number 2022020486
AUGUST 27, 2023
Submitted by Email and USPS to
City of Fresno
Jennifer Clark, Director
Planning & Development Dept.
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
RESUBMITTED MARCH 19, 2025
by email to [email protected]
c/o Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Submitted by
VICTORIA Y. YOKOYAMA
History
The author purchased a five-acre parcel in Southeast Fresno in 1994 from a well-known African American farmer, built a home on the lot in 1997, and moved to Southeast Fresno from northern Clovis. The author and family have enjoyed the benefits of a Southeast Fresno rural life style by living in the Rural Residential zone for more than 30 years. The author’s land is bordered on the south side by Fancher Creek Canal, and the author has been a conservationist in protecting the wildlife associated with the natural waterway. In 2001, the author objected to the proposed construction of a linear park on the Fancher Creek Canal ditch bank. In 2008, the original SEGA plan included the linear park. The SEGA plan then made an abrupt transition to the SEDA Plan in 2022. The issuance of the SEDA plan EIR was then announced in 2023 without adequate public warning to impacted property owners, and members of the public.

In 2025, the City of Fresno created confusion by resubmitted the 2023 EIR to select individuals as a modified document. Those who responded to the 2023 EIR were not specifically informed by the city that 2023 public comments would be eliminated unless resubmitted by March 24.

Thereby, city government has effectively diminished public involvement in the SEDA Plan.

Comments on SEDA EIR:

A. Environmental Setting 3.4.2
Plants and Animals Have No Voice, and Are Heard Through Those Who Know They are There. 665

The EIR fails to identify the significant negative impact on biological resources in the SEDA specific plan. The EIR fails to identify the ecological damage caused by building a Neighborhood Town Center in the center of a SEDA block of Rural Residential zoned land bordered by E McKinley Ave on the north, N Fancher Ave on the east, E Tulare Ave on the south, and DeWolf Ave on the west. This block of land is now referred to as McKinley x Fancher x Tulare x DeWolf (MFTD), and the biological resources in this area have been documented by the author. The primary features of the MFTD include the natural waterway of Fancher Creek Canal, an established community of homes on small to medium acreage parcels, a horticultural nursery, and a golf course (Exhibits 1-1 and 2-2). The MFTD is only about a tenth of the land that comprises the urban growth area in the SEDA specific plan, and serves as an example of the detrimental effects of urban development on wildlife, species diversity, and environmental habitat. Under the SEDA specific plan, agricultural farmlands and rural residential areas will suffer from unrecoverable losses of biodiversity, and abundance of animal and plant life through habitat destruction. The SEDA plan EIR fails to identify future ecological decline in the region, loss of community, and quality of life.

1. Disagree with Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix; Section 3.4 – Biological Resources.

No mitigation measures are proposed for Impact BIO-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. MFTD includes legally protected and sensitive species of environmental concern, riparian habitat, wetlands, native resident species, and tree preservation measures.

2. Disagree with Exhibit 3.4-1. The Fancher Creek Canal lacustrine and riverine land cover types and vegetation communities are omitted in part in the MFTD. Exhibit 3.4-1 shows lacustrine, pasture, and private ponds on the southern border of the Neighborhood Town Center in the middle of the MFTD. The riverine habitat must be included from this location northeast to the eastern boundary of the SEDA.

3. Disagree with Table 3.4-3. Rural and existing urban vegetation provides good habitat for special-status species such as the San Joaquin Kit fox (Cypher and Van Horn Job, 2012) and Monarch butterflies. Pasture provides food for wildlife herbivores including birds and rodents, and prey for carnivores including foxes and raptors. Rural and urban gardens provide habitat for Monarch butterflies (Cutting and Tallamy 2015), bees and other pollinators.

4. Disagree with Table 3.4-5: Special-status Wildlife Species within the Plan Area, and disagree with two text boxes in Exhibit 3.4-2 that reiterate information in Table 3.4-5 and Appendix C.

Additional special species with imperiled status known to in occur in MFTD from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2023) must be added to Table 3.4-5 as follows:

Fisher (Pekania pennanti) Comments – Observed 2013.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Comments – Observed 2021 and a feature the ecological community (Snell Taylor et al. 2018).

Monarch (Danaus plexippus plexippus) Comments – Observed and Resident population (Davis 2021).
666

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Comments – Annual Nesting Pairs Observed.

Gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides) Comments – Annual Nesting Pairs Observed.

Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) Comments – Observed egg laying near Fancher Creek Canal in the MFTD.

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Comments – Observed and a feature of the ecological community (Snell Taylor et al. 2018).

Great egret (Ardea alba) Comments – Observed and a feature of the ecological community (Snell Taylor et al. 2018).

Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Comments – Observed and a feature of the ecological community (Snell Taylor et al. 2018).

5. Disagree with Exhibit 3.4-2. The distribution of the San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, is shown in a red circle limited to Sanger. The northern distribution of the San Joaquin kit fox into the MFTD is not addressed in the EIR. Movement of San Joaquin kit foxes into rural and urban populations has helped prevent its extinction (Cypher and Van Horn Job, 2012).

6. Disagree with Exhibit 3.4-2. Swainson’s hawk, Buteo swainsoni, must be added inside the same red circle around the MFTD as the western yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus occidentalis. Nesting pairs of Swainson’s hawks are found in the MFTD.

7. Disagree with Exhibit 3.4-2. The distribution of least Bell’s vireo, Vireo bellii pusillu, would not be limited to the red circles around Tarpey Village, and Clovis, but would be found across the SEDA.

8. Disagree with Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. and State. Fancher Creek Canal provides unlimited opportunities for both vegetation and wildlife and is not a limited resource as described. Fancher Creek Canal is a natural waterway originating from the Kings River, and is the dominant natural feature in MFTD.
a. The EIR fails to identify that the SEDA is located near the Kings River. The EIR states that the plan is not located near the San Joaquin River.
b. The EIR fails to identify the negative impact on the fish species that are found in the natural waterway of the Fancher Creek Canal (University California 2014) and the fact that some fish are California native species.
c. The EIR fails to identify the negative impact of developed open space designated for a linear park on the Fancher Creek Canal Bank (Exhibit 3.11-1). The Fresno Irrigation District has stated opposition to using its canals as urban trails (Fresno Irrigation District 2020). Any disturbance or human activity on the Fancher Creek Canal bank will disrupt the fragile environmental habitat which now supports a diversity of animal and plant life including protected species. 667

9. Disagree with Wildlife Movement Corridor statement that SEDA would not be expected to substantially degrade the existing conditions. The SEDA will substantially degrade existing conditions for native resident and migratory fish, wildlife species, wildlife corridors, and nursery sites in the MFTD. The natural stream bed of the Fancher Creek Canal flows with water throughout the year and is the habitat for fish including trout, ducks, frogs, toads, muskrats, weasels, and many aquatic insects including damselflies, dragonflies, and mayflies. The banks of Fancher Creek Canal are lined with established trees including native oaks that provide habitat for birds including raptors, mammals including foxes, racoons, rodents, amphibians, and reptiles including snakes and lizards.
a. The EIR fails to identify the California Department of Fish and Game agreement with the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District in preservation and management of wildlife habitats along Fancher Creek (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 2003). b. The EIR fails to identify the negative impact on birds in the SEDA (Fresno Audubon Society 2019) and those species associated with the Fancher Creek Canal habitat. i. Raptors found in the MFTD that are protected under the California Department of Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513, and California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Sections 251.1, 652 and 783-786.6 are as follows:

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Comments – Annual Nesting Pairs Observed.

Great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) Comments – Observed and Nesting Pairs Highly Likely.

Barn owl (Tyto alba) Comments – Observed and Nesting Pairs Highly Likely.

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) Comments – Observed and a feature of the ecological community (Snell Taylor et al. 2018).

Red-Shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) Comments – Observed and a feature of the ecological community (Snell Taylor et al. 2018).
ii. Established populations of the California State Bird are found in the MFTD.

California quail (Callipepla Californica) Comments – Annual Nesting Pairs Observed. iii. Species of birds found in the MFTD protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 2023) include the following:

Wood duck (Aix sponsa) Comments – Annual Nesting Pairs Observed.

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Comments – Annual Nesting Pairs Observed. 668

Swift sp. Comments – Annual Nesting Populations under Fancher Creek Canal bridges Observed.

Others species of protected birds observed include, but are not limited to the following:

Canada goose, Common merganser, Double crested cormorant, White tailed kite, Killdeer, California gull, Mourning dove, Bell’s Vireo, Black phoebe, American pipet, many Warbler spp., White crowned sparrow, many Sparrow spp., Spotted towhee, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Bushtit, Dark eyed junco, Brewer’s blackbird, American Robin, Northern mockingbird, Woodpecker sp., Sapsucker sp., Magpie sp., Oak titmouse, Blue-gray gnat catcher, Western bluebird, House finch, Lesser goldfinch, Belted kingfisher, Black-headed grosbeak and more. c. The EIR fails to identify the negative impact on biodiversity in the SEDA. Small diversified farms in the MFTD grow specialty and vegetable crops, and raise farm animals including poultry, swine, sheep, cattle, and horses. Homes adjacent to Fancher Creek Canal have ponds (Exhibit 3.4-1) and others have extensive ornamental gardens. The rural residential area supports a diversity of plant species, some that are native to California and the US. Cultivated and natural vegetation includes established trees, shrubs, grasses, and flowers. The rural landscape supports a growing diversity of wildlife including mammals, marsupials, rodents, birds, reptiles, amphibians and insects.
i. Pollinators. The EIR fails to identify the negative impact of removing pollinator habitat from areas in the SEDA that would contribute to an agricultural disaster in the region. Pollinators including hummingbirds, butterflies, bats, and bees are in decline in California (Chrobak 2022), across the U.S., and globally (Rhodes 2018). Plants in agricultural margins have the potential to greatly enhance habitat connectivity for pollinating insects (Wolterbeek 2023; Dilts et al. 2023) and prevent biodiversity collapse while providing natural pollination services. A variety of plant types found in gardens attract a diversity of bees (Frankie 2019). Gardens are larger in the rural residential areas of the MFTD compared to the city helping to support pollinator diversity and survival, and restore habitat for the Monarch butterfly (Cutting and Tallamy 2015). ii. Horticultural Nursery. The EIR fails to identify the negative impact of replacing a large horticultural plant nursery with a Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD (Exhibits 1-1, 2-2,

3.11-1, and 5-1). The nursery is classified as unique farmland in the SEDA (Exhibit 3.2-1), conducive to the rural residential landscape, and supports biodiversity (Liquete et al. 2016). iii. Golf Course. The EIR fails to identify the environmental value of a golf course located in the southern area of the MFTD. Golf courses support biodiversity and provide ecosystem services (Petrosillo et al. 2019). The golf course in Exhibit 5-2, Farmland Conservation Alternative, is replaced by urban development.

10. Disagree with Regulated Trees. The EIR fails to identify the negative impact on California native oaks that are found in the SEDA and along the Fancher Creek Canal banks in the MFTD including valley Oak (Quercus lobata) and California live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). One hundred-year-old eucalyptus trees grow from the banks of Fancher Creek Canal. Although these extremely tall trees are not protected, they are suitable habitats for nesting birds, especially raptors.
669

a. EIR fails to identify the Fresno County oak woodland policy (UC Oaks 2022) and impact of the plan on oak trees in the SEDA.
b. EIR fails to identify the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act (2001) and impact of the plan on oak trees in the SEDA.

B. Regulatory Framework 3.4.3

1. The EIR fails to identify the significant negative impact of a Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD community. The SEDA specific plan does not define the purpose of the MFTD Neighborhood Town Center. Therefore, the land can be used for an elementary school (two schools are already located nearby), a local park (residents already live in open spaces), community gardens (residents have their own gardens) or a range of housing options or retail shopping which is apparently the objective of a Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD. a. The property designated as the Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD is not owned by the current horticultural nursery operators according to Fresno County public records. The motive for Fresno City planners to designate this particular site for development is questionable, especially when a second Neighborhood Town Center is planned about 3000 ft to the west. b. The EIR fails to address the significant negative environmental impact of the Neighborhood Town Center on the Fancher Creek Canal habitat along the development’s southern border (Exhibit 3.4-1).
i. Fresno General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, -1.2, and -1.3 are avoidance measures that justify eliminating the Neighborhood Town Center from the MFTD in the SEDA specific plan (Exhibits 1-1 and 2-2) and in Alternative 2-Consolidated Business Park Alternative (Exhibit 5-1).

C. Thresholds of Significance 3.4.5

1. A Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD of the SEDA specific plan would be significant because of the substantial adverse effect on the special-status species associated with the Fancher Creek Canal habitat (Impact Bio-1) by disrupting the environment that is currently a favorable habitat for the listed special-status species.

D. Level of Significant After Mitigation 3.4.6

1. Disagree with Impact BIO-1 determination that the level of significance before mitigation is less than a significant impact. The impact would be significant before mitigation on specialstatus species (Impact BIO-1) with a Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD of the SEDA specific plan.
670

a. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, -1.2, -1.3 to eliminate a Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD of the SEDA specific plan would result in a level of significance after mitigation of less than significant impact.

2. Disagree with Impact BIO-2 determination that the level of significance before mitigation is less than a significant impact. The impact would be significant before mitigation on the riparian habitat of the Fancher Creek Canal (Impact BIO-2) with a Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD of the SEDA specific plan.
a. Eliminating the Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD of the SEDA specific plan would result in a level of significance after mitigation of less than significant impact.

3. Disagree with Impact BIO-4 determination that the level of significance before mitigation is less than a significant impact. The impact would be significant before mitigation on fish, established protected species, and wildlife movement through the corridor of the Fancher Creek Canal (Impact BIO-4) with a Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD of the SEDA specific plan.
a. Eliminating the Neighborhood Town Center in the MFTD of the SEDA specific plan would result in a level of significance after mitigation of less than significant impact.

4. Disagree with Impact BIO-5 determination that the level of significance before mitigation is less than a significant impact. The impact would be significant before mitigation on California native oak trees within the MFTD and SEDA specific plan. a. Fresno County has an oak woodland policy (UC Oaks 2022) and the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act (2001) applies to oak trees in the SEDA specific plan.

E. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 to the SEDA
The results of the author’s evaluation of the impact of the SEDA on biological resources in the MFTD would apply to the entire SEDA specific plan region. The SEDA specific plan and the adverse effects of a Neighborhood Town Center on biodiversity and environmental habitat in the MFTD would also affect the adjacent areas of Sanger. The SEDA is a plan that supports urban sprawl into established rural residential and agricultural areas, and will destroy biological resources. Environmentally conscious agricultural and rural practices can benefit wildlife, but urban development will cause the greatest threat to all wildlife species and their habitats (Kucera and Barrett 1995).

1. Acceptable: Alternative 1-No Project Alternative is the preferred alternative and would have no significant environmental (Table 5-1) effect on the existing biological resources in the MFTD and within the region of the SEDA boundaries.
671

2. Not Acceptable: Alternative 2-Consolidated Business Park Alternative (Exhibit 5-1) would have the same unacceptable and significant environmental impact in the MFTD as the SEDA specific plan. In Alternative 2, the Neighborhood Town Center bordered by the Fancher Creek Canal on the south would remain in the MFTD. Alternative 2 will destroy farmland and cause habitat fragmentation and destruction that result in an unrecoverable loss of biological resources within the SEDA.
a. Disagree with Table 5-1 Biological Resources, Alternative 2 quantitative environmental effect is greater than or equal to (≥) in part, and greater than (>) in part.

3. Acceptable: Alternative 3-Farmland Conservation Alternative (Exhibit 5-2) would eliminate the Neighborhood Town Center, and the golf course a source of habit in the MFTD, but the Fancher Creek Canal that supports environmental habitat and species diversity would be preserved. Alternative 3 would implement the MM AG-2 mitigation measure to preserve farmland, and prevent farmland conversion into nonagricultural uses. Alternative 3 limits urban sprawl into farmland and helps preserve biological resources, and conservation of the environmental and ecological integrity of the SEDA.

F. References
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). July 2023. Special animals list. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.

Chrobak, U. 2022. The plight of the pollinators. UC Davis Magazine, Agriculture, Environment, Fall/Winter 2021-22, Features.

Cypher, B. L. and C. L. Van Horn Job. 2012. Management and conservation of San Joaquin Kit coxes in urban environments. Proc. 25th Vertebr. Pest Conf. Univ. Calif. Davis. p. 347-352.

Cutting, B. T. and D. W. Tallamy. 2015. An evaluation of butterfly gardens for restoring habitat for the Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae). 44 (5): 1328-1335.

Davis, A. K. 2022. Monarchs reared in winter in california are not large enough to be migrants.

Comment on James etal. First population study on winter breeding monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the urban south bay of San Francisco, California.

Insects 13 (1): 63.

Dilts T. E., S. H. Black, S. M. Hoyle, S. J. Jepsen, E. A. May, and M. L. Forister. 2023.

Agricultural margins could enhance landscape connectivity for pollinating insects across the Central Valley of California. U.S.A. PLoS ONE 18(2).

Frankie, G, J. Pawelek, M. H. Chase, C. C. Jadallah, I. Feng, M. Rizzardi and R. Thorp. 2019.

Native and non-native plants attract diverse bees to urban gardens in California. J. Pollinat.

Ecol. 25 (3): 16-23.
672

Fresno Audubon Society. 2019. Checklist of the birds of Fresno and Madera Counties – August 2019.

Fresno Irrigation District. 2020. A century of excellence - Urban trails along FID’s canals.

Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno, CA. p. 55-56.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. 2003. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Service Plan. Notice of Determination. SCH Number 1984091707.

Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Displaced by agriculture, urban growth: California wildlife faces uncertain future. California Agriculture 49 (6): 23-27.

Liquete, C., N. Cid, D. Lanzanova, B. Grizzetti, and A. Reynaud. 2016. Perspectives on the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity: The assessment of the nursery function.

Ecological Indicators 63: 249-257.

Oak Woodlands Conservation Act. 2001. Assembly Bill No. 242. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.

Petrosillo, I, D. Valente, M. R. Pasimeni, R. Aretano, T. Semeraro, and G. Zurlini. 2019. Can a golf course support biodiversity and ecosystem services? The landscape context matter.

Landscape Ecol. 34: 2213-2228.

Rhodes, C. J. 2018. Pollinator decline – an ecological calamity in the making? Science Progress 101 (2): 121-160.

Snell Taylor, S. J., B. S. Evans, E. P. White and A. H. Hurlbert. 2018. The prevalence and impact of transient species in ecological communities. Ecology 99 (8): 1825-1835.

UC Oaks. 2022. Oak Woodland Policies of 41 California Counties – Fresno. Univ. Calif.

Agricul. Nat. Res. Coop. Ext. Fall 2022.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Revised list of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Federal Register 88 (145): 49310-49355.

University of California. 2014. Fish species by location – ‘Fancher Creek Canal – 180300090303’. California Fish Website, Feb. 26, 2014.

Wolterbeek, M. 2023. Connecting habitat in the Central Valley could help save California’s pollinators. Nevada Today Science & Technology, Feb. 10, 2023. 673
1 Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Comments on Recirculated Dra� EIR for City of Fresno’s Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse # 2021100443)
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
Presented in this leter are comments on the Recirculated Dra� EIR for the Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan. Despite the geography of the plan’s name, it has become increasingly clear that SEDA poses mul�faceted issues of Citywide concern. Your considera�on of these comments is appreciated.

Sincerely,
Daniel Brannick

1. The City’s primary narrative in pushing for the expeditious approval of SEDA is “to create more housing supply at all income levels” (Specific Plan p. 5), however, the SEDA EIR admits “there is ample residential capacity within the current city limits and in Growth Area 1 (which includes Southwest Fresno and the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan areas)” (RDEIR p. 2-1).

In addition to its own admission that there is ample housing capacity elsewhere, there are additional problems with this would-be justification to move forward with SEDA.

A. The process clearly conflicts with the Fresno General Plan’s framework and policies regarding the sequencing of development in “Growth Areas”
Permitting the development of SEDA, which is in Growth Area 2, prior to the development of land in Growth Area 1 violates the sequencing of development prescribed by policy and Figure IM-2 of the Fresno General Plan. Furthermore, the City has never established a tracking method to monitor development in infill areas and Growth Area 1 to determine an appropriate time to allow for development in Growth Area 2, as discussed in Chapter 12 of the General Plan and as tied to the requirements of Policies UF-12 and UF-13.

The EIR admits that moving forward with SEDA now is to place the sequencing out of order:
“Located in Growth Area II, SEDA was intended to be developed once other infill initiatives were given time to gain momentum.” Given that there are multiple projects underway in Growth Area 1 with “ample residential capacity” still undeveloped, there is no basis to state that the City 674
2 should open Growth Area 2 to development. Rather, the City should continue to focus development in infill areas and Growth Area 1.

B. The SEDA Plan as proposed is not consistent with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 The lack of housing units to meet demand is not just an issue in Fresno, but in California broadly.

However, even the Housing Crisis Act would recognize that SEDA is not the best solution to address the crisis. The Act1 notes that “(12) The housing crisis also harms the environment by doing both of the following: (a) Increasing pressure to develop the state’s farmlands, open space, and rural interface areas to build affordable housing, and increasing fire hazards that generate massive greenhouse gas emissions (B) Increasing greenhouse gas emissions from longer commutes to affordable homes far from growing job centers.” (emphasis added).

The Act later states: (c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state.

Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (emphasis added).

As there is “ample residential capacity within the current city limits and in Growth Area 1,” allowing development to occur in SEDA - which contains more than 2,475 acres of Prime Farmland, 1,352 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 1,189 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, and 1,725 acres of Unique Farmland (totaling 6,741 acres) - would be a violation of state policy, as written in the Housing Crisis Act.

C. Advancing SEDA in the manner and timing proposed undermines the City’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
AB 686 “requires all state and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities.”2
Fresno has a documented history linking urban sprawl to inner city decay and the creation of racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.3, 4, 5 As the City permits more outward 1 htps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330 2 htps://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirma�vely-furthering-fair-housing 3 htps://www.sutori.com/en/story/fresno-bhc-�meline--wGb27reQQeEt6ZoHv1qgPZfx 4 htps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/eb1233c�60048df8a02ba8b83998da7 5 htps://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/ar�cle243247596.html#storylink=cpy 675
3 expansion, existing neighborhoods are drained of resources and amenities – including access to healthy food, health care providers, etc. Despite this evidence, SEDA would perpetuate the disparities that result from past land use decisions, draining resources from infill areas and Growth Area 1, and potentially exacerbate existing segregation patterns.

2. At a global level, it is unclear to what degree the EIR accounts for potential adverse environmental impacts that could result from the re-sequencing of development to prioritize development within SEDA over other parts of the City and Plan Area. Notably, the EIR appears to take very limited account of two large planning efforts that were initiated prior to SEDA: the West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan and the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan. Both of these plans were initiated prior to the SEDA plan being resurrected, and both would increase housing and residential capacity in the City’s Growth Area 1 and/or infill areas. The West Area is mentioned exactly one time in the aforementioned text from the Executive Summary, and the Central Southeast Specific Plan is mentioned only in footnotes. These projects must be considered in the context of cumulative demands on services and infrastructure to properly disclose how SEDA will impact the environment in the scenario that these plans are also adopted.

3. The City is not being transparent about the cost to build out public infrastructure and services for SEDA, which may indirectly violate General Plan Policies LU-1-e and ED-5-b that speak to the need for revenueneutral annexations. While developers (or residents) may pay into a CFD, these do not cover all costs that are associated with new development, such as major roads. The approval of the Specific Plan and EIR would essentially require the City to subsidize development in Growth Area 2. As City resources are scarce and the City faces a budget deficit, this would further the offense to the General Plan by removing resources from infill areas and Growth Area 1.

4. The EIR quotes a number of policies from the SEDA Specific Plan and states that compliance with the policies will aid in reducing impacts. If the policies are subsequently altered, then the EIR must reevaluate the effectiveness of the policies to be relied upon for mitigation.

5. At a broad level, the EIR relies on policies and ideas in the General Plan and SEDA Specific Plan to ostensibly mitigate potential environmental impacts. However, in a number of instances, the EIR does not provide any meaningful evidence to substantiate a) whether or not the General Plan policies have been successfully implemented and thus can be cited as effective for mitigation, or b) whether or not the Specific Plan policies are based in any sense of reality.

For example, the EIR frequently discusses how the Specific Plan will be served with “convenient and frequent transit service” but provides no information to prove that FAX has “major transit lines” planned, funding available, etc. to make this a reality. Similarly, it says that “nearly all homes [are] to be 676
4 located within walking distance of a Neighborhood Town Center” but does not show any maps or data that prove or meaningfully substantiate this statement.

6. The Plan has missing or outdated information. The Urban Form chapter does not include a series of exhibits that showcase the Land Use vision. The Housing Choice and Affordability Chapter does not discuss availability of housing in the City nor the challenges associated with providing housing affordability. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Conservation Chapter references the 2021 GHG Plan.

There is no Implementation Chapter.

7. The EIR says there are additional project components, but they are not available for public review. This includes a Phasing Plan, an Infrastructure Financing Plan, and a General Plan Amendment and Development Code Change. These components must be made available to the public with an appropriate public review period prior to any formal consideration of this project. Failure to do so undermines the informed decision-making and meaningful public participation mandated under CEQA.

8. The Aesthetics section does not address potential impacts on the Blossom Trail. Segments of the Blossom Trail are located along Clovis Avenue, Jensen Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, and North Avenue, which is located within the Plan Area or immediately adjacent to its boundaries. The Blossom Trail Route is formally designated as a scenic roadway by Fresno County, and it is well recognized in the local public consciousness as an important and significant scenic resource.

The EIR already discloses that significant and unavoidable impacts will result due to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use and the adverse alteration of visual character by increasing the intensity of development in many areas that are primarily agricultural. However, the potential for particularized impacts to the Blossom Trail segments within or in proximity to SEDA are not addressed.

As such, the EIR should include measures to protect the Blossom Trail segments located within the SEDA boundaries and those in close proximity to the Blossom Trail. Protective measures could include heightened review requirements for projects within the Blossom Trail Corridor areas and tree preservation requirements along Blossom Trail Corridor roadway frontage areas. Through such measures, it seems readily apparent that impacts to the Blossom Trail could be avoided or reduced without substantially impeding SEDA’s general development framework or its goals and objectives.

9. Impact ENER-1 should be revisited and updated. Because there is enough housing capacity within infill areas and Growth Area 1 that are already served by infrastructure and services, SEDA would appear to result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy. The energy demands (not to mention dollar costs) associated with constructing and maintaining infrastructure in SEDA’s undeveloped greenfield areas are substantially higher than those for infill areas and Growth Area 1. Furthermore, the 677
5 added distances and commutes (which are likely to occur unless and until SEDA’s optimistic full buildout is achieved) will lead to increased fuel consumption, which is averse to achieving California climate and energy goals.

10. The EIR’s conclusion under Impact LAND-2 disregards that implementation of SEDA as proposed conflicts with policy Figure IM-2 and related policies pertaining to the prioritization of development in infill areas and Growth Area 1. This project cannot be found consistent with UF-12 as it would expand the city by 9,000 acres and include a population equal to neighboring Clovis exclusively to Growth Area 2. In light of the recently updated City-County tax sharing agreement – under which the City will receive a greater share of property taxes for development within SEDA than it will for development happening anywhere else within the City or its SOI – it is reasonably foreseeable that the City will seek to reallocate and direct resources to SEDA in an attempt to realize higher tax revenues (which could foreseeably be wiped out by exorbitant costs associated with serving and maintaining the new development). As such, the Plan is in conflict with LU-4 as it will pull resources away from existing neighborhoods and spread resources thinner across a larger urban footprint. For the same reason, it is in conflict with LU-9 as history does not support the assertion that it will somehow avoid pulling resources away from downtown.

11. In the EIR’s Transportation section, the EIR’s evaluative approach to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is misleading, if not flawed. In demonstrating an “80% reduction” in VMT, the EIR utilizes a “VMT per service population” metric which involves a comparison of VMT using the existing population of the SEDA geographic area. Given the rural nature and relatively limited population capacity within the SEDA boundaries, it is not surprising that existing VMT per capita within the SEDA geographic area is relatively high (under both existing conditions and 2035 No Project conditions). However, the problem here is that this limited geographic area is not reflective of Fresno’s region-wide VMT conditions (which are much lower per capita), and the VMT effects associated with SEDA will not be isolated to the Specific Plan’s geographic boundaries. In order to provide an accurate and meaningful comparison of VMT impacts, the EIR must present the project’s VMT in a broader context.

The 2018 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory provides: “[A]gencies should analyze VMT outcomes of land use plans across the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or jurisdiction’s geography….” (emphasis added) (p. 18). The Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines similarly provides: “[T]he recommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments for land use plans is to compare the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan of the jurisdiction.” (p. 39-40). It is also noted that the Recirculated DEIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (which was released earlier this month) compares Plan Area VMT to countywide VMT averages as part of its analysis of Transportation impacts.
678
6 The SEDA EIR seems to take the approach that future residents of SEDA will live in a bubble in the Specific Plan Area, without traveling frequently to other parts of town or without having people travel into SEDA. Yet, this is contradicted by the description of land uses in the Project Description. The two Regional Town Centers will be able to serve 80,000 to 120,000 households (considerably more than the planned 45,000 homes to be built in the Plan Area). These centers will “host major cultural attractions” in addition to being mixed-use employment centers and retail destinations. There are also other Centers that will influence VMT, i.e., the various Community Town Centers which would purportedly support 30,000 to 60,000 households.

Aside from the VMT per Service Population issue, the EIR’s projected “Year 2035 With Project Conditions VMT” is so low that it cannot help but invite skepticism. Local media coverage of SEDA reflects this sentiment, including questions seeking explanation of how SEDA’s buildout and policy framework will “somehow” make SEDA’s future residents “even less car-dependent than downtown San Franciscans, … and even New Yorkers.6
” At best, the EIR’s analysis appears to only consider the best-case scenario for achieving such a low level of VMT. There are no mechanisms to ensure that the assumptions underpinning the Transportation evaluation will be achieved or implemented; particularly, development of infrastructure is to occur on a per-project basis, so the multimodal circulation system will have gaps. 6 https://fresnoland.org/2025/03/03/will-southeast-fresnos-proposed-mega-development-be-denser-than-newyork-city/ 679
680
The long-term implications of annexation for the rural lifestyle, including increased taxes to accommodate the projected population growth, are alarming. The transformation of prime agricultural land into high-density housing will negatively impact water supply, air quality, and property values, which cannot be overlooked.

In conclusion, the Revised EIR for the Fresno Southeast Development Area must be reevaluated in light of these critical concerns. I implore the Planning Department to consider the long-term impacts on our community, the environment, and the livelihoods of those affected.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Juliet Doty
681
682
From: NATALIE ORTIZ
To: LongRangePlanning
Cc: Annalisa Perea; Mike Karbassi; Miguel Arias; Tyler Maxwell; Nick Richardson; Nelson Esparza; Todd Stermer; Jerry Dyer
Subject: Public Comment - OPPOSE SEDA PEIR
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2025 8:31:53 PM
Attachments: Oppose Redraft of PEIR 03.10.2025.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Attached please find our opposition letter dated 3/19/25 to the recirculated PEIR dated 2/7/25. I’m requesting that the city clerk please forward to the appropriate councilman email address for District 5 since that is not information I have due to special election.

Thank you.

Natalie Ortiz
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
Sent from my iPhone
690
691
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project March 24, 2025

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx As noted in FMFCD’s prior letters dated March 25, 2022 and August 28, 2023, in Master Plan areas where no drainage facilities have been constructed, the Master Plan can be planned to accommodate the new land uses and pipe alignments within the SEDA Plan. Proposed basin locations, as shown on Exhibits 1-1 and 2-2 of the Recirculated DPEIR, are based on the preliminary Storm Drainage Master Plan and take into consideration topography, land use, existing street and proposed street alignments, pipeline collection system layout, natural and manmade improvements, and other planimetric features. The drainage system and basin location is adopted by the District based upon a cost to benefit study. The proposed basin locations are established using the most current information available in order to site the storm water basin facility in its most likely location for acquisition. As development or District funds become available, the District reviews the proposed basin locations to evaluate the factors previously considered for any new information prior to property acquisition. During the acquisition, circumstances may warrant moving the ponding basin location to an adjacent parcel or to a nearby location, typically the basin location will be within a ½ mile radius of the proposed location and the basin size and/or basin configuration may be changed to better fit the parcel(s) being acquired and/or existing or planned storm water needs. Additional language to provide for an alternate land use designation for the proposed basins should be included in the SEDA Plan. This is an important element that must be addressed in the SEDA Plan.

Upon review of the SEDA Plan land uses for the areas within the adopted Master Plan drainage systems it is determined that the Master Plan can accommodate the new land uses with revisions to the existing drainage system. As shown on the attached Exhibit No. 1, approximately 55 acres located northwest of McKinley and McCall Avenues is located within the SEDA Plan but not within an adopted drainage area. This area currently drains to the FMFCD Fancher Creek Basin.

FMFCD has identified 94 acres outside of the SEDA Plan, located southeast of Temperance and Jensen Avenues that is planned to be served by a proposed Master Plan drainage system. This area is bounded by the Briggs Canal and does not have an alternate solution to be served due to the topographic constraints.

Upon adoption of the SEDA Plan and EIR by the City of Fresno, FMFCD will prepare an update to its Municipal Services Review (MSR), for Fresno LAFCO consideration. The MSR is a LAFCO requirement and will demonstrate that FMFCD has the ability to extend flood control and drainage services into the SEDA Plan, as development occurs. Once the District’s MSR update (covering all of the SEDA Plan) has been approved by LAFCO, FMFCD can proceed with a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment designed to fold SEDA into the FMFCD SOI. 692
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project March 24, 2025

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx LAFCO is the CEQA Lead Agency for the Sphere of Influence Amendment, and FMFCD is the CEQA Lead Agency for subsequent annexation into SEDA, which is why it is critical that the SEDA EIR evaluate actions and impacts specific to the extension of flood control and drainage services into the SEDA Plan. Should the EIR fail to address extending FMFCD services into the SEDA Plan and fail to extend tax sharing services to FMFCD, the City/County will be required to fund the design and implementation of the Master Plan storm drainage system. LAFCO and FMFCD will rely on the City’s analysis and treatment of environmental impacts in formulating their own CEQA responses to the demands of SEDA.

FMFCD may request that it’s progressive annexation into SEDA take the form of LAFCO reorganizations, where our annexations mirror the sequence and configuration of City annexation. In this case, in the course of City pursuit of each annexation into SEDA, the City would present LAFCO with a reorganization proposal, where one LAFCO action simultaneously authorizes the City annexation, the FMFCD annexation, annexation by other urban service providers, and detachment from the County and special districts providing services to the unincorporated area (e.g. rural fire protection districts).

Additional FMFCD General Comments
FMFCD bears responsibility for storm water management within the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area, including portions of the area within the SEDA Plan. Within this area, the community has developed and adopted Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plans as shown in the attached Exhibit No. 1. In general, each property contributes its pro-rata share to the cost of the public drainage system. All properties are required to participate in the community system for everyone.

It is this form of participation in the cost and/or construction of the drainage system that will mitigate the impact of development. The subject property shall pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance prior to approval of any final maps and/or issuance of building permits at the rates in effect at the time of such approval. Please contact FMFCD for a final fee obligation prior to issuance of the construction permits within the Plan Area. For areas located outside a Master Planned area, once these areas are adopted by the FMFCD Board of Directors’, drainage fee payment will be required per the criteria listed above.

The grading of proposed development within the SEDA Plan shall be designed such that there are not adverse impacts to the passage of major storm flow through that development. Additionally, the development shall provide any 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.
693
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project March 24, 2025

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx If there are to be storm water discharges from the private facilities to FMFCD’s storm drainage system, they shall consist only of storm water runoff and shall be free of solids and debris. Landscape and/or area drains are not allowed to connect directly onto FMFCD’s facilities.

FMFCD will need to review and approve the final improvement plans for all development (i.e. grading, street improvement and storm drain facilities) within the boundaries of the proposed project to insure consistency with the future Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Storm drain easement will be required whenever storm drain facilities are located on private property. No encroachments into the easement will be permitted including, but not limited to, foundations, roof overhangs, swimming pools, and trees.

Where permanent drainage service is available the developer shall verify to the satisfaction of the City and FMFCD that runoff can be safely conveyed to existing Master Plan facilities. Permanent drainage service will not be available if the downstream Master Plan facilities are not constructed or operational and in this instance FMFCD recommends the City require temporary drainage facilities until permanent drainage service is available. Prior to submitting any development proposal, it is recommended to contact FMFCD for information regarding the status of the Master Plan drainage facilities and the availability of permanent drainage service.

FMFCD may require the developer to construct certain storm drain facilities as described in the Storm Drain Master Plan. The cost of construction of Master Plan facilities excluding dedication of storm drainage easements is eligible for credit against the drainage fee of the drainage area served by the facilities. A development agreement shall be executed with FMFCD to affect such credit. Reimbursement provisions, in accordance with the Drainage Fee Ordinance, will be included to the extent that developer’s Master Plan costs for an individual drainage area exceed the fee of said area. Should the facilities cost for such individual area total less than the fee of said area, the difference shall be paid upon demand to the City or FMFCD.

The individual properties may be located within a flood prone area as designated on the most current official Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The maps are available at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center.

In an effort to improve storm runoff quality, outdoor storage areas shall be constructed and maintained such that material that may generate contaminants will be prevented from contact with rainfall and runoff and thereby prevent the conveyance of contaminants in runoff into the storm drain system.
694
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project March 24, 2025

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx FMFCD encourages, but does not require that roof drains from non-residential development be constructed such that they are directed onto and through a landscaped grassy swale area to filter out pollutants from roof runoff.

Runoff from areas where industrial activities, product, or merchandise come into contact with and may contaminate storm water must be directed through landscaped areas or otherwise treated before discharging it off-site or into a storm drain. Roofs covering such areas are recommended. Cleaning of such areas by sweeping instead of washing is to be required unless such wash water can be directed to the sanitary sewer system. Storm drains receiving untreated runoff from such areas that directly connect to FMFCD’s system will not be permitted. Loading docks, depressed areas, and areas servicing or fueling vehicles are specifically subject to these requirements. FMFCD’s policy governing said industrial site NPDES program requirements are available. Contract FMFCD’s Environmental Department for further information regarding these policies related to industrial site requirements.

Comments specific to the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project FMFCD offers the following comments specific to the review of the SEDA Plan (The individual pages are included, and the section or sentence has been highlighted for your reference):

1. Page 3.2-16, Impact AG-2 and Exhibit 3.2-2: Informational purposes only, FMFCD has identified one (1) proposed basin site, Basin “DY” is located on properties within the Williamson Act Contract.

2. Page 3-6.16, Policy EO-5.4: Remove flood basins. FMFCD opposes including flood basins in this policy because they lack sufficient surface area to support a clean energy system.

3. Page 3.10-31, Policy RC-4.4: FMFCD would like to clarify that this policy does not apply to recreational use within FMFCD recharge basin sites. FMFCD suggest removal of the words groundwater recharge areas and recharge.

4. Page 3.10-48, MM HYD-3e: Remove paragraph related to emergency relief pump.

FMFCD disposal systems within the SEDA Plan will adhere to FMFCD Basin Operations Guideline policy (see attached).

5. Page 3.10-49, MM HYD-3e and MM HYD-3f: Remove paragraph related to LID measures. LID’s typically require monitoring/maintenance by City or property owner and are contrary to FMFCD requirements to grade sites such that there is positive drainage to the street.
695
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project March 24, 2025

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx

6. Page 3.10-49, MM HYD-3g: Remove mitigation measure MM HYD-3g. FMFCD disposal systems within the SEDA Plan will adhere to FMFCD Basin Operations Guideline policy (see attached).

7. Page 3.10-53, Cumulative Mitigation Measures: Remove MM HYD-3g per comment 6 above.

8. Exhibit 3-17.1 Proposed Major Street Circulation: FMFCD’s Basin “DS”, located at the northwest corner of Clinton and Leonard Avenues, was acquired in anticipation of Clinton Avenue not going through between Leonard and DeWolf Avenues. Based on recorded documents which indicate Clinton Avenue was not dedicated as road right-ofway in this area, FMFCD requests Clinton Avenue not be shown as an existing or as future roadway.

9. ES-41 and ES-42, Executive Summary: Correct typo on page ES-41 from 3d to 3e.

Revise sections MM HYD-3e and MM HYD-3g per FMFCD comments 4, 5 and 6 above.

10. Appendix H: Transportation Supporting Information, Page 31, Section 6.1: The findings and recommendations of this report propose widening DeWolf Avenue, a collector street, from one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction. FMFCD’s Redbank Creek Detention Basin and Basin “DS” are situated along the section of DeWolf Avenue between Shields and McKinley Avenues. The existing fence for the Redbank Creek Detention Basin is located at the existing right-of-way 30 feet west of DeWolf Avenue’s centerline. Since the Redbank Creek Detention Basin is part of an Army Civil Works project, any modifications to the existing basin or right-of-way would require approval through the USACE 408 Permission process. FMFCD would be able to provide additional right-of-way along the Basin “DS” frontage on the east side of DeWolf Avenue to accommodate the street widening.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our comments, please feel free to contact the District at (559) 456-3292.

Respectfully,
Denise Wade
Master Plan Special Projects Manager
DW/lrl
Attachment(s)
696
697
698
699
700
701
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Hydrology and Water Quality Recirculated Draft Program EIR

3.10-48 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/1 - Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-10 Hydrology.docx MM HYD-3b The City shall support the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) in implementing the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan improvements for the proposed drainage areas within the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Area (Plan Area). Any new proposed development in the Plan Area shall be reviewed by the City and FMFCD to confirm that design and construction documents have incorporated the updated Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan improvements, prior to approving any such development.

MM HYD-3c The City shall support the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) in reevaluating proposed Basins DW and DX for available capacities and shall expand these basins or construct additional basins to accommodate the future stormwater capacities from development in the Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) in accordance with the SEDA Specific Plan. The City shall complete these measures prior to approving any new project applications for future development in the Plan Area that require a discretionary approval and shall confirm that each project has incorporated any resulting standards prior to issuing approval.

MM HYD-3d The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan collection systems within the Fresno Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) to less than significant:
• Require developments that increase site imperviousness to install, operate, and maintain Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) approved on-site detention systems to reduce the peak runoff rates resulting from the increased imperviousness to the peak runoff rates that will not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater collection systems.

MM HYD-3e The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan retention basins within the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) to less than significant:
• Prior to approval of development projects support the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) in upda
Master Plan to analyze the impa
within the Plan Area to determin
impact on retention basin capacity to less than signi icant. Remedial measures would include:
- Increase the size of the retention basin through the purchase of more land or deepening the basin or a combination for planned retention basins. - Increase the size of the emergency relief pump capacity required to pump excess runoff volume out of the basin and into adjacent canals that convey the stormwater to a disposal facility for existing retention basins.

Remove paragraph related to emergency relief pump.

FMFCD disposal systems within the SEDA Plan will
adhere to FMFCD Basin Operations Guideline policy (see
attached).
702
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR Hydrology and Water Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.10-49 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/1 - Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-10 Hydrology.docx - Require developments that increase runoff volume to install, operate, and maintain Low Impact Development (LID) measures to reduce runoff volume to the runoff volume that will not exceed the capacity of the existing retention basins.

MM HYD-3f The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or p
(stormwater quality) ba
Plan Area (Plan Area) to
• Prior to approval of development projects, support the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) in updating the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan to determine the impacts to the urban detention weir overflow rates and determine remed
detention basin capac
include:
- Modify overflow we
by the FMFCD Board of Directors.
- Increase the size of the urban detention basin to increase residence time by purchasing more land
- Require developments that increase runoff volume to install, operate, and maintain Low Impact Development (LID) measures to reduce peak runoff rates and runoff volume to the runoff rates and volumes that will not exceed the weir overflow rates of the existing urban detention basins.

MM HYD 3g The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan pump disposal systems within the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) to less than significant:
• Prior to approval of development projects, support the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) in updating the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan to determine the extent and degree to which the capacity of the existing pump system will be exceeded.
• Require new developments to install, operate, and maintain FMFCD design standard on-site detention facilities to reduce peak stormwater runoff rates to existing planned peak runoff rates.
• Provide additional pump system capacity to maximum allowed by existing permitting to increase the capacity to match or exceed the peak runoff rates determined by the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan update.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Remove paragraph related to LID measures. LID's
typically require monitoring/maintenance by City or
property owner and are contrary to FMFCD requirements
to grade sites such that there is positive drainage to the street.

Remove MM HYD-3g. FMFCD
disposal systems within the SEDA
Plan will adhere to FMFCD Basin
Operations Guideline policy (see
attached).

Remove paragraph related to LID measures. LID's
typically require monitoring/maintenance by City or
property owner and are contrary to FMFCD requirements
to grade sites such that there is positive drainage to the street.
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7284 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
November 17, 2023
FRE-180-64.104
Southeast Development Area
Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH #2022020486
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/28801

SENT VIA EMAIL
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian, Planner
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Dear Mx. Asadoorian:

Caltrans has completed our review of the Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Southeast Development Area (SEDA) in the City of Fresno.

The proposed development area covers nearly 9,000 acres. It is bounded on the north by the Gould Canal, on the east by McCall and Highland Avenues, on the south by Jensen and North Avenues, and on the West by Locan, Temperance, and Minnewawa Avenues.

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

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

All comments from our previous letter dated August 25th, 2023, regarding the VMT Analysis Comments, still apply.

SR 180 Interchange Queuing Analysis

1. This document provided a peak hour ramp queue analysis at the following State Route 180 interchanges: Clovis Avenue, Fowler Avenue, and Temperance Avenue. It also provided a peak hour queue analysis at the De Wolf Avenue, Highland Avenue, and McCall Avenue intersections along State Route (SR) 180. 710
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian – SEDA Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) November 17, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-8: 2035 Project and No Project Queue Analyses Results within the document. A substantial amount of the data in Table 3-8 needs to be more accurate. The following irregularities were observed:

A. Odd lane utilization on adjacent turn lanes (e.g., PM Peak Eastbound Clovis Avenue off-ramp, Left (pocket) versus Left (full lane) and PM Peak Eastbound Temperance Avenue off-ramp, Left (pocket) versus Left (full lane)).

B. Low queue lengths are listed at the Eastbound Fowler Avenue off-ramp leftturn lanes. Given the location of this development area, this off-ramp would be expected to receive many project-generated trips with the resulting vehicle queues.

C. Heavy reductions in queue lengths from “No Project Conditions” to “Proposed Project Conditions” at the Clovis Avenue interchange off-ramps.

D. Change values at the McCall Avenue intersection do not show the correct difference between “No Project Conditions” and “Proposed Project Conditions” queue lengths.

2. Given the irregularities, it is recommended that the values in Table 3-8 be reexamined and updated where required. Since the Project Specific Mitigation Measures were primarily based on Table 3-8 data, mitigation measures should also be re-examined.

3. Table 3-8 also utilized the full length of the off-ramp as available vehicle storage.

This practice neglects the deceleration length needed by high-speed vehicles to come to a stop. The deceleration length should be accounted for on each offramp as provided in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Figure 504.2B (singlelane exit) and Figure 504.3K (two-lane exit).

4. This document’s Project Specific Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-3a and MM TRANS-3c propose the restripe of the eastbound State Route (SR) 180 off-ramp lane configurations at Clovis Avenue and Temperance Avenue. The alteration proposes to replace the existing two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes configuration with one left-turn lane and three right-turn lanes. The need for dual left turn lanes at each off-ramp was established during the development of those improvements. The additional capacity needed for right-turns at each ramp should be made through widening, not reducing left-turn capacity.

A cost estimate to be included in a traffic impact fee program should be prepared once the values in Table 3-8 are reevaluated and updated and the mitigation strategies are revised.

Funding for Developer-Driven Impacts to State Facilities

1. The Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan does not designate SR 180 as a High Emphasis Focus Route, so the State's portion of the State Transportation Improvement Program cannot be used to fund improvements to the SR 180 interchanges. Possible funding sources include Measure C, the Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact Fee (TSMIF) of the City of Fresno, the Regional Transportation 711
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian – SEDA Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) November 17, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Mitigation Fee (RTMF) of Fresno County, the Regional Improvement Program, developer mitigation, etc. To deliver "needed" projects, infrastructure improvements in today's funding environment frequently require a variety of funding sources. The City of Fresno should mitigate since the SEDA creates the need for improvements.

2. Caltrans should be involved in reviewing any proposed new developments within the SEDA that would impact SR 180. It is recommended that any proposed new developments that would impact SR 180 mitigate their impacts by including them in the next updates to Measure C, Fresno County's RTMF, and the City of Fresno TSMIF. This would ensure the maintenance and improvement of the State facilities due to the absence of an all-inclusive fee program.

If you have any other questions, please call or email Keyomi Jones, Transportation Planner, at
Sincerely,
Mr. Dave Padilla, Branch Chief,
Transportation Planning – North
C: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager, City of Fresno
712
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7284 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 25, 2023
FRE-180-64.104
Southeast Development Area
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH #2022020486
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/28801

SENT VIA EMAIL
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian, Planner III
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Mx. Asadoorian:

Caltrans has completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Southeast Development Area (SEDA) in the City of Fresno.

The proposed development area covers nearly 9,000 acres. It is bounded on the north by the Gould Canal, on the east by McCall and Highland Avenues, on the south by Jensen and North Avenues, and on the west by Locan, Temperance, and Minnewawa Avenues.

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

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

DEIR-Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Comments:

The concerns below should have been adequately addressed in the DEIR or TIA. While the DEIR is a comprehensive planning document, it is recommended that the DEIR endorse procedures that address traffic safety on the State Highway System. Caltrans did provide a comment letter dated March 18, 2022, during the Notice of Preparation with a public comment period from February 22, 2022, to March 25, 2022, which is included in Appendix A of the DEIR. Comments one through eight presented herein are included in the attached letter dated March 18, 2022, and are as follows:
713
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian – Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

1. This development region will likely add vehicles to the State Road (SR) 180 interchanges at Clovis Avenue, Fowler Avenue, and Temperance Avenue. As a result, there may be significant speed differences between the off-ramp queues and the freeway mainline. Each of these interchanges is recommended for a peakhour ramp queuing analysis to assess potential impacts. This development area is also expected to add vehicles to the SR 180 intersections at De Wolf Avenue, Highland Avenue, and McCall Avenue. The result may be significant speed differentials between the turn lane queues and the through-lane traffic caused by insufficient left-turn lanes or intersection control. It is recommended that a peakhour queue analysis be completed at each of these intersections to determine potential impacts.

2. It is recommended that the lead agency include a traffic safety review that examines new pedestrian and bicycling desire lines, multimodal conflict locations, and changes in traffic composition (such as an increase in bicyclists or pedestrians, where features such as shoulders or sidewalks may not exist or are inconsistent with facility design). This analysis should include the SR 180 interchanges at Fowler Avenue and Temperance Avenue and the SR 180 intersections at De Wolf Avenue, Highland Avenue, and McCall Avenue. For future residential development, Caltrans recommends that project proponents consider working with the City to convert a portion of the planned residential units to affordable housing.

3. The City should develop policies for installing Level 2 EV charging stations in singleand multi-family residential units and DC Fast Charging EV charging stations in retail, commercial, park, and public facilities.

4. Caltrans recommends that the Project use multimodal methods, such as those derived from transit-oriented development (TOD), to minimize the traffic-related impacts of future developments. Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the state’s 2050 Climate goals. Caltrans helps reduce VMT and GHG emissions by increasing people's likelihood of using and benefiting from a multimodal transportation network.

5. Early involvement with Caltrans is strongly encouraged for future projects affecting the state right-of-way.

The Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance provides direction on analyzing the safety impacts on the State Highway System by proposed land use projects. Subsequent projects included in this development area should incorporate this guidance.

VMT Analysis Comments:

The preparer of the VMT Analysis concluded that the VMT per Service Population in the SEDA project region will fall from 45.72 to 5.07 when the project is completed in 2035.

The move from a primarily rural location (as the SEDA project area is now) to a developed urbanized mixed-use site results in a significant drop in VMT. Additionally, the VMT Analysis preparer claims that this is attributable to residents and employees 714
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian – Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” being better connected to jobs and services within the SEDA project area, reducing travel times on both the production (residential) and attraction (commercial) sides.

Conversely, the Year 2035 No Project Conditions VMT for the SEDA Project Area is 371,397 per Table 7. Table 10 presents the Year 2035 With Project Conditions VMT for the SEDA Project Area is 974,369. This translates to a net VMT increase of 162.35%.

In theory, the relationship between production (residential) and attraction (commercial) may minimize VMT at full buildout; nevertheless, a typical land-use plan buildout begins with the production (residential), followed by the attraction (commercial). The concern is that the attraction (commercial) will develop slowly over time, causing a VMT impact in the SEDA region.

Based on our review of the VMT Analysis, we recommend that the EIR preparer address the safety concerns by undertaking a peak hour ramp queue analysis at the interchanges/intersections on SR 180 from Clovis to McCall Avenues, as stated previously.

The SEDA Specific Plan should also explore several possible VMT migration strategies, such as:

1. Creation of regional-level VMT bank or VMT exchange program;

2. Improved Public Transportation: Expanding and enhancing public transit options to encourage more people to use buses, trains, and other forms of public transportation instead of driving individual cars;

3. Enhance parallel routes near SR 180, such as Belmont Avenue or Kings Canyon Road. For example, the plan is to extend the Bus Rapid as cited in Policy UF-5.2. In addition, the City may consider signal synchronization along the corridors, if not already.

4. Active Transportation: Creating infrastructure and promoting walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation, especially for short distance trips;

5. Telecommuting and Flexible Work Arrangements: Encouraging remote work options to reduce the need for daily commuting;

6. Carpooling and Ridesharing: Promoting carpooling and ridesharing initiatives to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the local road system and highways;

7. Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Implementing policies and programs that encourage the use of alternative transportation options and reduce the reliance on single-occupancy vehicles; and,

8. Incentives and Subsidies: Providing incentives, subsidies, or tax breaks for using public transportation or purchasing electric or fuel-efficient vehicles.

The SEDA area may aim to establish more sustainable and efficient transportation systems while addressing environmental and social concerns related to increasing vehicle use by implementing these and other VMT mitigation strategies. 715
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian – Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If you have any other questions, please call Keyomi Jones, Transportation Planner, at Sincerely,
David Padilla, Branch Chief,
Transportation Planning – North
Attachment: Caltrans comment letter March 18, 2022
C: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager, City of Fresno
State Clearinghouse
716
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian – Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

ATTACHMENT
Caltrans comment letter March 18, 2022
717
718
Shawn Monk, Planner- NOTICE OF PREPARATION, EIR
March 18, 2022

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Avenue should be included in this analysis.

4. Future development(s) should conduct a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) study for projects that may substantially induce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project site should be considered in this study. The project proponents should also consider coordinating with nearby planned bike networks for a larger active transportation network. The City should consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce potential impacts on the State Highway System.

5. For future residential development, Caltrans recommends project proponents consider working with the City to convert a portion of the planned residential units to affordable housing units.

6. The City should establish policies for the installation of Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging for single- and multi-family residential units as well as DC Fast Charging EV charging stations for retail, commercial, park and public facilities.

7. Caltrans recommends the Project implement multimodal strategies, such as those that originate from Transit-oriented development (TOD), in an effort to further reduce future projects’ traffic related impacts.

8. Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the state’s 2050 Climate goals. Caltrans supports reducing VMT and GHG emissions in ways that increase the likelihood people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network.

9. Early engagement with Caltrans is highly requested for future projects that would impact state right-of-way. Furthermore, prior to initiating the traffic study, please include Caltrans in the scoping.

If you have any other questions, please call or email Edgar Hernandez at Sincerely,
David Padilla, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning – North
719
From: Susie Rodriguez
To: LongRangePlanning
Subject: fresno annexation of existing propeties
Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 8:27:42 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
i/m a homeowner at My husband and i moved here in 2015
and not one word mentioned regarding annexation, So we were shocked to hear about this horrible plan for annexation and very unfair. We are both retired and in no way able to afford the outrages mentioned cost to hook up to the city. if Fresno City wants established homeowners to belong to the City, i feel Fresno City needs to pay for all expenses. i understand new development needing to be hooked up to the City, but very unfair for established homeowners to be forced to hook up to the City, we already paid for our water pump and septic tank and having to pay to remove is unfair!!! We chose to live here with our acreage and beautiful trees, now our trees will all die due to lack of water because we will be metered and can’t afford to pay outrages prices. Please leave existing properties owners alone, people are going to be forced out of Fresno and less property taxes will be collected. A better solution would be to improve existing unoccupied properties in the City and make Fresno a better place to live!!! it makes sense to leave existing homeowners alone.
720
Jeffrey M. Reid
Partner
(Admitted in California, Virginia
and District of Columbia)

FRESNO, CA OFFICE
Other offices of
McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
www.mccormickbarstow.com
March 20, 2025
Via Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
Adrienne Asadoorian, Planner III
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
With a copy to
Jennifer Clark, Director
Planning and Development Department
c/o Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, California 93721
SUBJECT: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2022020486)
In accordance with the instructions set forth in the Executive Summary of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report ("RDEIR") for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project, the below comments are being submitted anew based upon the election of the City of Fresno (the “City”) to decline to provide responses to the previous comments solicited and provided to it with respect to the relevant Project described below.

This comment letter is being submitted on behalf of our client, the County of Fresno (the “County”) Department of Public Works and Planning regarding the RDEIR in support of the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project (the "Specific Plan"), which is intended to govern future development of the area commonly referred to as SEDA (the "Project"). Please ensure this letter and its referenced enclosures are included in the Record of Proceedings regarding the consideration of the Project by the City.

A. The Specific Plan Fails to Address the Requirements of LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, and Thereby Omits Discussion of Important Policies Intended to Mitigate the Environmental Consequences of the Project.

Preparation of the Specific Plan for SEDA development is a requirement of the Fresno County LAFCO approval that incorporated SEDA into the City Sphere of Influence, as set forth in LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, a copy of which is attached for convenience of reference. Therefore, the City needs to assure that the Specific Plan incorporates the details intended by Resolution USOI-144. Those elements require a master service delivery plan, and an implementation program for annexing open space 721
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

areas and rural residential neighborhoods. These items were highlighted in Resolution USOI-144 because they involve significant environmental impacts of the intended development of SEDA. However, those requirements have not been adequately addressed in the Specific Plan. As a result, its companion RDEIR fails to adequately evaluate how the Specific Plan's implementation will mitigate the environmental impacts that would be addressed by the intended requirements of Resolution USOI144.

Resolution USOI-144 does not simply require that those intended programs apply to properties within the boundaries of SEDA. Resolution USOI-144 requires development of a program that addresses annexing rural residential neighborhoods within the City's existing sphere of influence in the vicinity of SEDA, as well as within SEDA. That program, as specified in the Resolution, must address "logical and reasonable development, discourage urban sprawl, preserve open-space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently provide for government services and encourage orderly development."
Additionally, the intended rural residential neighborhood annexation program is required to "emphasize the retention of characteristics that make the neighborhoods desirable places to live, while making provision for appropriate improvement needed to incorporate characteristics into the urban landscape." These are not programs or policies that were to be deferred to some subsequent time, or to some subsequent SEDA Development Code amendments. Resolution USOI-144 specifically requires that they be reflected in the Specific Plan prepared by the City.

Resolution USOI-144 further requires adoption of policies that address the matters concerning lands subject to Williamson Act contracts. Such policies should address the City's intended approaches to any option the City may hold to terminate such contracts under Government Code section 51243.5, and the policy the City intends apply with respect to nonrenewal of such contracts under Government Code section 51246.

The Specific Plan, unfortunately, does not incorporate any such policies. In fact, it makes no reference to Williamson Act Contracts. The RDEIR does make reference to Williamson Act contracts, but simply for the purpose of noting that the Specific Plan is not consistent with existing Williamson Act Contracts, and that it will result in significant impacts on those existing contracts. It further adopts no mitigation measures concerning this impact, and simply confirms this is a significant and unavoidable impact with no available mitigations. It therefore intends to adopt a statement of overriding considerations on such matters.

Regarding the requirements of Resolution USOI-144 that the SEDA Specific Plan incorporate a master service delivery plan, the proposed Plan simply asserts that a "pending SEDA Public Facilities Financing Plan", will address important elements of the Plan. It defers that financing plan, and thereby fails to satisfy the requirement of 722
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Resolution USOI-44 that these arrangements be incorporated into the Specific Plan. (See Specific Plan-Planning Context, Complete A Public Facilities Financing Plan, p.3; Policy RC-3.3, Water Recycling-Residential Landscaping and Small Farms and Community Farming, p.104; Policy RC-4.1, Minimizing Groundwater Extraction, p. 105; Policy RC-4.2, Replacement of Extracted Groundwater, p.105; Policy RC-4.3, Maximizing Groundwater Recharge, p.105; Policy RC-6, Water Supply and Delivery, p. 107; Policy RC-6.1, Site Development-Level Water Supply and Delivery Systems, p. 107; Policy RC-6.3, Flood Control and Stormwater Management-Sub-Area or Development Proposal delivery, p. 108; Policy RC-6.4, Flood Control and Stormwater Management-Shared Resources and Infrastructure, p. 109). The plan to finance these public facilities, which are so important to addressing environmental impacts, were intended to be addressed in the Specific Plan. This has not been done. The RDEIR simply notes that the Financing Plan will be a subsequent element of the Project, and assumes its components will adequately address the Specific Plan's requirements, including intended elements of intended environmental mitigations (See RDEIR Policy RC-3.3, Small Farms and Community Farming, at p. 3.18-48).

Because the Specific Plan does not conform to the express requirements of Resolution USOI-144, which identified important environmental impacts of developing the SEDA lands, the RDEIR violates the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) that the environmental consequences of a government decision on whether to approve a project will be considered before, not after, that decision is made. (Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 190). It also violates the requirement that an EIR "should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." (CEQA Guidelines section 15151) B. The Project Lacks Sufficient Planning Details to Permit in an Adequate EIR Analysis of Its Potential Environmental Impacts.

A fundamental purpose of CEQA is to "inform the public and responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. (Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 190). In addition, an EIR "should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." (CEQA Guidelines section 15151). It is true that the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines section 15146). In this instance, the project is a specific plan, and the City's Specific Plan fails to provide the information generally 723
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

required for specific plans under Government Code section 65451.1 The RDEIR therefore fails to satisfy CEQA’s requirements because the Project, which it evaluates, is too vague to permit sufficient environmental impact evaluation. (County of Inyo v.

City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193, Save Our Capitol! v.

Department of General Services (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 655, 674).

Standard provisions of a specific plan should include details for the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (Government Code section 65451(a)(2)). In addition, a specific plan generally includes a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the development of the land uses intended by the plan. (Government Code section 65451(a)(4)). However, the Specific Plan lacks sufficient detail concerning such matters. As noted above and below, the Specific Plan defers preparation of both its intended infrastructure financing plan, and its zoning standards, which will subsequently establish the intended development densities and other regulations for its land use designations.

Where, as here, a specific plan does not incorporate the information, in sufficient detail, generally required for such a plan, and instead defers such matters to future preparation, the CEQA document cannot meaningfully evaluate the environmental impacts of the intended project. An insufficiently detailed project cannot be adequately subjected to appropriate environmental review (Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829). The RDEIR thereby fails to satisfy its fundamental purpose of CEQA, to "inform the public and responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made". (Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus Court of Appeal, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 190).

For example, the Specific Plan attempts to address the qualities of the size, density, composition and building character of its extensive complement of new Mixed-Use Districts, by requiring that they be consistent with new zone district standards to be adopted in the future, as part of a SEDA Development Code update. (Specific Plan, at Policy UF-2.2 Development Code Update, p. 27). Some density

1 Because the City is a Charter City, the requirements of Government Code Section 65451 do not apply to it unless it has otherwise confirmed, by ordinance or resolution, an intention to comply with such provisions. (Government Code sections 65700 and 65803). However, in this instance the requirement of preparing the Specific Plan is an element of LAFCO Resolution USOI-144. By accepting the benefits of that Resolution, the City has committed to be bound by its requirements. Whether Resolution USOI-144 intended that the Specific Plan satisfy the minimum thresholds established in Government Code Section 65151 is a matter of interpretation for LAFCO to address. However, in addition to not satisfying the minimum statutory requirements of a specific plan, as noted in Section A, the Specific Plan also does not satisfy the express requirements of Resolution USOI-144, resulting in its failure to address important environmental consequences of the Specific Plan.
724
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

standards are described for some of the new land use categories. However, the Plan confirms that those density standards, and other aspects of the development standards and regulations, are to be set forth in the presently undefined Development Code update. That updated code will replace all previous zoning designations and will supersede the General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans, including the SEDA Specific Plan. (Specific Plan, page 39). The failure to incorporate meaningful details of those standards in the Specific Plan fails to address these important aspects of the Specific Plan's intended scope of development, and results in an inadequate CEQA evaluation of its environmental impacts.

Public Resources Code section 21155.4 provides that any future project consistent with an adopted specific plan, and which implements certain transit oriented development projects, may obtain exemptions from compliances with CEQA. Here, the Specific Plan lacks appropriate details. As a result, the CEQA evaluations are incomplete. Nevertheless, further CEQA compliances for future projects might not later occur. This adds additional importance to the need to assure that the Specific Plan is sufficiently detailed so its CEQA evaluations are conducted appropriately as part of its adoption.

C. The RDEIR Confusingly Describes Its Level of Analysis as Both a Project Level Analysis and a Programmatic Analysis – Whichever It Is Intended to Be Needs to be Clarified.

Section 1.1.2 (page 1-1) of the RDEIR states that the document provides a “project-level analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project.” However, other provisions of the RDEIR, including at Section 2.5.1, describe the EIR as providing a “program-level analysis”. It further states that subsequent project-level environmental review will be conducted if required by CEQA.

The reader is therefore confused as to what extent of analysis the RDEIR is intending to accomplish. This inconsistency in the REDEIR’s description of that intended goal must be clarified.

D. The Project Is Inconsistent With Relevant Provisions of the City's General Plan - The Impact of This Inconsistency Was Not Analyzed in the RDEIR.

Government Code section 65454 mandates that a specific plan must be consistent with the relevant general plan. This provision of the State Planning and Zoning Law is applicable to Charter cities. (Government Code section 65700). In addition, CEQA requires that any inconsistency of a Project with relevant land use policies should be evaluated as a potentially significant impact. (Guidelines, appen. G, section XI, subd. (b).

The Specific Plan intends to assure its consistency with the General Plan by the City later adopting amendments to the General Plan to incorporate its new land use 725
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

designations. While that is not unusual, what is unusual is that the zoning standards applicable to the implementation of the new land use designations are also being deferred until sometime into the future. As a result, the environmental impacts of the new Specific Plan's land use designations cannot be meaningfully evaluated unless and until those zoning standards are available for public review and comment.

In addition, the City of Fresno General Plan, at Section 1.3 (Development Under the Plan – Dwellings, Population, and Jobs) confirms that the Specific Plan for SEDA is required to include a "comprehensive provision of public infrastructure". However, the Specific Plan does not contain the required comprehensive policies, programs or plans necessary for any comprehensive provision.

Instead, the Specific Plan states that its goal is simply "to set a clear vision for how Southeast Development Area will develop over time". (Specific Plan, page 16, at "Next Steps: Setting the Stage for Implementation"). The Specific Plan's required program for comprehensive provision of public infrastructure is instead deferred by proposing that the City Council will, at some subsequent time, "direct which financing options to pursue", and will then complete a Public Facilities Financing Plan. (Specific Plan, page 17, at "Complete a Public Facilities Financing Plan").

The Specific Plan, while it intends to identify major infrastructure requirements, fails to include the comprehensive provision of public infrastructure required by the terms of the General Plan. Because the Specific plan does not satisfy these requirements of the General Plan, it is inconsistent with the General Plan. The RDEIR, at Table 3.11- 1 lists what it perceives to be a Consistency Determination of the various policies of the Specific Plan with the General Plan. However, that listing fails to reference Section

1.3 of the General Plan. The RDEIR therefore fails to identify the impacts of this inconsistency with the General Plan. As a result, it violates the requirements of CEQA that an EIR evaluate the impacts of any inconsistency in the Project and land use policies of the lead agency.

In addition, the General Plan, in its commentary under Implementing Policy UF-13.a, confirms that a Specific Plan is intended to further define the requirements and regulations of the General Plan "to coordinate more discreet land use and transportation design integration and intensity with necessary public facilities, maintenance, and services financing" for the relevant development area. Though the Specific Plan does identify some major infrastructure requirements, it does not indicate how such infrastructure is designed to integrate with the intensity of the intended development, because important facets of that density is deferred to a future SEDA Development Code update.

For example, table 2.1 of the Specific Plan identifies types of streets that will be included in various land use districts. However, there is no discussion about how the delineation of those transportation facilities is intended to accommodate the development and uses reflected in the Specific Plan.
726
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

The RDEIR takes the limited information included in the Specific Plan and makes the conclusion that the Project will be consistent with the General Plan policy that calls for planning and design of roadway systems to meet LOS D on major roadways. The sole assurance of this is the statement that "Roadway improvements to increase capacity and maintain LOS standards would be planned and programmed based on the total overall needs of the roadway system, recognizing the priority of maintenance, rehabilitation, and operation of the existing road system." (RDEIR at p.

3.17-32). However, the actual impact on existing roadways is nowhere detailed in either the Specific Plan or its RDEIR. This is presumably because, without any understanding of the density of developments in the land use designations, the projected traffic demands on specific roadways cannot be fairly estimated.

The RDEIR does incorporate the queuing analysis for impacts on the State High system interchanges, requested by Caltrans in its Comment Letter dated August 25, 2023. However, that analysis is based on modeling data that apparently does not incorporate specific densities of specific land areas. This is confirmed by the statement in Section 3.17.6 of the RDEIR, at page 3.17-36, which cautions that “As previously discussed, the proposed project does not approve or entitle any specific development and specific project design is unknown at this time.” Therefore, the queuing analysis does not address the criticism that the Project lacks sufficient planning details to permit an adequate analysis of the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

The intended density of development that the public facilities will be required to support is not included in the Specific Plan. Those important elements of a legally compliant specific plan are simply deferred to a future adoption of a SEDA Development code update. As a result, the RDEIR fails to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project.

Other more technical inconsistencies between the General Plan and the intended Project are also not evaluated or addressed. For instance, page 3.17-32 of the RDEIR states that the Project will be consistent with the City’s General Plan policy of planning and designing roadway systems to meet LOS D on major roadways. However, page 11 of the Traffic Impact Analysis says that SEDA Specific Plan calls for a standard of LOS E or better, which is the standard used in the relevant traffic analysis.

Further, at page 3.17-24 the analysis includes Policy UF-5.7, which states that for arterials, collectors and local streets (both intersections and segments) at peak traffic hours, LOS E applies, but that LOS F would apply in areas with transit, including in an around mixed use districts. This standard is driven by a stated goal of not having more than four through lanes on the roadway facilities (other than portions of Jensen and Temperance).

We understand that the traffic impact analysis indicates that none of the road segments it evaluated would fall below LOS D. However, no analysis was set forth for any relevant intersections other than those requested by Caltrans in the recently distributed queuing analysis. 727
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

The analysis intended by the RDEIR is therefore inadequate because of the lack of the intersection LOS analysis.

In addition, based on the above inconsistent statements about the applicable regulatory standard, it is not clear what LOS standard would apply, if and when an appropriate intersection analysis is conducted. Further, it appears that the lack of an intersection analysis of LOS standards is due to the lack of fully determined density standards and land uses applicable to various elements of the Project, which the City intends to defer until the adoption of a future SEGA development code. It is also therefore unclear how the queuing analysis or the road segment analysis that are included have sufficient information to provide an adequate analysis of the impacts, regardless of the uncertainty of the LOS Standards that the RDEIR intends to apply.

E. The Specific Plan Intends for an Undefined SEDA Specific Plan Development Code to Supersede Its Development Standards (Including Relevant Density Standards) - the RDEIR's Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of These Unknown Development Standards Is Therefore Inadequate.

The Specific Plan intends to defer the designation and adoption of density and land use standards until adoption of the SEDA Specific Plan Development Code. (Specific Plan, page 39). This is not simply the deferral of refinements to the Specific Plan's intended policies. These undefined Development Code updates are instead intended to have such importance to the intended development area that they will replace all previous zoning designations and will supersede the General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans, including the SEDA Specific Plan. (Specific Plan, page 39).

Where, as here, the most consequential elements the Specific Plan's standards of development are not disclosed to the public or other agencies, no meaningful environmental evaluation of its environmental impacts can be sufficiently conducted.

These deferred Specific Plan elements are not simply limited to the intended density standards of the proposed land use designations. As an example, Section 2.3.2 of the RDEIR discusses locations of open space and institutional features intended by the Specific Plan. However, it states that those locations, as well as roadway configurations and transit alignments, are more closely specified in an Infrastructure Plan. That Infrastructure Plan referenced in the RDEIR is nowhere identified or disclosed in the Specific Plan (or otherwise in the RDEIR).

Deferral of fully binding density standards for the Specific Plan’s land uses, and intended location of key public facilities, significantly diminishes the ability of the RDEIR to evaluate the project's environmental impacts. This causes the RDEIR to fail its obligation to provide information to the public and the elected officials as to the Specific Plan’s potential environmental impacts.
728
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

F. The Specific Plan Abolishes the "Permanent Buffer" Along Its Eastern Border Intended to Separate and Preserve Long-Term Agricultural Uses Outside Its Borders – the Consequences of Which Are Nowhere Disclosed in the RDEIR.

An important public policy goal for the Specific Plan is to minimize its impacts on various classes of agricultural lands. (See LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, Section 8-3). In furtherance of this goal, the Specific Plan states that the Plan will create an agricultural buffer between developed areas of SEDA and the agricultural lands to its east. (Specific Plan, p. 60).

However, the existing land uses allocated to SEDA in the General Plan already establishes a buffer. The General Plan states that this is to be a permanent buffer area, designed to separate and preserve long-term agriculture outside of the eastern SOI boundary from urban uses inside the SOI Boundary. (General Plan, p. 3-25). Table 15- 802 of the City Development Code sets forth the limited uses that can be conducted within that Buffer zone, with manufactured housing, and secondary units, being the sole housing type permitted.

The Specific Plan proposes to abolish this existing adopted Buffer zone in the SEDA area. It instead intends to allow Rural Cluster Residential uses in the area of lands previously designated with the Buffer Zone. The RDEIR states that this Rural Cluster Residential uses will serve as a transitional buffer, and states that this area will provide average gross density of 0.1 to 0.5 units per acre.2 This change in the uses permitted in the Buffer can be seen by comparing Map 2.4, SEDA General Plan Land Use (Existing), with Map 2.5, SEDA Proposed Land Use Map, at pages 21 and 22 of the Specific Plan.

The Specific Plan therefore relaxes the existing restrictions that the General Plan established for development within the existing Buffer Zone, and diminishes from permanent to transitional status. The Specific Plan instead intends to allow a greater extent of housing, and potentially other uses. However, this change in the existing Buffer zone is nowhere discussed in the RDEIR, and the impacts of allowing greater development within those areas is therefore nowhere analyzed in the RDEIR. This is a significant change to an existing land use designation that was previously adopted to help diminish in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

The RDEIR asserts that no feasible mitigation measures to address this impact are available. However, the proposed Specific Plan’s change in the General Plan’s Buffer zone exacerbates the impact. One feasible mitigation measure would therefore be the retention of the General Plan’s established Buffer zone. Where, as here, the RDEIR is intending to amend a prior mitigation measure of the existing General Plan, the RDEIR must discuss the reasons that justify any change to the Buffer zone, and the

2 As noted above, the Specific Plan provides that the densities stated in the Plan can be overridden by whatever standards are set forth in the yet to be developed SEDA Development Code. 729
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

potential consequences of allowing new Rural Cluster Residential uses within its environs. That discussion is particularly important where the RDEIR otherwise determines this impact is significant, and unavoidable. The RDEIR should be updated to include this discussion, and should then be recirculated.

G. Rather Than Rely Upon the Undefined Standards of Mitigation Measures MM Ag-1.1 and AG-2, the City Must Defer Adoption of the Specific Plan Until It Adopts the Farmland Preservation Program Intended by General Plan Policy Rc-9-C.

The RDEIR, at p. 3.2-17, details the intention of the General Plan Policy RC9-b to implement a Farmland Preservation Program. It seeks to assure that such a program, when adopted, will ensure mitigation of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Until the program is adopted, the RDEIR intends to implement, through MM AG-1.1 and MM AG-2, an ad hoc mitigation program whose standards are not fully defined.

The City adopted General Plan Policy RC-9-b over a decade ago, on December 18, 2014. It has had much time to prepare an appropriate program that addresses the intentions of that mitigation standard. Continuing in place an arrangement for ad hoc mitigations, based upon ill-defined standards, is not an acceptable alternative to a defined and adopted uniform program and policy that General Plan Policy RC-9-b intended. (See Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156). This is particularly true given the amount of time that has been available to adopt such a program.

Rather than adopting MM AG-1.1 and MM AG-2 as a new mitigation measure, the City must defer finalizing this Specific Plan until after the program intended by General Plan Policy RC-9-b is fully adopted. Only then can both the agricultural community and the development community understand the requirements for development within the Plan where relevant farmland is being impacted. MM AG-1.1 and AG-2, standing alone, have insufficient performance standards to satisfy appropriate standards for deferred mitigation. It does not address potentially appropriate exemptions and exclusions, or the locations of lands covered by conservation easements or mitigation banks. It thereby leaves too many aspects of the arrangement too ill defined to fully assess its efficacy.

The fact that the impacts on relevant farmlands are identified as an unavoidable and mitigatable significant impact is not a permissible basis for the RDEIR to fail to adopt feasible mitigation measures. The adoption of General Plan Policy RC-9-b intended to allow appropriate deliberation of a comprehensive program to address such impacts. That program should be adopted before annexations within SEDA begin and before the Specific Plan is adopted.
730
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

H. The Specific Plan and Its RDEIR Should Address Phasing Policies and Assure That Lands in the City's Sphere Adjacent to, but Outside SEDA, Are Prioritized For Development Before SEDA Lands.

The Specific Plan’s implementation objectives provides that development of SEDA is to occur in an organized and phased manner. (Specific Plan, p.12, RDEIR p. 2-12). The RDEIR also states that annexations will be "strategic and proactive to facilitate infrastructure development by the City.” (RDEIR at p. 2-3). An important value of a phasing plan is that it can help diminish the pressure on early conversion of farmlands and impacts on existing rural residential uses within the Specific Plan boundaries. It may also help extend the period before the development within the Specific Plan pressures conversion of farmlands outside the Specific Plan, or rural residential uses in proximity to the Specific Plan boundaries.

A phasing program is therefore a tool that can help achieve many of the objectives of the Specific Plan's requirements set forth in LAFCO Resolution USOI144, Section 8-3, regarding the Project's impacts on existing rural residential neighborhoods. It is also an important tool to mitigate the impact on farmland conversions, which is particularly important where, as here, the RDEIR finds that such impacts cannot be mitigated and are otherwise a significant an unavoidable circumstance. Even where that circumstance exists, CEQA nevertheless requires that all feasible mitigation measures are adopted. Yet, in this instance the Phase plan, while promised, is not adopted and is therefore not available as a mitigation tool.

One easy phasing strategy we recommended is a policy of the City to help insure that the unincorporated lands west of Temperance Avenue within the City Sphere of Influence are timely annexed before annexation begins with SEDA.

However, an even broader phasing strategy would provide a greater extent of mitigation on the premature conversion of farmlands and impacts of development on existing rural residential uses.

Unfortunately, the Specific Plan does not include any phasing strategies. The accompanying RDEIR therefore does not assess all potential mitigations that can be provided by a thoughtful phasing program. Such a program might include advancing construction of relevant public facilities necessary to support development. It might also include milestones before lands in various phases can have development commence.

The Specific Plan should be updated to incorporate the phasing plan that would allow the RDEIR to assess the extent to which a proposed phasing will help mitigate the impacts of the project on rural residential neighborhoods and the conversion of farmlands. Such an assessment should be included in a recirculated RDEIR. 731
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

I. The RDEIR Does Not Assess the Adequacy of Existing City Ordinances to Support the Existing Rural Residential Neighborhoods Within the Plan.

LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, Section 8-3, confirms that the Specific Plan is to, among other aspects, emphasize the retention of characteristics in rural residential neighborhoods within the Plan's environs after their annexation into the City. This policy concerns an important environmental impact of the Specific Plan.

The Plan and the RDEIR simply state that the existing uses on those parcels will remain protected under the Annexation Overlay Ordinance, codified in Section 15- 1606 of the Municipal Code. (Specific Plan, p. 29, RDEIR, p. 2-12). Those Municipal Code provisions do protect a range of existing uses. However, it allocates such uses and their structures to legal nonconforming status. That status may create difficulties with lenders and buyers of property, and the imposition of those constraints are not consistent with protecting the maintenance of such rural residential uses. That legal nonconforming status will also hinder appropriate expansion of existing legal nonconforming structures that may be reasonable and desirable to maintain thriving rural residential neighborhoods.

In fact, LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, Section 8-3, intends that the Specific Plan's program for retention of rural residential neighborhoods in annexed lands would allow for appropriate improvements needed to incorporate their characteristics into the urban landscape. While the City's legal nonconforming regulations at Municipal Code sections 15-404 and 15-405 allow some expansion in single family residential structures, similar expansion of other ancillary structures is not permitted except with the attainment of subsequent entitlements. In addition, expansions of single-family residential structures requires that the improvements conform to the standards of the newly allocated Base District. (Municipal Code Section 15-405-E-1).

LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, Section 8-3 has emphasized the importance of a program for annexation that is intended to emphasize the retention of characteristics of rural residential neighborhoods that make them desirable places to live. The Specific Plan does not include such a program. Further, the RDEIR does not evaluate the characteristics of the existing rural residential neighborhoods. Nor does it evaluate the adequacy of the provisions of Municipal Code Section 15-1606, and the associated noncomforming legal use standards of the City, to assess whether those annexed rural neighborhoods will be able to effectively maintain their qualities intended by LAFCO Resolution USOI-144.

The RDEIR must be updated to include an assessment of the existing City ordinances that will govern existing residential neighborhoods within the Plan after annexation, and whether those standards adequately protect their retention. It should also recommend any refinements to the existing City Ordinances where necessary. That information should be included in an updated and recirculated RDEIR. 732
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

J. Elements of the RDEIR's Mitigations of Water Supply Impacts Need Clarification.

The Specific Plan, at p. 105, under Policy RC-4.2, states that the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan was approved in 2019. The Plan approval was subject to subsequent review and approval by the Department of Water Resources, and that plan was conditionally approved by the Department of Water Resources in 2023. It was subsequently updated by the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency in January 2025 to address corrective actions identified by the Department of Water Resources. The RDEIR does not address any of the elements that were revised in the January 2025 update to that Plan.

More importantly, Policy RC-4.2 states that all groundwater drawn to serve development in the SEDA will be replaced "with at least an equal volume via infiltration, pumping or other means". However, both the Specific Plan and the RDEIR fail to explain how groundwater is to be replaced by pumping, or what the other means are that it intends to reference.

Policy RC-4.2 also states that the necessary recharge may not necessarily occur the same year as withdrawals, but asserts that over time total recharge will match total withdrawals. While all of those goals and intentions are desirable, some maximum period of mismatch between withdrawal and recharge should be identified.

Consideration of impacts to sustainable management criteria and to other beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including domestic wells users in proximity to the withdrawal, should also be addressed.

The City is situated on top of a single unconfined aquifer. To offset groundwater pumping, recharge must occur within a reasonable distance that demonstrates effectiveness. We are not opposed to regional recharge provided the groundwater pumping does not cause widespread regional impacts. Recharge outside of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency would not be considered reasonable.

The RDEIR includes, as an appendix, a Water Technical Study prepared by Blair, Church, and Flynn Consulting Engineers in 2023 (the "Water Study"). The Water Study identifies surface water supplied from both the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) through existing agreements for groundwater recharge and potable use after treatment. According to the Water Study, the most recent FID agreement signed in 2016 provided for a maximum of 29% of FID's Kings River water supply to be available to the City. It is unclear per the FID agreement whether the water supply was intended for use within the Specific Plan boundary. The FID agreement, specifically Section 13.(c), states that "City and District mutually agree that the increase in percentages reflected in this Section 13 include allowances for moderate growth in Growth Area 1 of City's Sphere of Influence as shown in Exhibit C (as depicted as Figure IM-2 of the Fresno General Plan)." The RDEIR must be revised to clarify this issue.
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
Plan Review Team
Land Management
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
February 11, 2025
Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Sophia,
Thank you for submitting Recirculated Draft PEIR plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area.

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

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

Below is additional information for your review:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
742
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.

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

5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch 743
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Public
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
744
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Public

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

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

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

13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
745
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Public
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
746
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
747
From: Erika Leonard
To: LongRangePlanning
Cc: Annalisa Perea; Andrew Janz
Subject: SEDA public comment from District 1 resident Erika Leonard Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 7:40:43 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Fresno Long Range Planning Team,
I am a City of Fresno District 1 resident writing in response to the new proposed SEDA Environmental Impact Report draft.

I strongly object to the SEDA plan described in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and urge all City leaders to wholeheartedly reject SEDA in full.

SEDA will harm the City of Fresno, our neighborhoods, and Fresno residents. The harm is likely to be profound and last for decades.

My objections include, but are not limited to, the following five key concerns:

The City of Fresno is in debt. Approving SEDA is fiscally irresponsible. Approving SEDA invites significant additional debt with no guarantee of future development to offset it. This debt will be a burden on city residents, tax payers, and businesses for year to come.

The SEDA plan is dangerously outdated, based on a a wildly inaccurate presumed growth rate. This plan assumes a growth rate ten times greater than our current - and declining - growth rate.

SEDA will direct our clearly limited resources away from existing neighborhoods and their profound infrastructure needs. One example: the people in West Fresno have been working for years to get infrastructure changes described in the West Area Specific Plan to improve pedestrian safety, storm drainage, traffic flow, cyclist safety, and green space. I believe successfully implementing their West Area Specific Plan is more important than implementing SEDA - and we have every reason to believe approving SEDA will imperil this and similar plans in our existing neighborhoods.

SEDA will ham Fresno businesses. I hear business owners asking for improvements to sidewalks, parking, drainage, traffic flow, and lighting. Thriving businesses support a thriving Fresno, and they deserve better. Investing in SEDA without clear assurance that SEDA will NOT redirect the City's already minimal infrastructure attention away from our existing business districts will be a blow to our existing businesses.

SEDA will destroy existing communities of county residents who have no voice in this process. I have listened to the upset voices of people currently living in the area that would be transformed by SEDA. It’s not yet part of the City, so they have no council members to fight for them - or even listen to them. SEDA threatens their communities and their agricultural land without taking their interests into account. 748
749
750
751
Shawn Monk, Planner- NOTICE OF PREPARATION, EIR
March 18, 2022

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Avenue should be included in this analysis.

4. Future development(s) should conduct a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) study for projects that may substantially induce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project site should be considered in this study. The project proponents should also consider coordinating with nearby planned bike networks for a larger active transportation network. The City should consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce potential impacts on the State Highway System.

5. For future residential development, Caltrans recommends project proponents consider working with the City to convert a portion of the planned residential units to affordable housing units.

6. The City should establish policies for the installation of Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging for single- and multi-family residential units as well as DC Fast Charging EV charging stations for retail, commercial, park and public facilities.

7. Caltrans recommends the Project implement multimodal strategies, such as those that originate from Transit-oriented development (TOD), in an effort to further reduce future projects’ traffic related impacts.

8. Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the state’s 2050 Climate goals. Caltrans supports reducing VMT and GHG emissions in ways that increase the likelihood people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network.

9. Early engagement with Caltrans is highly requested for future projects that would impact state right-of-way. Furthermore, prior to initiating the traffic study, please include Caltrans in the scoping.

If you have any other questions, please call or email Edgar Hernandez at Sincerely,
David Padilla, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning – North
752
March 19, 2025
[email protected]
RE: OPPOSE - SEDA PROPOSED EIR AND OPPOSE SEDA DEVELOPMENT To Whom It May Concern:

Please accept this letter as our required public comment, specifically our opposition to the recirculated PEIR on February 7, 2025. Please know that the reference numbers are set forth in this opposition as you require (however I do not see that stated anywhere, we were told put reference number or they won’t read it) … continue reading. Please be aware pursuant to Exhibit 2-2, Land Use Map, our property is located under “Flexible Research & Development” (FR&D). FR&D states in the PEIR:
“Flexible Research and Development districts would be primarily located west of the Briggs Canal and/or south of Jensen Avenue and are intended for uses such as research and development, light manufacturing, product testing centers, and office development. The area may also include compatible commercial uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, cafés, printing and publishing, dry cleaners, and other supporting businesses. Access to regional transportation corridors (both road and rail) is critical. Residential uses are not allowed in Flexible Research and Development areas.”
What this means to our household is that eminent domain will be used against us in order for the City to move forward with SEDA. The last sentence reads residential is not allowed in these areas.

Exactly what was done to homeowners in the path of the High Speed Rail, and look at them today, no land acquired yet for the rail, not one track laid, not one train running, not one person able to use the HSR and its currently under investigation as to where all the money went and way over budget that when and if it will be completed in our lifetime is the question of the day. The Federal agency, DOGE, is currently investigating HSR. What kind of research and development is being built, the PEIR fails to state but it shows this specific section of the area will be something similar to what we have near Food Max (Clovis & Kings Canyon). Take a look at the pictures I have attached as to that development. This is what will occur in SEDA.

Finding #3 “SEGA contributes to the decline of Fresno farmland.” (City of Fresno Minutes 2/10/11)
My first concern is that our local government, the City, commends itself on transparency, however, to locate the PEIR on its website is not the most obvious and direct access. That in and of itself is problematic and deceptive because as you know, not all of society is tech savvy. To locate, you click on the City’s website, then Planning and Development, (scroll all the way down) click on Long Range Planning (why the community would know to go there is beyond me), then Plans and Projects Under Review, then find Southeast Development Specific Plan (the document that Asadoorian stated we could not comment upon), then locate and click on Executive Summary which is a separate document that discusses the changes of the new recirculated PEIR, and then scroll a few links down then click on Recirculated EIR - February 2025. This is ridiculous!! The City is fully capable of having their IT staff place a link or a scrolling marquee on its homepage with a link that auto connects/opens to the Executive Summary and the PEIR. This attempt to make things difficult for the reader, adds to gamesmanship of today’s politician and government which leads the public to frustration and distrust all done in hopes that the public abandon the comment period; this tactic is no surprise to the vast majority of us.

In addition, the PEIR is over 800 pages, 800 pages! This is so overly burdensome and overly exaggerated (for comparison, the Fresno County Recommended 2024-25 posted online is 390 pages for 15 cities (PDF pages)). Furthermore, do you think it’s asking too much to again have your IT staff make this document so that the reader has the ability to click on the page number in the table of Page of 1 11
753
contents and be auto routed to that page, automatically. I believe the taxpayers and members of Fresno deserve that type of efficiency from our government that we the people elected. Don’t play hide the ball!
Please be aware that I spoke to Ms. Asadoorian by telephone and she confirmed that the Specific Plan is a document that will be used by the City to support their PEIR; however, the public is not allowed to comment on the Specific Plan, only the PEIR. I find this disingenuous. If the City is being allowed to submit the “specific plan” in support of their PEIR, the public should be allowed to comment upon in opposition to the PEIR. What law states we are not allowed to comment?

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS
We requested information in our previous opposition to the City’s EIR back in July 2023. The City failed to respond to our requests for information. It’s our understanding it wasn’t read because the city needed a do-over, how convenient. In preparing for our opposition to the February 2025 PEIR, we submitted PRA requests through the online portal. As of this date the City has requested an extension of time to respond to my requests: R074432-030725 extension requested to March 25th; R074041-022725 extension requested to March 24th; and R073948-02265 extension requested to March 24th. I find it disingenuous and intentional that the City is requesting an extension to a date of either on or after the public comment period for the PEIR. We did notify counsel’s office of this and nothing that we requested is overly burdensome on the City, it is all information that the City does have on-hand. The City has not provided a good faith effort in an attempt to provide us with this information as a member of the public; they unilaterally picked a date that was conveniently on or after the City’s public comment deadline. My requests were all submitted well in advance to the public comment period. This in turn led me to submit a PRA (R074705-031225 inquiring about the City’s remote/telework policy for City staff and employees).

In addition, I have submitted a PRA (R075085-031725) to the City/lead agency regarding eminent domain and the process and procedures. As you should know from our previous comments to the last EIR, the City staff at one of their public meetings stated that eminent domain would not be used but further failed to respond as to what would happen if we do not comply. This is the type of full transparency the public requests of you; do not hide behind your veil of ignorance and not fully discuss the ramifications of SEDA. We the people want to hear how you will abuse your power and take this land unjustifiably under the guise of a housing crisis. The remedy to your man-made crisis:
tell your developer donors to lower the pricing of the current homes developed, making homes more affordable. zillow.com states average rent is $1,600, how about finding a way to have property owners lower their rent price so people can afford to rent. There are other ways to go about this other than allowing government to take our Prime, Unique and Important ag land.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY
In response to our PRA request #R073922-022625, the SEDA Specific Plan (Page 90 of the Plan) states, under management, neighborhood gardens can be owned by a city, county, … non-profit etc. This clearly confirms it is a land grab by our government, to take from the current property owners and line the pockets of government and developers. It further states the City encourages neighborhood organizations to seek funding for the neighborhood garden. If the people cannot find housing on their own and require assistance from government (to find and pay), how will they find funding for a neighborhood garden? But this does say “organizations” not the community members.

Who will be the ones to gain financially in these transactions? There is no actual confirmation that these so-called gardens will actually occur. The Plan the City attached to this 2010 item produced, in response to my PRA ending in 022625, paints the picture of agriculture, all in an effort to convince and fool the public and readers, the Prime Ag land the government is taking, is not lost or forgotten.

What I find once again disingenuous is the City responded to this PRA wherein I requested documents from 2006-2008, however, we received their agenda item from 2010 and attachments thereto but the City also included the SEDA Specific Plan in said response (which said Plan fails to reflect a date) and that Plan was not the plan utilized back in 2010 or 2006-08 for that matter, it wasn’t changed from SEGA to SEDA till when 2014? The City offers no explanation in attaching the Specific Plan, since it lacks a date and seems to be the same Plan that is currently posted on your website but without a date Page of 2 11
754
it cannot be verified, we would have to guess where it falls in response to my PRA; is this the Plan that would have been utilized, referred to, relied upon back in 2010, 06-08? The City is merely sending documents to see what sticks in hopes of papering us to death and shut us up.

Furthermore, the Minutes I received, pursuant to the above-mentioned PRA request, dated Feb. 10, 2011, and years 2007, 2008 did not include their respective agenda items. Maybe the City Councilmembers should review the 2011 Minutes to see the chaos, lack of transparency, and problems that arose during that city council meeting. “President Brand introduced the item and clarified the intent of this action was not to kill SEGA.” Note: We the property owners say it should have been, then and now. But, the fact that he opens with that statement should give us all pause and ask why would he open with a statement as such … because there was and is reason to kill SEGA. President Brand refers to a fiscal crisis back then and like today, under a new federal administration, we are currently in a fiscal crisis: Federal funding is being frozen for waste and fraud.

Councilmember Borgeas then stated during this hearing in 2011 …. “Fresno cannot be afraid to admit when it makes mistakes.” We say and we believe have shown that SEGA/SEDA is a mistake now and then. On said minutes: Finding #3 “SEGA contributes to the decline of Fresno farmland.” True then and true today. That 2011 statement is confirmed in 2025 pursuant to the 2/7/25 PEIR (see Page 168, 169, 173 and throughout the PEIR. Per the 2/10/11 Minutes, President Brand states that SEGA was attractive looking at it from a distance. However, it seems from the minutes, as they took a deeper dive it became a totally different story. Finding #4 population projections used to justify SEGA are inconsistent with growth trends. Here we are today, 14 years later after the 2011 Minute order, and not much has been learned, gained, remedied, rectified, clarified, changed, or made obvious and transparent to the public or property owners as to why SEDA should move forward and more importantly at this time, we believe this further shows us today that SEDA should be killed (Brand’s word used). Basis for SEDA, original estimate annual population growth through 2050 1.5%; revised population growth estimate .18%; bigger than necessary for population growth 8.3X; 44,000 units planned; units actually needed 5,300; SEDA infrastructure cost estimate $0; potential infrastructure cost: $1,000,000,000+; City’s budget deficit 2025 $20,000,000; basis for infill city limits 8,200 vacant acres=134,000 units; how much sense does SEDA make: ZERO (0).

Most concerning from this read and worthy of further investigation today is Westernlund’s statement that there was a whole other side to this story and a number of things he wanted to speak to. As a tax paying citizen, registered voter, I’m perplexed as to why he would not speak candidly, openly, and honestly in said hearing, public forum, on that date. What was holding him back? Who do you represent in this capacity? If there was another side to the story, it should have been told, needs to be told, and yet no one stood up and thought it best for the We the People to call him out requesting that he speak now or the hearing cannot move forward or the development cannot move forward, that’s what you are elected to speak on behalf of the people.

and out of control. Jurisdiction was a concern at that time, and it was further stated he had an issue with procedure and stated “stinks big time.” Brand said it was getting personal. Clearly, throughout the Minutes we see some major concerns here; has anyone completed an in-depth investigation regarding the initiation, involvement of the persons, and the development itself; or, addressed these past issues or will the City attempt to have this skirt by, sweep it under the rug, in hopes nothing is revealed. Page 157-44, Brand states he learned the City spends way too much money on consultants.

It’s now 2025, we have the same questions and concerns as reflected in the 2011 Minutes; the PEIR fails to fully and completely mitigate the issues raised in this current PEIR; and the past concerns of council. For reasons stated above, we oppose the PEIR dated 2/7/25 and believe we should look further into the concerns discussed in the 2011 hearing and if those concerns were in fact addressed, with or without public involvement; we believe it should be discussed in a public forum not private closed session. We further would like to see in a public forum, in an effort to be fully transparent, those donor contributions to the elected officials of that time as well as currently seated officials (e.g.

Statement of Economic Interests - Form 700, Gifts & Gratuities or any other forms required by the FPPC).

Page of 3 11
755
We submitted PRA #R074526-030925 to the City requesting the names of persons or organizations the Planning Department, City Manager, Districts 1-7 and Mayors office have met with to discuss SEDA from 2022 to present. Of course the City requests an extension to March 31 in which to respond.

PAGE ES-1 (Executive Summary):

This document and lead agency states that the purpose of the subject PEIR is to inform of potential environmental effects as a result of implementing the SEDA project. It is further stated that this project is described as an “acceleration of housing production.” The CITY is requesting to speed up producing homes. They base this on meeting the need of “diverse housing types” and “affordability levels.” All to be completed by the year 2050. Has the revitalization of Downtown Fresno been completed? Have the vacant buildings in that location been restored, refurbished. Has new life as set forth in history when Downtown Fresno revitalization was introduced to the public been established? The honest answer is NO! The City web page states Downtown is following in the footsteps of Oakland and Sacramento. That more than 600 apartments have been recently added and the Mayor’s goal is to grow the neighborhood from 3,000 to 10,000 residents. How about the high speed rail, yet been completed? When the rail was presented by a group of past elected officials it was posed as prosperous (to who that’s unknown), and much needed; past elected officials believed a bullet-train from San Francisco to Los Angeles was needed (for who that is the unknown). Has the rail project been completed? The honest answer is NO! Look where we are at today in both projects, failure to complete (how many years later); failure to pay and/or have the money, and look at the environment.

Just like DOGE is involved in looking into the high speed rail maybe we need to have them look into this land grab and how the City is spending our money and who is benefiting from this money.

Maybe it’s time the City of Fresno’s waste and fraud be exposed. This PEIR of course states all in the name of being fiscally responsible, social equity, environmentally sustainable. I’m sure that is what was said for Downtown and the High Speed Rail. Downtown is littered with homelessness, businesses unable to stay afloat due to the increasing costs in rent, utilities, food, wages, and the inability to keep downtown Fresno safe, at its closest location to law enforcement. What this PEIR is introducing us to is Fresno 2.0. You’ve heard that term used by Gov. Newsom, after Southern Cal was devastated by wildfires (closest cities to the ocean); how interesting our government is now referring So Cal as a Smart City, to rebuild LA 2.0. Same thing with Lahaina (Maui wildfire), their government wanted a Smart City too.

The Fresno Housing Authority “manages diverse properties and programs;” they are designed and designated for “under-served populations, including farm laborers, migrant workers, seniors and those in need of support.” On their website I find over 70 properties in Fresno within a 35 mile radius. In 2024 and 2025, Fresno County developed new “affordable” housing such as Avalon Commons, The Arthur, Promesa Commons, Sarah’s Court apartments at Fancher Creek and Crossroads Village.

Population continues to be inconsistent as under this new current Federal administration, with the deportation of illegal immigrants, their need for housing will substantially decrease. In addition, the most cost effective remedy is not develop, develop, develop but how about pursuing these developers to lower the cost of their homes built to make them more affordable.

For this reason and many others as stated below is why we Southeast Property Owners strongly oppose the SEDA development and the recirculated Proposed EIR.

In addition, we have a mental health crisis, homeless problem involving substance abuse, mental health,; an illegal immigration problem, economy problem (groceries-eggs are $8 a dozen, rent, interest rates, tariffs), and the federal government is not inclined to continue writing checks. The lead agency states a population however how did they come up with the numbers on the population? You can no longer count those here illegally and therefore numbers must be adjusted. Who was included in your count, must be answered?
GV Wire article dated 12/17/24 by Edward Smith states: “A proposal would put 400-single family homes on the property occupied by the massive former IRS processing center in southeast Fresno.” This is not about housing, this is about a land grab to line the pockets of politicians and developers/ donors.

Page of 4 11
756
PAGE ES-2&3:

The lead agency states this project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. This right here should be enough and tells us all we need to know, but let’s continue.

PAGE ES-4/AES-3 and Reference 3.1:

The lead agency has confirmed this project will substantially degrade the visual character or quality of public views of both site and surroundings. Of course it will. As stated in 2011 and still true today, SEGA is a decline of Fresno farmland. The impact physically to land, air, aesthetics, birds, coyotes, will be obsolete/extinct as we are pushing the city further and deeper into rural territory that was not meant or intended for a city life or Smart City. The effects would be changing the view of green landscape, fruit trees, vineyards, to concrete buildings, cell towers, cars, lights, bus and change the sounds of birds, quiet, little to no traffic in exchange for cars, power equipment, talking, music; pollution from those vehicles and buildings. This affects not just a few but it affects 9,000 acres.

Adding a grassy knoll does not relieve these problems. You will still see those tall cement buildings, businesses and housing units, vehicles, lights whether it’s a public view (from the grassy knoll) or private view. In the cities, you hear or read about in the news sightings of coyotes, duh of course, you moved into their territory, whether coyotes, toads, skunks, all those animals don’t just up and walk to Squaw Valley to relocate, they will either die because we have removed their source of feeding or stay. Go outside in the morning, we hear birds singing; go out in the evening, you hear the toads, crickets. Under SEDA all will be lost and it will be traffic, smog, cell towers, homeless encampments.

The agency confirms there are no feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate the impact. For the reasons we stated, we oppose.

AES-4 Light & Glare:

Creates new source of light/glare adversely affecting day/night views.

The lead agency has confirmed this project will substantially degrade the visual character or quality of public views of both site and surroundings. As stated in 2011 and still true today, SEGA (SEDA) is a decline of Fresno farmland. The impact physically to land, air, aesthetics, birds, coyotes, will be obsolete or extinct as we are pushing the city further and deeper into rural territory that was not meant intended for a city, a Smart City. The effects would be changing the view of green landscape, fruit trees, vineyards, to concrete buildings, cars, lights, and change the sounds of birds, quiet, little to no traffic to cars, equipment, talking, music; pollution from those vehicles and buildings. This affects not just a few but it affects the 9,000 acres. Adding a grassy knoll does not relieve these problems. You will still see those tall cement buildings, businesses and housing units, vehicles, lights whether it’s a public view (from the grassy knoll) or private view. In the cities, you hear or read about in the news sightings of coyotes, well yes you moved into rural territory, coyotes, toads, skunks, all those animals don’t just up and walk to Squaw Valley immediately, they will either die because we have removed their source of feeding or stay. Go outside in the morning, we hear birds singing; go out in the evening, you hear the toads, crickets. In essence you are building a Smart City, just like your smart phone, laptop, the lighting, the cell towers all for public and private consumption.

The CITY has confirmed impacts remain significant and unavoidable. For the reasons stated, we oppose.

Page of 5 11
757
CUMULATIVE LIGHTS/GLARE:

I refer you to my statements made under ES-4/AES-3 and 4. I reiterate same here. The impacts are significant and unavoidable. For this and all the reasons stated, we oppose.

PAGE ES-4, Impact AG-1 - Reference 3.2:

As we all know, the SEDA project will be a catastrophic loss of 9,000 acres of what we the property owners have stated from the beginning, Prime Farmland, and what the PEIR now confirms as (1) PRIME, (2) IMPORTANT STATE; (3) IMPORTANT LOCAL AND (4) UNIQUE FARMLANDS. Of that 9,000 acres, the PEIR classifies 6,741 total acres as designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, AND Unique Farmland which is “scattered throughout the Plan Area.” Read that again, scattered throughout the Plan Area, scattered throughout, not a block, not a street.

Again, we are not talking one block, one street, one acre; the CITY is requesting to destroy, demolish more than half of what is designated as PRIME, OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE STATE AND LOCALLY, AND UNIQUE FARMLAND. We argue that all 9,000 acres are Prime , Unique and of Importance to the State and Locally. At a time when groceries are at their highest in the store, you want to build units so a household can “hopefully” create and sustain a garden to feed “their household” but yet you are destroying farmland that feeds the state, our County and quite frankly my/ our households. They won’t even be the deed holders of this so-called housing, government and developers will be the ones to own the land, buildings, housing units. Our home sits next to the Briggs canal which is rare and unique in and of itself; the water flowing into that irrigation canal is from the Kings River. Our property along with many of my neighbors, we grow our own food, have our own farm animals and equipment and yet you want us to allow the government to take what we have paid for-worked for, and live off of, so that the government can create a Smart City/Fresno 2.0 to benefit and line their pockets under the guise of “hopefully” teaching people to have community gardens; the people work the land; the government or developers own the land, that’s your Smart City aka Fresno 2.0.

The PEIR states that loss of farmland still occurs with this Plan, the impact is significant and unavoidable EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION. As stated back in 2011, SEGA is the decline of Fresno’s Farmland. Our communities depend on Ag; No Farmers, No Food!
For all the reasons stated in this letter and my neighbors’ letters, we strongly oppose the PEIR as well as SEDA.

PAGE ES-5/AG-2:

There are significant impacts on existing Williamson Act land. This PEIR states is unavoidable and no mitigation measures available. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 helps preserve agricultural land and open space. It discourages premature conversion to urban uses; it further protects open space; and is supposed to keep land values relatively stable. By doing this, the value of our homes our properties declines substantially. There are supposed to be land use restrictions imposed upon the owners; however, what the City is doing is changing restrictions, better yet protections to property owners, to again line their pockets, the pockets of the developers as government deems appropriate. The California Department of Conservation’s homepage states in part:
…post World War II period. During that time California’s Agricultural and open space lands began to face dramatically increasing conversion pressures from population growth, new commercial enterprises, and rising property taxes. “Valuable farmland began disappearing at an alarming rate as conversion to urban uses became the only financially viable alternative of many landowners.” Page of 6 11
758
The Williamson Act Program has remained stable and effective as a mechanism for protecting agricultural and open space land from premature and unnecessary urban development.

For all the reasons stated thus far, we oppose the PEIR and SEDA.

Impact AIR-1 - Reference 3.3:

Potential (which means to become or develop in the future) to exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution thresholds and not consistent with existing Air Quality Plans. To date, we are told when to burn our fireplace, what type of fireplace, when to burn green waste and yet here the City knowingly wants to implement a project and plan that will exceed thresholds and goes against the standards imposed upon the people of this County. The PEIR states that “due to the magnitude and intensity of development” it is unavoidable and a significant impact.

AIR-2:

Projected Cumulative emissions associated with future development projects exceeds Valley Air thresholds and is a significant and unavoidable impact.

AIR-3 Sensitive Receptors:

The lead agency can’t even respond, foresee, forecast this section. They state, “without such information” “it is not possible to conclude” and it is significant and an unavoidable impact.

For all the reasons stated, and their failure to provide a detailed or any response to include a cost, we oppose the PEIR AND SEDA.

Cumulative Air Quality:
“Not enough information to quantify” “future development projects may still exceed Valley Air District thresholds.” This is what this PEIR states. It further states that due to the size of the project no significant mitigation available to reduce the cumulative impacts to air quality. It remains significant and unavoidable.

The impacts during and post plan development will be great; again, the impacts will be great. You are adding to the vehicular traffic, the people, the businesses, the smog, the cell towers, the power grid.

People will be traveling not only for personal reasons but business. Of course there is a significant impact and it will not be avoided.

For all these reasons, we oppose the PEIR and SEDA.

References 3.4 - 3.8:

GHG-1:

Implementation of project contributes to global climate change through direct emissions of greenhouse gases not only from sources generated by project, indirectly, thru off-site energy. The project increases the population and employment which further contributes to increase in wastewater, water demand, and vehicle trips. Energy is increased due to the magnitude of new buildings constructed. The Environmental impact of the project related to GHG emissions is significant. “There is no mitigation feasible to reduce GHG emissions.” The impacts of this project are significant and unavoidable.

The Minutes dated 2/10/11, provided to me per a PRA request, states in Finding #2: “(Committee finds the SEGA region is known to have insufficient water, and cost estimates on proposed water infrastructure are extraordinarily high)”. This remains true to date. All the properties that would Page of 7 11
759
remain have been informed by the City that we would be required to hook up to their water and sewer lines at our own expense. Yet the City has not provided a confirmed cost that would be assessed to property owners and stated that loans could be taken out with the City (now the City is a bank, lender) which would obviously line their pockets; and if property owners fail to be able to pay those loans a lien would be assessed on their home/property. We should not have to take a loan out for thousands, or have a lien placed on our property. What about these property owners who are of retirement years; they cannot just go back to work because of a land grab by the City? In addition, our home sits approximately 200 feet from the road, the cost would be beyond the minimum. Those of us not in prime health would be forced to choose and that is not something that should be posed to us by our government.

For all these reasons, we oppose the PEIR and SEDA.

Cumulative GHG ES-7:

I reiterate my statements here as set forth in paragraph GHG-1. It is reflected significant and unavoidable impacts.

For all these reasons, we oppose the PEIR and SEDA.

NOI-1/Reference 3.13:

The City/lead agency is unable to quantify the construction noise impacts. That’s because it is so extreme during project development and post. During, between several equipment and projects working in tandem vehicles added to the road, people, its beyond what we can imagine, quantify or explain As stated in the PEIR, the impacts are significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Noise:

Details of individual development projects are currently unknown. It is not possible to quantify future cumulative construction noise impacts if multiple developments construct simultaneously creating a cumulative noise impact. Because they can occur simultaneously and noise can occur for prolonged periods of time, cumulative construction and noise impacts are possible and are significant and unavoidable.

For all the reasons stated throughout this opposition, we oppose the PEIR and SEDA.

Reference 3.13:

How is this fiscally responsible? There is no projected cost that’s been provided for SEDA construction nor monies allocated that we are aware of. We requested information, PRA #R073948-022625, asking for the City to identify by name/business and address all federal, state and local funding sources, grants, monies received by the City and requested by the City that will be applied to, and used for SEDA, include dates and amounts received and requested. You know the response we received from the City, they need an extension to March 24th (the deadline for public comment). This project has been in existence for over a decade, decade, and either they: (1) are lying; (2) playing hide the ball; (3) lack full transparency; or (4) abuse of power. Maybe all of the above.

This is evidence of the type of answers we the property owners receive from the City on a consistent basis as it relates to SEDA. The lead agency/city cannot confirm to current southeast property owners the cost to connect to the city’s water/sewer, which they state will be our financial responsibility to bear; they cannot confirm how much money a project of this size will cost the taxpayers, City and County citizens. This is a problem; maybe this is what the past council member meant by stinks big time? As done with the high speed rail any cost projection is a guess and can increase substantially after the project commences and you will have destroyed over 9,000 acres of farmland for what, a Smart City, you can revitalize downtown Fresno and have your Smart City, it’s already there, vacant.

Buildings exist downtown, drive throughout this City, you will find abandon buildings; and can be reconstructed by your developers for a confirmed cost. Are you receiving federal funding? If so, maybe we should get DOGE involved to see how fiscally responsible and cost effective this PEIR and Page of 8 11
760
project Plan really is; or, maybe they will uncover waste and fraud at the expense of taxpayers and on this project, at the expense of the property owners.

How is this social equity? You are removing elders, our retired community, the vast majority of property owners in SEDA plan are retired, or farmers, and existing long-time property owners and families whose lives are according to their land, we grow our own food, have our own farm animals; you are forcing us from our PRIME, UNIQUE, AND GREATLY IMPORTANT TO THE STATE AND LOCAL FARMLAND, to create Fresno 2.0/Smart City under the guise of “affordable housing.” I have attached to this letter pictures of how fiscally responsible, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable the City of Fresno, County of Fresno is currently. (See attached pictures). There is an existing development located on the northeast corner of “Kings Canyon” and Clovis Avenue, the City just added a Ross in that development, the old OSH building (because a second Ross store was needed—there is a Ross located on Kings Canyon just 2.1 miles from the new Ross, stupid right); because Southeast Property owners only shop at Ross. You have vacant buildings located within this same complex, a Smoke Shop (see attached), empty buildings, which is all a place for the homeless community and thugs to hangout, start fires to keep warm, drug interactions. SEDA monies can go towards the homeless, mental health, the west side existing property owners and your Downtown Revitalization.

Between the City and County, there have been new developments of new affordable housing. Look at the canal that runs along McKinley from Clovis Avenue to the 168 freeway, look at the homeless that camp there. If you can’t take care of that existing problem, how will you take on the homeless encampments in this new development, because if you build it they will come. This is the proof of what happens to the City of Fresno, they become a part of the have nots, they no longer receive the help that they need. The money for SEDA can be given to the homeless and provide the assistance they need. They don’t need a Smart City.

Hydrology & Water Quality - 3.10
The proposed project would have significant impact on the environment if the proposed project would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (PDF page 453)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii) 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;
or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The above language from the PEIR I believe shows we will be violating the water quality standards and waste discharge; we will substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere; alter the Page of 9 11
761
existing drainage; result in erosion … nothing good will come from SEDA. Now is not the time.

How much more money should you throw out the window?
Impact HYD-2 Groundwater Supply & Recharge:

The PEIR states:

The proposed project could substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

It further states that groundwater alone will not be sufficient to meet future City demands, including those for SEDA. (PDF Page 492)
If you recall, the City/lead agency states this is to be fiscally responsible, environmental sustainability and socially equitable. Approving this to move forward fails us in all capacities including the people outside of SEDA where water is an issue in general such as Cantua Creek, El Porvenir. There are outside areas not only within the City of Fresno but Fresno County who need dire attention and have government focused on their water issues; not government creating new water issues for the sake of Fresno 2.0 Smart city.

The Business Journal 12/10/24: It’s Horrible: Fresno’s Record-Breaking Settlement Highlights Region’s Larger Drinking Water Problem. This article states that a review of documents and interviews of key officials uncovers a decades-long environmental crisis enabled by both corporate greed and bureaucratic neglect. It goes on to state that a darker truth emerges—the money will vanish in less than a decade, covering filtration costs for roughly eight years, according to interviews with City officials Georgeanne White and Brock Buche. Once the settlement funds run dry, Fresno residents will be left to shoulder any remaining pollution cleanup, at a cost of millions each year.

PDF Page 492 of the PEIR states, “impacts to water supply and demand would be considered at the time of annexation for each specific parcel.” How stupid and reckless, environmentally and fiscally, to wait until the time of to determine the impacts to water supply and demand. Now we see how the high speed rail is in its current situation; let’s wait until we are knee deep in this, people have lost their homes and property, with no recourse. Is this what we teach our children, don’t think about the consequences now, just do it and we will deal with it later? We are doomed if this is the mentality of our government.

Cumulative significance before mitigation is significant impact, after mitigation less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The cost associated to mitigate will be astronomical and our outer communities will pay the price and be the ones to sacrifice once again. Fix other problems before creating new ones! This is fiscally, environmentally, and socially irreparable; ultimate damage is TBD and you have no right and its the least of our people who will be the sacrificial lambs. In closing, the lead agency is not accelerating housing, it is accelerating land grabs. You are to serve the interests of your constituents not your donors.

3.19 Wildfire
There is no longer a wildfire season, wildfires occur all year. This development in no way reduces wildfire risks, it enhances the risk as well as puts a further strain on already limited resources available to other communities during hard economic times. Wildfires in Maui, Southern California, Moss Landing battery facility.

Stanford University, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment article: Wildfire News Releases Social and Economic Disparities Impact Wildfire Protection. This article states that low income communities in California are at a greater risk of suffering the consequences because they are less protected. Financial support, educational programs, wildfire preparedness? Page of 10 11
762
Reference 4.3 - Mandatory Findings
When the farms are gone, remember, it’s forever!
For all the reasons stated in this letter, the attachments, and the other southeast property owners’ letters, we strongly oppose the PEIR as well as SEDA.

Sincerely,
Attachments (Pictures) to Ortiz Opposition Letter
Cc: Annalisa Perea, District 1 - [email protected] Mike Karbassi, District 2 - [email protected]
Miguel Ariaas, District 3 - [email protected]
Tyler Maxell, District 4 - [email protected]
District 5 - TBD Due to Special Election sent to City Clerk Nick Richardson, District 6 - [email protected] Nelson Esparza, District 7 - [email protected]
Todd Stermer, City Clerk - [email protected]
Page of 11 11
David Ortiz & Natalie Ortiz
Elijah Ortiz
763
March 19, 2025
[email protected]
RE: OPPOSE - SEDA PROPOSED EIR AND OPPOSE SEDA DEVELOPMENT To Whom It May Concern:

Please accept this letter as our required public comment, specifically our opposition to the recirculated PEIR on February 7, 2025. Please know that the reference numbers are set forth in this opposition as you require (however I do not see that stated anywhere, we were told put reference number or they won’t read it) … continue reading. Please be aware pursuant to Exhibit 2-2, Land Use Map, our property is located under “Flexible Research & Development” (FR&D). FR&D states in the PEIR:
“Flexible Research and Development districts would be primarily located west of the Briggs Canal and/or south of Jensen Avenue and are intended for uses such as research and development, light manufacturing, product testing centers, and office development. The area may also include compatible commercial uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, cafés, printing and publishing, dry cleaners, and other supporting businesses. Access to regional transportation corridors (both road and rail) is critical. Residential uses are not allowed in Flexible Research and Development areas.”
What this means to our household is that eminent domain will be used against us in order for the City to move forward with SEDA. The last sentence reads residential is not allowed in these areas.

Exactly what was done to homeowners in the path of the High Speed Rail, and look at them today, no land acquired yet for the rail, not one track laid, not one train running, not one person able to use the HSR and its currently under investigation as to where all the money went and way over budget that when and if it will be completed in our lifetime is the question of the day. The Federal agency, DOGE, is currently investigating HSR. What kind of research and development is being built, the PEIR fails to state but it shows this specific section of the area will be something similar to what we have near Food Max (Clovis & Kings Canyon). Take a look at the pictures I have attached as to that development. This is what will occur in SEDA.

Finding #3 “SEGA contributes to the decline of Fresno farmland.” (City of Fresno Minutes 2/10/11)
My first concern is that our local government, the City, commends itself on transparency, however, to locate the PEIR on its website is not the most obvious and direct access. That in and of itself is problematic and deceptive because as you know, not all of society is tech savvy. To locate, you click on the City’s website, then Planning and Development, (scroll all the way down) click on Long Range Planning (why the community would know to go there is beyond me), then Plans and Projects Under Review, then find Southeast Development Specific Plan (the document that Asadoorian stated we could not comment upon), then locate and click on Executive Summary which is a separate document that discusses the changes of the new recirculated PEIR, and then scroll a few links down then click on Recirculated EIR - February 2025. This is ridiculous!! The City is fully capable of having their IT staff place a link or a scrolling marquee on its homepage with a link that auto connects/opens to the Executive Summary and the PEIR. This attempt to make things difficult for the reader, adds to gamesmanship of today’s politician and government which leads the public to frustration and distrust all done in hopes that the public abandon the comment period; this tactic is no surprise to the vast majority of us.

In addition, the PEIR is over 800 pages, 800 pages! This is so overly burdensome and overly exaggerated (for comparison, the Fresno County Recommended 2024-25 posted online is 390 pages for 15 cities (PDF pages)). Furthermore, do you think it’s asking too much to again have your IT staff make this document so that the reader has the ability to click on the page number in the table of Page of 1 11
764
contents and be auto routed to that page, automatically. I believe the taxpayers and members of Fresno deserve that type of efficiency from our government that we the people elected. Don’t play hide the ball!
Please be aware that I spoke to Ms. Asadoorian by telephone and she confirmed that the Specific Plan is a document that will be used by the City to support their PEIR; however, the public is not allowed to comment on the Specific Plan, only the PEIR. I find this disingenuous. If the City is being allowed to submit the “specific plan” in support of their PEIR, the public should be allowed to comment upon in opposition to the PEIR. What law states we are not allowed to comment?

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS
We requested information in our previous opposition to the City’s EIR back in July 2023. The City failed to respond to our requests for information. It’s our understanding it wasn’t read because the city needed a do-over, how convenient. In preparing for our opposition to the February 2025 PEIR, we submitted PRA requests through the online portal. As of this date the City has requested an extension of time to respond to my requests: R074432-030725 extension requested to March 25th; R074041-022725 extension requested to March 24th; and R073948-02265 extension requested to March 24th. I find it disingenuous and intentional that the City is requesting an extension to a date of either on or after the public comment period for the PEIR. We did notify counsel’s office of this and nothing that we requested is overly burdensome on the City, it is all information that the City does have on-hand. The City has not provided a good faith effort in an attempt to provide us with this information as a member of the public; they unilaterally picked a date that was conveniently on or after the City’s public comment deadline. My requests were all submitted well in advance to the public comment period. This in turn led me to submit a PRA (R074705-031225 inquiring about the City’s remote/telework policy for City staff and employees).

In addition, I have submitted a PRA (R075085-031725) to the City/lead agency regarding eminent domain and the process and procedures. As you should know from our previous comments to the last EIR, the City staff at one of their public meetings stated that eminent domain would not be used but further failed to respond as to what would happen if we do not comply. This is the type of full transparency the public requests of you; do not hide behind your veil of ignorance and not fully discuss the ramifications of SEDA. We the people want to hear how you will abuse your power and take this land unjustifiably under the guise of a housing crisis. The remedy to your man-made crisis:
tell your developer donors to lower the pricing of the current homes developed, making homes more affordable. zillow.com states average rent is $1,600, how about finding a way to have property owners lower their rent price so people can afford to rent. There are other ways to go about this other than allowing government to take our Prime, Unique and Important ag land.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY
In response to our PRA request #R073922-022625, the SEDA Specific Plan (Page 90 of the Plan) states, under management, neighborhood gardens can be owned by a city, county, … non-profit etc. This clearly confirms it is a land grab by our government, to take from the current property owners and line the pockets of government and developers. It further states the City encourages neighborhood organizations to seek funding for the neighborhood garden. If the people cannot find housing on their own and require assistance from government (to find and pay), how will they find funding for a neighborhood garden? But this does say “organizations” not the community members.

Who will be the ones to gain financially in these transactions? There is no actual confirmation that these so-called gardens will actually occur. The Plan the City attached to this 2010 item produced, in response to my PRA ending in 022625, paints the picture of agriculture, all in an effort to convince and fool the public and readers, the Prime Ag land the government is taking, is not lost or forgotten.

What I find once again disingenuous is the City responded to this PRA wherein I requested documents from 2006-2008, however, we received their agenda item from 2010 and attachments thereto but the City also included the SEDA Specific Plan in said response (which said Plan fails to reflect a date) and that Plan was not the plan utilized back in 2010 or 2006-08 for that matter, it wasn’t changed from SEGA to SEDA till when 2014? The City offers no explanation in attaching the Specific Plan, since it lacks a date and seems to be the same Plan that is currently posted on your website but without a date Page of 2 11
765
it cannot be verified, we would have to guess where it falls in response to my PRA; is this the Plan that would have been utilized, referred to, relied upon back in 2010, 06-08? The City is merely sending documents to see what sticks in hopes of papering us to death and shut us up.

Furthermore, the Minutes I received, pursuant to the above-mentioned PRA request, dated Feb. 10, 2011, and years 2007, 2008 did not include their respective agenda items. Maybe the City Councilmembers should review the 2011 Minutes to see the chaos, lack of transparency, and problems that arose during that city council meeting. “President Brand introduced the item and clarified the intent of this action was not to kill SEGA.” Note: We the property owners say it should have been, then and now. But, the fact that he opens with that statement should give us all pause and ask why would he open with a statement as such … because there was and is reason to kill SEGA. President Brand refers to a fiscal crisis back then and like today, under a new federal administration, we are currently in a fiscal crisis: Federal funding is being frozen for waste and fraud.

Councilmember Borgeas then stated during this hearing in 2011 …. “Fresno cannot be afraid to admit when it makes mistakes.” We say and we believe have shown that SEGA/SEDA is a mistake now and then. On said minutes: Finding #3 “SEGA contributes to the decline of Fresno farmland.” True then and true today. That 2011 statement is confirmed in 2025 pursuant to the 2/7/25 PEIR (see Page 168, 169, 173 and throughout the PEIR. Per the 2/10/11 Minutes, President Brand states that SEGA was attractive looking at it from a distance. However, it seems from the minutes, as they took a deeper dive it became a totally different story. Finding #4 population projections used to justify SEGA are inconsistent with growth trends. Here we are today, 14 years later after the 2011 Minute order, and not much has been learned, gained, remedied, rectified, clarified, changed, or made obvious and transparent to the public or property owners as to why SEDA should move forward and more importantly at this time, we believe this further shows us today that SEDA should be killed (Brand’s word used). Basis for SEDA, original estimate annual population growth through 2050 1.5%; revised population growth estimate .18%; bigger than necessary for population growth 8.3X; 44,000 units planned; units actually needed 5,300; SEDA infrastructure cost estimate $0; potential infrastructure cost: $1,000,000,000+; City’s budget deficit 2025 $20,000,000; basis for infill city limits 8,200 vacant acres=134,000 units; how much sense does SEDA make: ZERO (0).

Most concerning from this read and worthy of further investigation today is Westernlund’s statement that there was a whole other side to this story and a number of things he wanted to speak to. As a tax paying citizen, registered voter, I’m perplexed as to why he would not speak candidly, openly, and honestly in said hearing, public forum, on that date. What was holding him back? Who do you represent in this capacity? If there was another side to the story, it should have been told, needs to be told, and yet no one stood up and thought it best for the We the People to call him out requesting that he speak now or the hearing cannot move forward or the development cannot move forward, that’s what you are elected to speak on behalf of the people.