Fresno City Council
December 18, 2025

1 2907 S. Maple Avenue
Fresno, California 93725-2208
Telephone: (559) 233-7161
Fax: (559) 233-8227
CONVEYANCE. COMMITMENT. CUSTOMER SERVICE.

March 21, 2025
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Development and Resource Management Department
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Comments submitted via email
to:
[email protected]
RE: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report of the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan for the City of Fresno
FID Facilities: Various
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) has reviewed the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDPEIR) of the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan for the City of Fresno (Project). We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject documents for the proposed project. We also appreciate the City of Fresno acknowledging receiving FID's August 25, 2023, comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and incorporating them into this RDPEIR.

Similar to the comments previously provided, Fl D's comments are as follows:

Impacted Facilities

1. FID has many canals within the Project Area as shown on the attached FID exhibit map. The facilities include: Fresno No. 3, Fancher No. 6, Mill No. 36, Briggs No. 7, Gould No. 97, Gray Colony No. 111, Eisen No. 11, Temperance No. 37, Hanson No. 129, East Branch No. 5, and Kutner Colony S. Br. No. 329.

FID's canals range from smaller diameter pipelines to large open canals. In most cases, the existing facilities will need to be upgraded to meet then-current urban standards, increase accessibility or relocated by the developer to accommodate new urban developments which will require new pipelines and new exclusive easements. FID will impose the same conditions on future projects as it would with any other project located within the common boundary of the City of Fresno and FID. FID will require that it review and approve all maps and plans which impact FID canals and easements.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS President RYAN JACOBSEN Vice-President JERRY PRIETO, JR. CHRISTOPHER WOOLF GEORGE PORTER GREGORY BEBERIAN General Manager BILL STRETCH FID

2 3
4 5
Ms. Pagoulatos
Re: Recirculated Program EIR
March 21, 2025

a. Small/Medium Canal Crossings - The majority of the proposed planned will impact existing pipelines and small open channel canals. FID will require all open channels and existing pipelines impacted by the project area development be upgraded to meet FID's then-current standards for urban, rural, industrial areas. The majority of FID's facilities that lie within the proposed Planning Area do not meet FID's urban specifications, including road or highway crossings. The majority of the existing pipelines are monolithic cast-in-place concrete pipe (CIPCP), low head/thin wall PVC, and non-reinforced mortar jointed concrete pipeline. These pipelines were designed for a rural environment and will fail if they are not replaced as development occurs.
b. Large Canal Crossing - There are large canals called Gould No. 97, Fresno No. 3, Mill No. 36, and Fancher No. 6 that will more than likely be too large to be contained within a pipeline. Development impacts to these facilities shall require designs that protect the canal's integrity for an urban setting including the need for access and full right-of-way widths for FID's operations and maintenance needs.

2. Fl D's facilities that are within the Planning Area carry irrigation water for FID users, recharge water for the City of Fresno, and flood waters during the winter months. In addition to FID's facilities, private facilities also traverse the Planned Area.

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

G:\Agencies\FresnoCity\EIR\Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan\SEDA Draft EIR-20250207\Comments\Recirculated PEIRSEDA-20250321-FINAL.docx FID

6 7
Ms. Pagoulatos
Re: Recirculated Program EIR
March 21, 2025

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

5. Trail - It is FID's understanding that many trails are master-planned within the Southeast Development Area. Southeast Development Area Specific Plan area is not considered as existing development under the Master Trail Agreement (MTA) between the City of Fresno and Fl □ and as such will be treated as a "New Growth Area". As with other new developments with trails along the canals, Fl □ will not allow the trail to encroach or overlap Fl D's canal easement unless allowed by Fl □ and an agreement is in place for this purpose. The following requirements are intended for trail projects adjacent to FID-owned properties and rights-of-ways for open canals:
a. Fl □ will not allow the trail easement to be in common use with FID-owned property or easements.
b. Fl □ requires all trail improvements be placed outside of FID-owned properties and easements.
c. Fl □ will not allow any portion of a tree canopy to encroach within its properties or easements.
d. Fl D's canals will not accept any drainage from the trail or the canal bank. e. Fl □ may require some improvements be made to the canal depending on the existing canal condition, the proposed trail, and the adjacent development.
f. City parks that are adjacent to open canals are treated the same as trails, therefore the same requirements shall apply.

G:\Agencies\FresnoCity\EIR\Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan\SEDA Draft EIR-20250207\Comments\Recirculated PEIRSEDA-20250321-FINAL.docx FID

8 9
11 10
Ms. Pagoulatos
Re: Recirculated Program EIR
March 21, 2025

Water Supply Impact

1. The document acknowledges that the maximum percentage of FID surface water supply that the City can obtain is 29 percent under the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Fresno and FID. The City's service area is expected to surpass 29 percent of Fl D's service area between 2025 and 2030. If the City of Fresno exceeds 29 percent prior to full development within SEDA, the document must consider how to address future development based on water consumption beyond the limits of the agreement and evaluate the potential impacts.

2. The document must consider whether the City's Water Master Plan that is currently being updated may impact the developments within the Planning Area.

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

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

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

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

6. The potential for increase in water consumption by the project will result in additional groundwater overdraft. There is a significant cone of depression beneath the City of Fresno. FID is concerned that the increased water demand due to a change in land use may have a significant impact to the groundwater quantity and/or quality underneath the City of Fresno, FID and the Kings Groundwater Sub-basin. The "demand" side of water consumed needs to be evaluated or scrutinized as much as the "supply" side of the water supply. Many of the areas are historically native, and/or rural residential with minimal to no water use. Under current circumstances the project area is experiencing a G:\Agencies\FresnoCity\EIR\Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan\SEDA Draft EIR-20250207\Comments\Recirculated PEIRSEDA-20250321-FINAL.docx FID

11 CONT
12 13
15 14
Ms. Pagoulatos
Re: Recirculated Program EIR
March 21, 2025

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

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

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

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS:

Hydrology and Water Quality

1. The Southeast Development Area Specific Plan requires routing of stormwater through several conveyance facilities through the Plan Area. FMFCD will need to update its Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan for the Plan Area.

FMFCD will be required to convey discharges to FID's larger canals where capacity constraints are not an issue. The City of Fresno will need to consider this with its Mitigation Measures Policy MM HYD-3e and the design of stormwater detention basins and expanded capacity for stormwater.

Resource Conservation and Resilience Element

1. Policy RC-6-I Natural Recharge. While FID appreciates the support of the City to remove unnecessary concrete from its existing canals, FID encourages a policy revision to ensure alignment with FID policies, procedures and practices, preventing any conflicts that could impact implementation. FID utilizes concrete lining for many reasons and purposes; therefore a coordinated approach will help achieve the best outcome for all parties.

2. The City of Fresno should consider acquiring property and constructing Cityowned recharge basins to increase groundwater recharge in the Plan Area or look at other drainage facilities which might better align with the Natural Recharge Policy than the use of FID facilities.

G:\Agencies\FresnoCity\EIR\Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan\SEDA Draft EIR-20250207\Comments\Recirculated PEIRSEDA-20250321-FINAL.docx FID

16 17
Ms. Pagoulatos
Re: Recirculated Program EIR
March 21, 2025

Open Space, Schools, and Public Facilities

1. Policy OS-1.1 Joint Use of Open Spaces. While FID appreciates the support of the City to establish a joint use agreement to provide access to areas adjacent to Canals and Creeks, however, as previously stated, the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan area is considered a "New Growth Area" and is not covered under the existing MTA for trails atop FID's canal banks. All Trails proposed within the Plan area shall be located outside FID's drive banks, maintenance roads, and points of access.

2. The City of Fresno will also need to take into consideration Trails over FID Pipelines and Easements. City of Fresno and FID joint-use agreements, common-use agreements or encroachment agreements must not restrict or impair FID's ability to maintain and operate its facilities unless all impacts can be fully mitigated.

Thank you for making available to us the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan for our review and allowing us the opportunity to provide comments. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject RDPEIR. While it is difficult to envision all of the potential impacts without all of the improvement details and impact report, we have attempted to provide you with as much information as possible. We reserve the right to provide additional comments as the Plan Area develops and/or when more detailed information becomes available. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me Laurence Kimura at (559) 233-7161 extension 7103 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Laurence Kimura, P .E.

Chief Engineer
Exhibit
G:\Agencies\FresnoCity\EIR\Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan\SEDA Draft EIR-20250207\Comments\Recirculated PEIRSEDA-20250321-FINAL.docx .~~c
~IIIIF 11111111111 l
mif
~ CA 180 :pz 9' 0
~1111111111111111111111
I I fi +=::!11
=
IIIIF
1111~
7 J_j -m I 1'" l-- " 9
O ENTRAL _ _ I ~I

FRESNO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
= FIDCanal - - FID Pipeline
c:::; .::::::; Private Pipeline
cl==t= Abandoned Canal * * Abandoned Pipeline
~ Stream Group
= Other-Creek\River
= = Other-Pipeline
::!IIIIW.. =ff II II rr' FID Boundary
-+- Railroad
- Streets & Hwys
Parcel
IZS2J FMFCD Acquired Basins
IZS2J FMFCD Proposed Basins
... t
·-
~
d i ~
- 7 , - 7

II II II
II =;1 =fl
91 ,1
=
EJ,.MONT
""""""""""'""''""""""'""""""""""""""""'"""'"''"""""'T~
~II
This map was produced by the Fresno Irrigation District and is provided for reference and informational purposes only and is noc intended to show map scale accuracy or all indusive map features, nor for legal purposes.

FID makes no statements regarding the accuracy of this map as the features shown are in their approximate location. Please contact the FID Engineering Dept. at (559) 233-7161 for further information on FID facilities.

Spatial Reference:

Name: NAO 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404
...J
w
J:
f11,j
OJ
0 0.5
I I
Miles
ngineering\Cffy of Fresno .aprx

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-85
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Fresno Irrigation District (FID)
Response to FID-1
The comment is noted. As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.5.2, Responsible and Trustee Agencies of the Draft PEIR and in the NOP, the Recirculated Draft PEIR recognized that FID is a Responsible Agency for the purposes of CEQA review and has discretionary approval over part of the proposed project. The proposed project is a policy-level document and does not propose or contemplate any specific development. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the grading plan review process for future individual projects in the Plan Area would identify any plan to alter the course of any creek, stream, or irrigation canal, and the City would require additional other reviews, permits, and agreements with agencies including, but not limited to, FID. Possible permits and agreements include the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 and 403 permits, Endangered Species or Habitat Plan, Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Irrigation Canal Encroachment permit. Future development would be required to make agreements prior to the issuance of grading permits. No further response is required.

Response to FID-2
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to FID-1. Future development under the proposed project that would impact small or medium canal crossings in the Plan Area would be required to meet FID’s current standards at the time the project is proposed, including the requirements specified in comment FID-3 and including, but not limited to, the Master Trails Agreement recently executed between the City and FID, if it is in place at the time of site-specific project approval. No further response is required.

Response to FID-3
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to FID-1. Future development under the proposed project that would impact large canal crossings in the Plan Area would be required to meet FID’s current standards at the time the project is proposed, including the requirements specified in comment FID-3. No further response is required.

Response to FID-4
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

Response to FID-5
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to FID-1. Future development under the proposed project that would impact canal access in the Plan Area would be required to meet FID’s current standards and requirements at the time the project is proposed, including the requirements specified in comment FID-6 and including, but not limited to, the Master Trails Agreement recently executed between the City and FID, if it is in place at the time of site-specific project approval. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-86 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to FID-6
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to FID-1. Future development under the proposed project that would impact canal banks in the Plan Area would be required to meet FID’s current standards and requirements at the time the project is proposed, including the requirements specified in comment FID-7. No further response is required.

Response to FID-7
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to FID-1. Future development under the proposed project that propose trails that would impact FID facilities in the Plan Area would be required to meet FID’s current standards and requirements at the time the project is proposed, including the requirements specified in comment FID-8. No further response is required.

Response to FID-8
This comment is noted. As discussed in Section 3.18, Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft PEIR, as well as the Water Technical Study prepared for the proposed project in Appendix F, the City’s Water Division manages and operates the City’s water system and provides water to areas included within the City’s SOI, which includes the entirety of the Plan Area. The City’s water supply includes groundwater, surface water, and reclaimed water. The base water demand for all land uses in the Plan Area was identified for both the General Plan and the Specific Plan conditions. The total General Plan base water demand was identified as 21,843 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 19.50 million gallons per day (mgd); the Specific Plan base water demand was identified as 19.83 mgd, resulting in an increase in water demand of approximately 0.33 mgd (370 AFY), or 1.7 percent. An increase of 1.7 percent in water demand for the Specific Plan Area above the General Plan condition could result in a potentially significant impact to water supply; however, compliance with regulatory requirements, implementation of policies contained in the proposed Specific Plan, implementation of identified mitigation measures in the Draft PEIR, and construction of proposed water supply and distribution system infrastructure would reduce potential water supply impacts to less than significant.

The normal water year supply projected for the City of Fresno in 2035 is 346,610 AF, and total projected demand is 222,310 AF. All water supply scenarios for dry years for 2035 would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in water demand for the Specific Plan Area of 370 AFY assuming groundwater characteristics are not altered due to climatic events or regulatory influences from Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was completed for the proposed project and is included in Appendix I. As shown in the WSA, the total projected water supplies for the proposed project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection would be sufficient to accommodate the projected water demand associated with the proposed project in addition to existing and planned future uses. As shown in Table 7.1 of the WSA, demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2045. The projected increase in water demand for the proposed project is 0.33 mgd, or approximately 370 AFY. As shown in the WSA, the increase in water demand due to the proposed project would not exceed the projected available water supplies for the normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. See the WSA for additional information and further analysis.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-87
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The proposed project would be required to implement project-specific MM UTIL-1a and MM UTIL1b, which require the City to evaluate the water conveyance system and water supply at the time that discretionary projects are submitted for approval by the City, and ensure that the City shall not approve development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The City shall evaluate proposed water capacity and conveyance improvements provided in the City of Fresno’s Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan (City Metro Plan) and General Plan for potential environmental impacts and shall construct such improvements prior to exceedance of capacity to accommodate full buildout of the Specific Plan.

Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to FID-9
The comment is noted. The Metro Plan was prepared to document the existing conditions of the City’s water system and facilitate future water resources decisions and facilities improvements. The City is currently in the process of updating the Metro Plan. Future development under the proposed project would be required to be evaluated against the applicable Metro Plan and the City’s General Plan at the time a development application is received to assess environmental impacts.

Additionally, the analysis contained in the Recirculated Draft PEIR is limited to impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the evaluation of the benefits of previously constructed projects under the Metro Plan is not included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR because they are not environmental impacts of the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response to FID-10
The comment is noted. As discussed in Section 3.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the Water Technical Study prepared for the proposed project in Appendix F, the increase in water demand for the Specific Plan Area would be 1.7 percent greater from the demand projected in the General Plan. Thus, the impacts to water supply could be potentially significant. However, upon compliance with regulatory requirements, proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, proposed mitigation measures, and construction of proposed water supply and distribution system infrastructure, the impact would be reduced to less than significant.

Specifically, the following mitigation measures would contribute to a reduction in water demand from the implementation of the Specific Plan:
• MM UTIL-2a requires the City to develop and implement water conservation measures to reduce the per capita water use, and continue to refine and implement water saving and conservation standards for new developments approved under the Specific Plan; • MM UTIL-2b requires the City to continue to implement the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program, as may be updated, and periodically update restrictions on water uses, City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-88 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx and evaluate the feasibility of the conservation target identified as part of the Fresno General Plan; and
• MM UTIL-2c requires the City to refine landscape water conservation standards that will apply to new development installed landscapes, building on the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and other State regulations.

The City must complete the standards described in the above mitigation prior to approving any new project applications for future development in the Plan Area that require a discretionary approval and confirm that each project has incorporated any resulting standards prior to issuing approval.

Additionally, a WSA has been completed for the proposed project and is included in Appendix I. As shown in the WSA, the total projected water supplies for the proposed project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project in addition to existing and planned future uses. As shown in Table 7.1 of the WSA, demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2045. The projected increase in water demand for the proposed project is 0.33 mgd, or approximately 370 AFY. As shown in the WSA, the increase in water demand due to the proposed project would not exceed the projected available water supplies for the normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. See the WSA for additional information and further analysis.

The proposed project would also be required to implement project-specific MM UTIL-1a and MM UTIL-1b, which require the City to evaluate the water conveyance system and water supply at the time that discretionary projects are submitted for approval by the City and ensure that the City shall not approve development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The City shall evaluate proposed water capacity and conveyance improvements provided in the City Metro Plan and General Plan for potential environmental impacts and shall construct such improvements prior to exceedance of capacity to accommodate full buildout of the Specific Plan.

Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan includes objectives and policies related to water conservation efforts, such as Policy RC-1.1, Objective RC-2, Policy RC-2.2, Objective RC-3, Policy RC3.1, Policy RC-3.2, Policy RC-3.3, and Policy RC-3.4, which support water conservation efforts, policies, and programs. Specifically, Policy RC-1.1 and Policy RC-3.1 emphasize that the proposed project’s land use plan would prioritize compact, high-density development, which helps to conserve water resources. Low-density, large-lot development presents the compound problem of high-water demand and high infrastructure costs and in addition, landscaping accounts for about 50 percent of average household water use. Since irrigation demand relates directly to lot size, compact neighborhoods of small-lot single-family and multi-family homes use significantly less water.

Furthermore, compact development requires significantly less pipe, reducing the need for additional infrastructure. Please refer to the Specific Plan for more information regarding the relationship between the proposed project’s land use plan and water demand. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-89
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to FID-11
The comment is noted. As previously stated in Section 3.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the Water Technical Study prepared for the proposed project in Appendix F, the increase in water demand for the Specific Plan Area is estimated to be 1.7 percent greater than the demand projected in the General Plan. Thus, the impacts to water supply could be potentially significant. However, upon compliance with regulatory requirements, proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, proposed mitigation measures, and construction of proposed water supply and distribution system infrastructure, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. Please see the mitigation measures included in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 3.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR. A WSA prepared for the proposed project demonstrates that the increase in water demand due to the proposed project would not exceed the projected available water supplies for the normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, which included groundwater. Proposed infrastructure for the project area includes recharge facilities, recharge inter-ties with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) basins, and expansions of Surface Water Treatment Facilities (SWTFs) as described in the WSA and Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

New municipal groundwater wells are proposed as master planned improvements which would serve the proposed project; however, the Recirculated Draft PEIR found that with mitigation incorporated, impacts to water supply, including groundwater, would be less than significant. No further response is required.

Response to FID-12
The comment is noted. Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, found that the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) could reach sustainability by 2040 if groundwater flows from within the North Kings GSA to neighboring GSAs and basins are reduced and projects are developed to mitigate present and future projected impacts. Additional projects identified by member agencies and those included in the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) may be implemented in the future depending on cost. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of projects and management actions included in the North Kings GSP. Therefore, the Recirculated Draft PEIR determined that impacts related to the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Proposed infrastructure for the project area includes recharge facilities, recharge inter-ties with FMFCD basins, and expansions of SWTFs as described in the WSA and Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement MM HYD-2a and MM HYD-2b, which require the City to implement water conservation measures and the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality.

Additionally, the City participates in intentional recharge via their groundwater recharge program, and, as discussed in the WSA prepared for the proposed project, expansion of recharge programs is being developed as part of the Metro Plan update. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-90 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to FID-13
This comment is noted. As specified in MM HYD-3e, the City would be required to support the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) in updating the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan to analyze the impacts to existing and planned retention basins within the Plan Area to determine remedial measures required to reduce the impact on retention basin capacity to less than significant prior to approving specific development. In response to this comment, this mitigation measure and associated analysis has been modified to include coordination with FID.

These clarifying revisions are included in Section 4, Errata, in the Final EIR. No further response is required.

Response to FID-14
This comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required. Please refer to Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR, and Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final PEIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. These master responses provide additional information on the scope of CEQA, including any non-CEQA issues, and respond to comments that express general opposition to or disapproval of the proposed project or the environmental analysis. Master Responses 1 and 2 further detail why comments on Specific Plan policies are not further addressed in the Final PEIR. No further response is required.

Response to FID-15
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required. Please refer to Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. Master Response 1 provides additional information on the scope of CEQA and any non-CEQA issues not further discussed in the Final PEIR.

Response to FID-16
This comment is noted. Please refer to Response to FID-14. No further response is required.

Response to FID-17
This comment is noted. Please refer to Response to FID-15. No further response is required.

FMFCD

1 2
I! Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Capturing Stormwater since 1956
March 24, 2025
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Rm. 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
File 310. "BG", "BL", "BM",
"BS", "CS", "DS", "DV"
410.214
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Comments on the Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project, Fresno, California Adopted Drainage Areas "BG", "BL", "BM", "BS", "CS", "DS", "DV" and Proposed Drainage Areas "DT", "DU", "DW", "DX", "DY", "DZ" The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has reviewed the adopted and proposed Master Plan storm drainage systems for the areas located within the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project (SEDA Plan). The adopted Master Plan drainage systems were designed using the previously adopted General Plan land uses and the proposed Master Plan drainage systems are based on the SEDA Plan land uses as shown on Exhibits 1-1 and 2-2 of the Recirculated DPEIR. FMFCD shall be notified of any revisions to the SEDA Plan Proposed Land Use as changes may effect the existing and proposed Master Plan drainage systems.

Drainage fees shall be collected pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance prior to approval of final maps and/or issuance of building permits at the rates in effect at the time of such approval.

Instances when the proposed density is reduced and the District's Master Plan facilities have been constructed will be subject to the higher rate anticipated to be collected when the facilities were installed. Should land use densities of existing areas be increased, the property would be subject to drainage fees commensurate to the higher density and paid to offset the effects of the increased land use. Please contact the District for a final fee obligation prior to issuance of any construction permits.
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx 5469 E. Olive Avenue• Fresno, CA 93727 • (559) 456-3292 • FAX (559) 456-3194 www.fresnofloodcontrol.org
FMFCD

3 5
4 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
Page2
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. k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx FMFCD

5 CONT
7 6
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
Page3
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 fmal 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.
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx FMFCD

8 9
13 10
12 11
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
Page4
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.
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx FMFCD

14 15
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
Pages
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.
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx FMFCD

15 CONT
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
Page6

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 comer of Clinton and Leonard A venues, 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 De Wolf 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 A venues. The existing fence for the Redbank Creek Detention Basin is located at the existing right-of-way 30 feet west of De Wolf 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 A venue 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.

Master Plan Special Projects Manager
DW/lrl
Attachment(s)
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\dpeir recirculated seda specific plan(dw).docx FMFCD

15 CONT
BV

CLINTON AVE
pp
repared by: rebeccal
BS

C FMFCD BOUNDARY
c::J CITY OF FRESNO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
0 DRAINAGE AREA

CJ CITY LIMITS
IZ] SOUTHEAST DEVELOPMENT AREA

CJ FMFCD ANNEXATION AREA
:~~ ~~O~\A.ccounti Wa \SoutheastDevelo ment.mxd
BASINS
- EXISTING

CJ PROPOSED

CJ PROPOSED SEDA
w
;il:

LL
...J
0 ~ 0

NORTH AVE
0 Q'.
<(
z
0 w
...J
HWY

BUTLER AVE
AVE
NOTE· THIS MAP 1S satEMATIC.

DJ.STAftct:s AMOUNT OF CRt:DIT.t8U:

FACn.I'TllES; AND LOCAnON OF INLET
IOUNDAIUD ARE APPRDXIMAff.

FRESNO METROPOLITAN

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
EXHIBIT NO. I
1 "= 4300' ■
FMFCD

15 CONT
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR
RC-9-c, MM AG-1 states that project proponents may compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland by complying with the adopted Farmland Preservation Program.

However, while implementation of MM AG-1 would reduce the degree of potential impacts associated with future development under the Specific Plan, the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses would still occur. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of available mitigation.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

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

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

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

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.

FMFCD has identified one (1)
proposed basin site located on
parcels identified within
Williamson Act Contract.

Conflict with Existing Zoning or Williamson Act Contract Impact AG-2: The proposed project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.

The Plan Area does not contain land designated for agricultural use by the General Plan. However, as shown in Exhibit 3.2-2, there are parcels within the Plan Area that are currently under Williamson Act Contracts. As provided in Exhibit 2-2, the Specific Plan would designate the majority of land within the Plan Area that is under Williamson Act Contract for nonagricultural land uses (such as residential and regional and community center uses). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could conflict with existing Williamson Act Contracts because non-agricultural uses would be

3.2-16 FirstCarban Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037 /EIR/1 - Recirwlated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-02 Ag Resources.docx FMFCD

15 CONT
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. City of Fresno (2019). LSA FIRSTCARBON a 4,600
SOLUTIONS™ W
2,300
31680037 • 12/2024 I 3.2-2_WA_contract_parcels.mxd
0 4,600
Feet
Exhibit 3.2-2
Williamson Act Contract Parcels

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO SOUTHEAST DEVELOPMENT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FMFCD

15 CONT
Energy
City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Areo Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR
Policy E0-3.2 Coordination with California State University, Fresno. Build on partnerships with California State University, Fresno to develop programs and projects to attract funding for research and development in the following areas:

A. Agricultural technology
B. Clean energy technology
C. Green building technology
D. Value-added manufacturing technology
E. Water and wastewater technology
F. City and Regional Planning
Objective E0-5 Expand the economic base and fiscal sustainability of the City by supporting high sales, property values, and employment intensity per acre for economic development in key locations throughout the Southeast Development Area.

Policy E0-5.4 Employment in Open Space Network. Develop the open space network to support employment opportunities.
• Support small-scale farms in rural cluster areas.
• Support agricultural research in open space areas.
• Support the development of clean energy systems within the open space • ).

F. Remove flood basins. FMFCD opposes including flood basins in this policy F because they lack sufficient surface area to support a clean energy system.

California Energy Code, 2019 Edition, is adopted by the City of Fresno and incorporated into the Code and shall be referred to as the Fresno Energy Code.

SEC. 11-109 (California Green Building Standards) states that the California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition, which may be referred to in the Code as CALGreen, is adopted by the City of Fresno and incorporated into the Code and shall be referred to as the Fresno CALGreen Code.

Therefore, future developments within the Plan Area would be required to comply with the Fresno Energy Code and Fresno CALGreen Code.

3.6.4 - Methodology
A discussion of the proposed project's energy use is presented below. The proposed project's anticipated energy use was estimated, including natural gas, electricity, and fuel consumption (for vehicles traveling to and from the project), for project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as Appendix E of this Recirculated Draft PEIR analysis.

3.6.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The Lead Agency utilizes the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist as thresholds to determine whether impacts related to energy

3.6-16 FirstCarban Solutions https://adecinnoviltions.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIP/l - Recirwlated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-06 Energy.docx FMFCD

15 CONT
City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Areo Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR Hydrology and Water Qual/ty Objective RC-4 Ensure that there will be no adverse effects on regional groundwater levels by minimizing groundwater extraction and replenishing groundwater used to serve the Southeast Development Area. Maximize multiple uses of open space by encouraging new recharge facilities to be accessible to the public.

Policy RC-4.1 Minimizing Groundwater Extraction. Use available surface water supplies to meet as much of the SEDA's potable water demand as possible, limiting groundwater extraction to extreme periods. The pending SEDA Infrastructure Financing Plan shall address this issue in detail.

Policy RC-4.2 Replacement of Extracted Groundwater. The North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (approved in 2019) illustrates the decrease in groundwater levels in the region as a result of pumping. All groundwater drawn to serve development in the SEDA shall be replaced with at least an equal volume via infiltration, pumping, or other means. Recharge need not necessarily occur the same year as withdrawals, however, over time, total recharge must at least match total withdrawals. Recharge and withdrawals need not occur within the same groundwater aquifer but must be within the same groundwater basin. The pending SEDA Infrastructure Financing Plan shall address this issue in detail.

Policy RC-4.3 Maximizing Groundwater Recharge. Establish integrated systems within the SEDA open space network to maximize recharge using stormwater, treated wastewater, and excess surface water supplies. Facilitate increased porosity and stormwater recharge through the use of porous conveyance methods such as bioswales, naturalized channels, and layered basins. Recharge and related systems shall be addressed in the SEDA Infrastructure Financing Plan.
rks and multiuse trails by
establishing joint-use agreements with Fresno M tropolitan Flood Control District to allow access to storm drainage/FeE!=taiff!e- basins or recreational use, when appropriate (see the Open Space, Schoo sand ublic Facilities Chapter).

FMFCD would like to clarify that this policy does not apply to recreational use within FMFCD recharge basin sites. FMFCD suggests removal of the words groundwater recharge areas and recharge.
ater management practices that minimize
Lake Watershed .

FirstCarbon Solutions
• Compact Development: Limit impervious cover by clustering new, higher density development within the SEDA, directing growth away from undeveloped portions of the watershed.
- Compact development. Reduce the building footprint and overall impervious surface in order to minimize lot coverage on a per unit basis. - Parking demand management. Reduce the demand for parking stalls to lower the amount of impervious surface (and environmental impacts).

3.10-31 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Dowments/Publiciltions/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/1 - Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-10 Hydrology.doe! FMFCD

15 CONT
Hydrology and Water Quol/ty
City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR
MM HYD-3b
MM HYD-3c
MM HYD-3d
MM HYD-3e
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.

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.

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.

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 developme \1=1-ILU.ll::L.'-"--"WUJ.11..IJ.L.LW=--c.u::.:,J..U.J...LlLIJt:.U.LWJuw..dJ.L..J:.LL.I.Ul.'--...,.,........,,...------,I control District (FMFCD) in upda Remove ~aragraph related t? ~mergency relief pu~p.

Master Plan to analyze the i FMFCD disposal syste!'ls w1thm_ the SE~A _Plan w_1II within the Plan Area to de rmi adhere to FMFCD Basm Operations Guideline policy (see impact on retention bas· capac ... artt-a_c_h_e_d __ )_. - ......... --~--------------~• would include:
steFA'lwater te a Elisf:1esal faeilit',' fer euistiAg reteAtieA laasiAs.

3.10-48 FirstCorbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Dowments/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/1 - Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-10 Hydrology.doe! FMFCD

15 CONT
City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Areo Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR Hydrology and Water Qual/ty MM HYD-3f
- ~eq1,1iFe l'le¥elopmeAts tl:iat iAcFease Fil Roff ¥ol1,1me to iAstall, operate, aAl'l maiAtaiA bow Impact De,•elopmeAt (blDl meas1,1Fes to Fel'l1,1ce nrnoff 11olume to tl:uJ r::, 1noft uol'-IAUI tl:lat ,uill not &xcood tl:lo capacitv of the oxi,tins r::otontign basills
. f . paragraph related to LID measures. LID's
capacity o ex1 • ·t · / · t b c·t require morn onng main enance y I y or (stormwater qu owner and are contrary to FMFCD requirements Plan Area (Plan A sites such that there is positive drainage to the • Prior to approval o
Control District (FMFCD) in updating the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan to deter,.,,....._.....__ ____ ...... ...._ ........ _ ..,__....._ ....... ____ .....__ ...... __ ....._ ___ __, . Remove paragraph related to LID measures. LID's
and de~ermin~ reme typically require monitoring/maintenance by City or detention basin capa property owner and are contrary to FMFCD requirements to grade sites such that there is positive drainage to the low w street.

MFCD Boar
ention basin to increase residence time by
- Req1:1iFe ele¥elopmeAts tllat iAcFease Fil Roff ·,ol1,1me to iAstall, opeFate, aAl'l Fllililltilill Low IFllpilct D1wl!lopF118Qt (LID) m9asur9s to r8duc8 p8ak rnAoff rat85 aAd rnAoff 11olume to tl:ie rnAoff rates aAl'l ¥ol1,1mes tl:iat will Rot e1<ceel'l tile weiF oyeFflow Fates of tile ei<istiAg 1:1FbaA eleteAtieA basins.

MM H¥E> 3g Tile City sllall implemeAt tile follewiAg meas1:1Fes te Feel1:1ce tile impacts eA the capacity of existiAg or plaAA@d stoFm dFaiAage MasteF PlaA p1,1mp l'lisposal systems within the Fresoo Soutl:i8iil&t CQ>18lopmeAt .0.Fea Specific Pia A AFea (Pia A Afea) to le55 tl:iaA sigAificaAt:
• Prior to apprnuiill of d9u9lopFll8At proj8cts, support tl:ie ~resAo MetFopolitaA i;;1ool'l Colltrol Cistrict (~M~CD) iA 1,1pl'latiAg tile StoFm DFaiAage aAel Fleeel CeAtFel Mastl!r Plilll to dliltlHFllille the extellt alld degree to which the capacity ot the exi,tillg pump S';stem will be exceeded.
• Beq11ice oew developrneots to illstall, oplilriltl!, aAd maiAtaiA ~Mi;;CD desigA staAdard OR sit8 d8t8AtioA facilitil!s to rl!duc8 p8ak stormwat9r ruAoff rat85 to e1tistiAg plaAAed peak rnAotf rates
Level of Significance After Mitigation Remove MM HYD-3g. FMFCD disposal systems within the SEDA
Plan will adhere to FMFCD Basin
Operations Guideline policy (see
attached).

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

FirstCarban Solutions 3.10-49 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Dowments/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/1 - Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-10 Hydrology.doo FMFCD

15 CONT
City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Areo Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR Hydrology and Water Qual/ty and 2020. The City is a member of the North Kings GSA; continued participation and compliance with the North Kings GSP and continued development of water conservation policies/programs and water supply infrastructure will reduce the cumulative impacts related to hydrology. This is incorporated as MM HYD-2 and will reduce impacts to a less than significant level with mitigations incorporated.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Buildout of the proposed project would increase the amount of paved impervious surfaces within the Plan Area. This increase in impervious surfaces would increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes over those that occur from development under the General Plan. This increase in runoff would have the potential to increase the amount of polluted runoff. However, as described above, additional stormwater detention basins and expanded capacity for stormwater is planned throughout the Plan Area. This is required by MM HYD-3a, MM HYD-3b, and MM HYD-3c.

Furthermore, all development projects within the Fresno-Clovis area would be required to comply with the MS4 Permit that requires the implementation of water quality and watershed protection measures. Compliance with the MS4 Permit would reduce potential impacts from cumulative projects to less than significant. Since the development under the proposed Specific Plan would also need to comply with the MS4 Permit and includes specific policies of the proposed Specific Plan and the approved City General Plan, the proposed project's contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated.

Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Cumulative Mitigation Measures
Implement MM UTIL-2a, MM UTIL-2b, MM UTIL-2c, MM HYD-2a, MM HYD-2b, MM HYD-2c, MM HYD-2d, MM HYD-2e, MM HYD-3a, MM HYD-3b, MM HYD-3c, MM HYD-3d, MM HYD-3e, MM HYD3f, aod MM HYD-3g<- -----, Remove MM HYD-3g.

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

FirstCarban Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Dowments/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/1 - Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sec03-10 Hydrology.doo 3.10-S3 FMFCD

15 CONT

PROPOSED MAJOR STREET CIRCULATION
Southeast Development Area
Based on recorded documents which
indicate Clinton Avenue was not
= Freeway :;;c;;!'::,~~'.:',~i,,5;,~~:::~ dedicated as road right of way in this ,---==~Ex='--"re=ss=w=a,__ ____ -----,....,.....,.,-;:1-....,.~--rr- T'TT'l""1!"rrlarea, FMFCD requests Clinton Avenue not be shown as an existing
or as future roadway on this plan.
■■■■■1 Scenic Expressway
••• Super Arterial
---• Arterial
........... Scenic Arterial
- Scenic Drive
--Collector
......... Scenic Collector
D Southeast Development Area
..
•• ■ • Fresno Sphere of Influence
-- Major & Local Roads
-+-+ Railroads
Source: City of Fresno
FIRSTCARBON a
SOLUTIONS™ W
31680037 • 12/2024 I 3.17-l_proposed_major_st_circ_network.cdr u..
...J
~ w
□

BELMONT

KINGS CANYONJ
JENSEN
NORTH
Exhibit 3.17-1
Proposed Major Street Circulation Network

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO SOUTHEAST DEVELOPMENT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FMFCD Page 16 of 1915 CONT City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Pion Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR -- Impacts Mitigation Measures rates t~at w;~·11 n Correct to: -3e collection s e j existing stormwater MM HYD-31?.rhe 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 updating the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan to analyze the impacts to existing and planned retention basins within the Plan Area to determine remedial measures required to reduce the impact on retention basin capacity to less than significant. 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. / - ·- ~-- -"' .LI..- -- ~-"' - ,. - , ./ .-- ... ·- - - ---•• UIIU 111\..., U~J/ 11\. ... u , •-•- ·-·
·
-
- r • • ·J r..,, • • g • J , .. _ , .. .................. - fete11tio11 basil 1s .
- Re11t1ire ae, elopment, th11t i11e1 e11,e 11111off ,ol11111e to i11stall, ope, ate, and 111ai11tai11 tow h11pact Oevelop111e11t (tlD) r11eas:ares to rellw6e FWReff Yelwme te Hie rt1 neff , olt1H1e tl,11t ,viii 11ot exceed tl1e eapaeit, ehlle eMistiRg reteRtieR llasiRs.

MM HYD-3f: The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan urban detention (stormwater quality) 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 updating the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan to determine the impacts to the urban detention weir overflow rates and determine remedial measures required to reduce the impact on the detention basin capacity to less than significant. Remedial measures would include:

FlrstCorbon Solutions https://adednnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PubllcationSSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/ 1- Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sedl0---03 EMecSummary.docx Executive Summary
--
Level of Significance After Mitigation
v- Remove paragraph
per FMFCD
comments, page

3.10-48
ES-41
FMFCD Page 17 of 1915 CONT City of Fresno-Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Pion Project Recirculated Draft Program EIR Executive Summary Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Modify overflow weir to maintain the suspended solids removal rates adopted by the FMFCD Board of Directors. R h h · f h b d • b . . .d emove paragrap Increase t e size o t e ur an etentIon asm to increase resI ence per FMFCD time by purchasing more land. Requi1 e develop11 ,e, ,t3 ti ,at i11c1 ea3e , o, ,off volu111e to i1 ,3t~ --------,__ comments, page _ -' _ , ~~-,- 0 ,;-: . 00 , : - - __ ·- I •:;;,, -- ~::: -3_._1_0_-4_8 ______ uoh1111e, tl:iat will Rot exceed tl:ie weir ouerflow ~ e, oftl:ie exi,tiR8 WFbaR deteRtiOR basiRS MM 11¥9 Jg. The Eit1 shall iffipleffieAt the follo'NiAg ffieas1:1Fes to ml1:1ee Remove MM tile impaets OR tile eapaeity of enistiAg or plaAAed storffi draiAage Master HYD-3g per PlaR p1:1mp disposal wstems 111itlliR tile FrnsRo Sowtl:ieast Ceuelop11111Rt 4r11;i V---- FMFCD comments r- ,,, n, __ • -- /Dl~n • - ,\ +n ·- ·'- - -': -"' ·--•• page 3.10-49 > • Pfier te opprovel of d~v~lop111~11t pi ejects, suppo1 t tlie f1 es110 M11tropolitaR Flood CoRtrol District (FM FCC) iR 11pdatiR8 tl:ie StorR1 9raiAage aAd Flood EoAtrol Master PleA to determine tl,e exteI1t 1111d d11aree to wlliell tile eapaeity ofthe exi3ti11g puI11p sy5tei11 will be eneeeded. • Reqt:tire neuu develop111e11t3 to i113tall, opeI ate, and 111ai11tai11 FMFCE> de:1ig11 Jte11do1d 011 Jite eiete11tio11 feeiliticJ to redtJec J'CBlc ltor111nete1 r, moff r;ites to existiRI! plaRR@d peal1 r1:1Ao# retes. • l2rouid11 additioRal pwmp s•ystem capacity to maximwm allo111ed b•t enistiRg peFmiUiRg to iReFease tile eapac;ity to matcl:i OF exceed tl:ie peak n1noff rates determined h¥ the Storm Drainage and Flood Control r>4e1,t9r Piao update
Impact HYD-4: The proposed project would not be None required. N/A located in a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

Impact HYD-5: The proposed project would not conflict None required N/A with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan.

FlrstCorbon Solutions ES-42
hnps://adednnovations.sharepoint.com/sltes/PubllCJtionSSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/1 - Recirculated Draft PEIR/31680037 Sedl0-03 EMecsummary.docx FMFCD

15 CONT
Fresno SEDA Specific Plan TIA
The existing fence for the Redbank Creek Detention Basin is

6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMME located at the existing right-of-way 30 feet west of DeWolf Avenue's centerline. Since the Redbank Creek Detention Basin The following sections provide additio is ~a~ of an _Army_ Civil Works project, an_y modifications to the . . 1 d. existing basm or right-of-way would require approval through the site, me u mg: USAGE 408 Permission process. FMFCD would be able to • Roadway Impact Anal,; Is provide additional right-of-way along the Basin "OS" frontage on • Pedestrian, Bicycle, d Transi the east side of DeWolf Avenue to accommodate the street widening. thodology, tm,r:,mr::m7,:i,-o:-m-"Tmn:15"-.:15l"Tll"l~ii:-1'=~mrl"m"'ITI":<:mim'fl7TTI"lfflmrr'IT71,,----- dards and methods employed by traffic engineers. Although operational issues are not considered impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to the project environment.

The SEDA Project would have an impact on the existing roadways within the project area. While the LOS analysis does not show any deficient roadways for the 2035 project condition, De Wolf Avenue and McCall Avenue are most impacted with LOS of Din the project scenario. Widening these two collector streets from 1 lane in each direction to 2 lanes in each direction will better serve the SEDA project and allow for smoother north-south traffic flow within the SEDA project. Likewise, it is recommended that McKinley Avenue be widened from its current configuration of 1 lane in each direction to 2 lanes in each direction for better east west connectivity within the SEDA area.

Other roadways within the SEDA plan should be upgraded into a network of Complete Streets as defined by the Fresno Complete Streets Policy adopted in 2019. A Complete Street is defined as a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users - including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, trucks, and motorists. In addition to Complete Streets, the safety of the designed roadway network environment shall be implemented such that driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety are paramount.

6.2 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS
Pedestrian facilities recommended for the SEDA area include sidewalks on all roadways, trails and greenways to connect the regional town center (De Wolf and Kings Canyon Blvd) with the community town centers and should complement the natural landscape of the SEDA plan area. The focus shall be on the identified roadways where fatal and severe injury collisions have occurred, and to achieve the Vision Zero goal of eliminating local traffic fatalities, it is crucial to implement safe practices and programs.

Bicycle facilities within SEDA should be compliant with the latest Fresno Active Transportation Plan guidelines and enhance connectivity between the SEDA mixed use areas to the residential areas.

Transit facilities within SEDA should provide for a safe, integrated, and efficient multimodal transportation system. The regional center of SEDA should be well connected by transit to provide access to and from central Fresno to the SEDA area. Transit stations and stops should be located near major activity centers and mixed use zones. Bus lines should connect public places, schools, medical facilities, concentrations of commercial space, and high density residential and employment areas.

Page I 31
FMFCD

15 CONT
Date Adopted: January 12, 1999

POLICY MANUAL
Date Last Amended:
assification: ENGINEERING OPERATIONS
Subject: Basin Operations Guideline
I. It is the goal of the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District to maintain a basin storage capacity reserve which will accommodate an adjusted historical maximum 48-hour rainfall, as shown on the attached curve, assuming a 2-year design event "c" factor and in accordance with the following discretionary operational considerations:
• Priority for dewatering operations should be given to basins that have the least amount of storage relative to rainfall within its respective drainage area; and, shall consider the basin's need to accommodate upstream system dewatering. • Basin pumping should be consistent with the overall operational priorities and disposal capacities of downstream systems.
• Dewatering of basins to the desired maximum 48-hour rainfall storage reserve is subject to: (I) the availability of a practical point of disposal; and (2) available resources as determined by the General Manager.

Operational activities should be performed within the hydraulic capacity of the existing storm drainage system. Discharges to storm drains which can only accept such discharge off-peak from storm events can not be made during storm events.

Nothing contained within these guidelines shall preempt the General Manager or his designated representative from exercising discretionary judgement in operating the system so as to minimize flood damage and maximize the protection of public safety and welfare. At any time the use of discretionary judgement results in a significant variation in practice or procedures otherwise provided for by these guidelines, such variance shall be reported to the Board of Directors. board\policies\penn\basin operations guideline

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-111
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD)
Response to FMFCD-1
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

Response to FMFCD-2
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required. Future development under the proposed project would pay all applicable FMFCD drainage fees.

Response to FMFCD-3
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

Response to FMFCD-4
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

Response to FMFCD-5
The comment is noted. FMFCD will be notified of all future development within the Plan Area as applicable.

Impact HYD-3 of Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR discusses the potential impacts associated with runoff exceeding the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system. MM HYD-3a, MM HYD-3b, and MM HYD-3c require that the City supports FMFCD in updated the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan for the Plan Area to include the proposed basins and the analysis necessary to provide adequate capacity for future stormwater runoff resulting from future development of the Specific Plan, and that any new proposed development 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. Additionally, the City shall support the FMFCD in expanding basins or constructing additional basins to accommodate the future stormwater capacities from future development.

Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-6
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-112 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx CEQA are raised, and no response is required. Future development under the proposed project would pay all applicable FMFCD drainage fees.

Response to FMFCD-7
The comment is noted. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable FMFCD requirements, including those related to grading and easements. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-8
The comment is noted. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable FMFCD requirements, including those related to stormwater discharges from private facilities. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-9
The comment is noted. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable FMFCD requirements, including those related to consistency with the future Storm Drainage Master Plan, and FMFCD would review and approve final plans as applicable. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-10
The comment is noted. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable FMFCD requirements, including those related to storm drain easements. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-11
The comment is noted. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable FMFCD requirements, including those related to runoff and stormwater drainage. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-12
The comment is noted. As identified within Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and on Exhibit 3.10-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, portions of the Plan Area are located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones and would comply with all applicable requirements. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-13
The comment is noted. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable FMFCD requirements, including those related to outdoor storage areas and contaminants. No further response is required.

Response to FMFCD-14
The comment is noted. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable FMFCD requirements, including those related to stormwater contaminants.

Future development under the proposed project would evaluate and mitigate impacts related to stormwater as necessary pursuant to CEQA. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-113
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to FMFCD-15
The comment is noted. Specific revisions requested to be made to Specific Plan policies will not be addressed in Section 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR. Please refer to Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR, and Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final PEIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. These master responses provide additional information on the scope of CEQA, including any non-CEQA issues, and respond to comments that express general opposition to or disapproval of the proposed project or the environmental analysis. Master Responses 1 and 2 further detail why comments on Specific Plan policies are not further addressed in the Final PEIR. However, this comment will be passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole.

The future location of the proposed FMFCD “DY” basin is noted; however, the discussion in Impact AG-2 and its associated exhibit is centered on impacts to existing Williamson Act Contract Parcels and to illustrate their locations within the Plan Area. As the proposed basin is within the Plan Area boundary, it is appropriately captured in the discussion related to impacts to Williamson Act Contracts. Similarly, it is unclear how indicating the location of the proposed basin supports the illustration of the Williamson Act Contract Parcels. As such, no revisions are required. Please refer to Master Response 10, Clarifying Information on Agricultural Resources, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 10 elaborates on the methodology used in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

The requested revisions to the proposed MM HYD-3e, MM HYD-3f, and MM HYD-3g have been revised per FMFCD guidance. The revisions are clarifying in nature and do not constitute new or significant impacts. The comments related to transportation are noted. No further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SANGER USD

1 SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1905 SEVENTH STREET • SANGER, CA 93657
(559) 524-6521 FAX (559) 875- 03 11
March 24, 2025
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93 721
DENNIS WIECHMANN, ED.D

SUPERINTENDENT
Subject: Recirculated Draft Program EIR for SEDA Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022020486)
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

This letter includes the comments of the Sanger Unified School District on the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDPEIR) for the Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan. The Sanger Unified School District (District) encompasses most of the territory within SEDA ( all land south of Tulare A venue) and approximately 30,000 of the potential 45,000 new housing units.

The proposed plan shows 16 neighborhood centers within the Sanger Unified portion of SEDA, each of which would include an elementary school integrated with a park and other neighborhood center functions. High school and middle school facilities would also be needed.

On page 3.15-31 under the Impact Analysis heading, the RDPEIR cites a statewide K-12 student generation rate (0.7 students per housing unit) and multiplies it by the total number of units anticipated in the SEDA Specific Plan area (45,000) to estimate the number of students generated at buildout of the plan (31,500 students). Since about two-thirds of the 45,000 new housing units (30,000) would be within Sanger Unified, approximately 21,000 students could potentially be generated in Sanger Unified.

Although student generation rates for individual school districts can vary greatly, the student generation rate in Sanger Unified currently approximates the 0. 7 average for grades TK-12. Breaking this down further, the average generation rate for grade groupings is approximately 0.4 student per unit for grades TK-6, 0.1 student per unit for grades 7-8, and

0.2 student per unit for grades 9-12. Thus, under this student generation rate assumption, approximately 12,000 students would be generated in grades TK-12 in Sanger Unified, 3,000 students in grades 7-8 and 6,000 students in grades 9-12.

A new elementary school in Sanger Unified would serve approximately 700 students, thus there would potentially be a need for an additional 1 7 elementary schools assuming the ----- Every Child, Every Day, Whatever it Takes! -----
Trustees: Peter R. Filippi Jesse Vasquez Ismael Hernandez Jesse Solorio G. Brandon Vang Celida Garcia Lopez Ranetta Bron

SANGER USD

1 CONT
2 average generation rate is appropriate. However, it is important to note that student generation rates can vary greatly depending on the type of units constructed. The 0. 7 generation rate in Sanger Unified is based on existing development, which is heavily weighted toward single family units. The SEDA plan provides for a large number of multiple family units to be built in the various Town Centers and in the extensive Mixed Residential and Neighborhood Residential areas. Multiple family units generally generate a lower number of students than single family units. Therefore, the estimated number of students resulting from development of the plan area could be substantially lower than stated previously and the number of planned schools would be lower than that shown in the proposed land use plan. In any event, the 16 elementary schools shown in the plan would in all likelihood provide an adequate number of schools for plan buildout as a worst case.

With regard to middle school and high school facilities, the new middle school and high school facilities at the District's educational center at Jensen and Fowler Avenues should be able to provide capacity for some of the future SEDA students in the area south of Jensen Avenue, depending on the level of development that occurs in the District's growth areas outside of SEDA. Ifbuildout of SEDA results in 3,000 students in grades 7-8, as previously indicated, there would theoretically be a need for two new middle schools, assuming a capacity of 1,500 students per middle school. If SEDA buildout generated 6,000 high school students, this would create a need for slightly more than two new high schools, assuming a capacity of about 2,800 students per high school. As mentioned previously, however, the large number of multiple family units planned would likely result in lower student generation rates and reduce the number of students generated and the need for facilities as compared to the maximums above. As indicated in the RDPEIR, Policy OS7 .1 indicates the City will work with the District to establish specific locations for high schools and middle schools.

On page 3 .15-11, under the heading of California Government Code, Section 65995(b) and Education Code, Section 17620, the development fee information provided is substantially out of date. It mentions the statutory fees approved by the State as of January 24, 2014 ($3.36 per square foot for residential development and $0.54 per square foot for commercial/industrial development). The current fees as of the last time they were adjusted by the State allocation Board in January 2024, are $5.17 per square foot for residential development and $0.84 per square foot for commercial/industrial development.

The various objectives and policies related to schools in the document appear to be appropriate, as well-designed and located schools are essential to the fabric and success of neighborhoods. The District has the primary legal responsibility for the location, design and operation of schools; however, the District looks forward to working collaboratively with the City so that the objectives and policies of the plan can be realized to the extent possible.

On page 3 .15-31, the second paragraph (Impact Analysis under Impact PUB-3 ), states the following:

Additionally, future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with applicable school development fees in order to mitigate the impacts on school facilities caused by future development within the City. Payment of applicable development fees

SANGER USD

2 CONT
would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required school facility improvements and additional staff to meet acceptable service levels.

Regarding the above statement, the key to mitigating the impacts on school facilities caused by future development within the City and keeping pace with new development is having adequate financing to build the schools and to build them in a timely manner. Schools are funded by a combination of statewide bond measures, local bond measures and developer fees. State bond measures require voter approval and are anything but certain. When they are approved, the funds are often depleted quickly due to a backlog of unfunded projects in the state. To get state funding, school districts must match with a local funding contribution that mostly comes from local bond measures which must be approved by local voters. The amount of the bond measures are based on assessed valuation, and the measures require a supermajority vote of either a 55% or 66.6% vote depending on the amount requested. Developer fees are an important school funding component, but they are substantially inadequate for funding schools unless state and local bond measures are approved. And if needed schools cannot be built or built in a timely manner to keep up with new development, schools will end up being left out of the planned neighborhood centers and residents will need to travel much further to attend school, thereby increasing air pollutants, greenhouse gases and vehicle miles travelled and hindering the desired accessibility, walkability and the basic functions of the planned neighborhood centers.

Obtaining the funding necessary for up to 16 new elementary schools and at least another high school and middle school will be a substantial challenge if left to the current funding methods for financing schools. As stated in the original EIR Notice of Preparation, implementation of the Specific Plan would require a comprehensive infrastructure plan that "must be accompanied by a comprehensive and detailed financing and implementation strategy that includes the phasing and financing of development and all major infrastructure." We believe it will be very important for the District to engage with the City in the infrastructure planning process to determine how best to fund the school facilities needed and provide them in a manner to keep pace with new development. We recognize that development of the Sanger Unified portion of SEDA is not anticipated to occur until about 2035, but it will be essential to set up an infrastructure financing plan that includes schools well in advance.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Recirculated Draft Program EIR. We look forward to collaborating with the City of Fresno in the implementation of the SEDA Specific Plan to ensure that well-located and designed school facilities can be financed and constructed when needed to serve future new development in the Sanger Unified portion of the SEDA Specific Plan. Please let me know if you have any questions on this letter.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Robles
~
Chief Operations Officer

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-119
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Sanger Unified School District (SANGER USD)
Response to SANGER USD-1
The comment is noted. The proposed Specific Plan does not identify a required number of schools, although 16 Neighborhood Centers are proposed, which may include elementary schools, local parks, community gardens, and other services. The proposed project also aims to locate all elementary schools within a 0.5-mile walking or biking distance from all homes. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

Response to SANGER USD-2
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. The proposed project does not propose any specific development at this time; therefore, the projectspecific environmental impacts of constructing new or expanded school facilities to support the growth anticipated under the proposed project cannot be determined at this time because the sitespecific locations and designs of future new or expanded facilities are not known. However, future development within the Plan Area would be required by CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to public services, specifically whether the development would result in substantial adverse impacts (i.e., by necessitating new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts) in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools.

Further, as stated in Impact PUB-3, Section 3.15 Public Services, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, Specific Plan Policy OS-7.1 requires that the City work with the Clovis Unified School District and the Sanger USD to establish specific locations for high schools and middle schools. The City and school districts will work together to site all new schools and facilities to ensure that the school sites, sizes, and designs meet community needs. This policy also requires the Clovis and Sanger school districts to formalize the collaboration process for siting schools and facilities planning. It also ensures that developers’ contributions align with the SEDA standards for community-oriented schools, as described in Open Space Chapter and as further established through City and School District coordination. The timing, orientation, and pace of eventual development in the Plan Area is difficult to predict with specificity. Development patterns may be phased in a number of different ways and without specific development projects identified, it is difficult to predict which areas will generate the need for additional schools.

Future development would be required to pay any development fees applicable at the time sitespecific development applications are received which would provide funding to support the development of additional schools and resources as necessary. The City properly evaluated potential impacts and concluded that compliance with the required development fees provided the required mitigation.

Moreover, with respect to indirect impacts, the Draft PEIR provides program-level evaluation and mitigation measures where possible, including addressing air quality, traffic, noise, and other such City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-120 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx issues that may be associated with the development of new or expanded school sites. Site-specific environmental review and mitigation is too speculative at this stage and would be completed by the School Districts as lead agencies for each respective school site as plans for these new schools are developed. Accordingly, future projects would incorporate project level mitigation measures as applicable to mitigate significant impacts to schools. The City fully complied with CEQA in addressing potential impacts on school facilities.

Furthermore, please refer to Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. Master Response 1 provides additional information on the scope of CEQA and any non-CEQA issues not further discussed in the Final PEIR. No further response is required.

March 19, 2025
Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
21600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Project: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project
District CEQA Reference No: 20250134
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the City of Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDPEIR) for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan (SEDA) (Project). The Project consists of 5,580 acres for up to 45,000 homes and 3,220 acres for commercial and retail businesses, office spaces and professional services, industrial uses, and research facilities. Although this is a program level project and project-specific data may not be available until specific approvals are being granted, the RDPEIR should include a discussion of policies, which when implemented, will reduce or mitigate impacts on air quality at the individual project level.

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

Land Use Planning
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from specific plans to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. More specifically, the RDPEIR concludes Project air quality emissions impacts will exceed District

SJVAPCD

1 2
■ San Joaquin Valley

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Fresno's (City)
1) ____ _
Nortflarn Region
4800 Enterprise Way
Modesto, CA 9535s.871B
Tel: (20!!1557•8400 FAX: (20!!1557•8475
Samlr Sheikh
~et:Utiva Oiractar/Air Pallutian Cantrol Officer
Central Rqlnn {Main Offlu)
1990 E. Gettysburt1 Avenllll
Fresno, CA 93726-0244
Tel: (5591 230·61JOO FAX: 15591 230-8081
www.velleyair.org www.healthyairliving.com
HEALTHY Al R LIVINGN
Seutllarn Reglnn
34948 Flynver Court
Bakersfteld, CA 93308•9725
Tel: lBB1} 392•5500 FAX: 1881} 392•5585
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
significance thresholds and thus result in significant and unavoidable impacts. As such, the District recommends that the RDPEIR incorporate strategies that reduce VMTs and require the cleanest available heavy duty trucks, vehicles, and offroad equipment, including zero and near-zero technologies. VMTs can be reduced through encouragement of mix-use development, walkable communities, etc.

Additional design element options can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf Assembly Bill 617
Assembly Bill 617 requires California Air Resources Board (CARB) and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantage communities. The Project lies near one of the impacted communities in the State selected by the CARB under the Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (2017, Garcia) and has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to increased air pollution within the nearby impacted Governing Board in September of 2019 and identifies a wide range of measures designed to reduce air pollution exposure. Therefore, in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure to the impacted disadvantaged community, the District recommends the City incorporate mitigation measures outlined in the South Central Fresno CERP for the Project. For more information regarding the CERP approved http://community.valleyair.org/selected-communities/south-central-fresno Figure 1: Southeast Development Area Specific Plan

SJVAPCD

2 CONT
3 2) ____ _
community. The South Central Fresno CERP was adopted by the District's for South Central Fresno, please visit the District's website at:

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
Project Related Emissions
The RDPEIR specifically states on page 2-13 that The proposed project is a policy level document and does not include any specific development proposals and may not fully evaluate the impacts of other future specific, individual development that may be approved under implementation of the proposed project The District recommends that the RDPEIR require that future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project identify, assess and characterize project-level air emissions and require mitigation of air quality impacts at the individual project-specific level.

Environmental reviews of potential impacts on air quality should incorporate the following items:

Construction Emissions
The RDPEIR Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1B states on page 3.3-44 that "If construction-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD-adopted threshold of significance, project applicants for new development projects shall be required to incorporate mitigation measures into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities." The RDPEIR MM AIR-1B also contains a list of possible mitigation measures which includes the use of off-road construction equipment that meets United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 Final off-road engine emissions standards.

Despite significant progress, the San Joaquin Valley faces one of the most significant air quality challenges in the country. Reducing emission from all feasible sources remains essential to sustain clean air progress. As such, the District recommends this mitigation measure be considered for all future development projects to ensure air quality emission impacts from construction activities are lessened.

Operational Emissions
Operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels significance
thresholds through incorporation of design elements such as the use of cleaner

SJVAPCD

4 5
6 3) ________ _
3a)
3b)
"
"
sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District's significance thresholds are identified in the District's Guidance for Assessing below the District's
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf Project Trip Length for HHD Truck Travel
The RDPEIR page 3.3-60 states, The proposed project would permit residential, office, commercial and industrial land uses. Development of land uses that are allowed under the proposed project may result in stationary sources of TAC
As a result, the City should include policies that require environmental review for future development projects (e.g. light industrial facilities/warehouses, commercial, etc.). Since the RDPEIR acknowledges these types of development as part of the Project, these development projects have the potential to generate a high volume of HHD truck trips traveling further distances. As such, future environmental review should adequately characterize and justify an appropriate trip length distance for off-site HHD truck travel to and from the project site as well as the estimated number of trips supported by project-specific factors.

Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.

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

Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The RDPEIR MM AIR-1D on page 3.3-46 states that development projects with diesel particulate matter and/or toxic air contaminants within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor must prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA).

SJVAPCD

6 CONT
7 8
9 10
3c)
"
emissions, including light industrial facilities, warehouses ... etc." 3d)
4) -------------------
5) ________ _
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
The District would like to clarify that relying solely on the 1,000-foot sensitive receptor distance as a condition to require an HRA may overlook future development projects that are more than 1,000-foot from sensitive receptors that could still pose a significant health risk to sensitive receptors. The District recommends revising MM AIR-1D to at minimum consider the following factors when determining whether an HRA should be performed: the size and scope of project, the amount of air toxic emissions from project construction and operation sources (HHD truck trips, stationary source emissions, etc), the type of pollutants emitted, the proximity to the nearest sensitive receptor, and the expected duration of project construction.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project.

These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):
-level
health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California the District for assistance with performing a Prioritization analysis.

The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

Health Risk Assessment:

Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA.

A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the health impacts would exceed the District s

SJVAPCD

10 CONT
11 A "Prioritization" is the recommended method for a conservative screening Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA) methodology. Please contact San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
established risk thresholds, which can be found here:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/ceqa/.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.

The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:

HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
HARP2 files
Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
Calling (559) 230-5900
Additionally, per the RDPEIR, MM AIR-1D requires the implementation of Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACT) for development projects that exceed health risk thresholds. The District would like to clarify that T-BACT is typically applied as part of District permitting process for stationary sources; whereas the list of T-BACTs under MM AIR-1D may not necessarily apply for stationary sources nor be considered T-BACT. Therefore, for mobile sources and other emission sources not subject to T-BACT, alternative mitigation measures should still be required, as feasible, to minimize air toxic emissions and reduce associated health risks.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
The District recommends, an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) be performed for any future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambien Air Quality Standards. An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both projectspecific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

SJVAPCD

11 CONT
12 •
•
•
For assistance, please contact the District's Technical Services Department by:
•
•

6.) _______ _
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling g
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/ceqa/.

Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
The District recommends the RDPEIR include a feasibility discussion on implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) as a mitigation measure for future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project
significance thresholds.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-forpound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emission
The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.

Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of agricultural equipment with the latest generation technologies.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.

Industrial/Warehouse Emission Reduction Strategies
The Project is expected to result in the development of industrial uses. Additionally, the RDPEIR specifically page 3.3-60 states, The proposed project would permit residential, office, commercial and industrial land uses. Development of land uses that are allowed under the proposed project may result in stationary sources of TAC RDPEIR
acknowledges the potential development of industrial uses, the District recommends

SJVAPCD

13 14
12 CONT uidance, is available online at the District's website:
7) __________ _
that are determined to exceed the District's CEQA
s by providing funds for the District's incentives programs. 8) _________________ _
"
emissions, including light industrial facilities, warehouses ... etc." Since the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
the City incorporate emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts, such as those listed below:

Require cleanest available heavy-duty trucks and off-road equipment (see comment 10)
Require HHD truck routing patterns that limit exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions (see comment 9) Require minimization of heavy-duty truck idling (see comment 11) Require solid screen buffering trees, solid decorative walls, and/or other natural ground landscaping techniques are implemented along the property line of adjacent sensitive receptors
Orient loading docks away from sensitive receptors unless physically impossible
Require loading docks a minimum of 500 feet away from the property line of the nearest truck loading bay opening, unless dock is exclusively used for electric trucks
-site
circulation patterns to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel Require truck entries be located on streets of a higher commercial classification
Locate and require truck entry, exit, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors
Prohibit Heavy-Duty diesel truck drive aisles from being used on sides of the building that are directly adjacent to a sensitive receptor property line Require a separate entrance for heavy-duty trucks accessible via a truck route, arterial road, major thoroughfare, or a local road that predominantly serves commercial oriented uses
Require projects be designed to provide the necessary infrastructure to support use of zero-emissions on-road vehicles and off-road equipment (see comment 12)
Require all building roofs are solar-ready
Require all portions of roof tops that are not covered with solar panels are constructed to have light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index of greater than 78
Ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the development project
Install solar photovoltaic systems and associated battery storage on the project site
Require power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have unloading goods
Incorporate bicycle racks and electric bike plug-ins
Require the use of low volatile organic compounds (VOC) architectural and

SJVAPCD

14 CONT
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Incorporate signage and "pavement markings" to clearly identify on •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"plugin" capacity, which will eliminate prolonged idling while loading and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
industrial maintenance coatings
Designate an area during construction to charge electric powered construction vehicles and equipment, if temporary power is available Prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction
Inform the project proponent of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program) offered to reduce air emissions from the Project
Ensure all landscaping be drought tolerant
Truck Routing
The RDPEIR, specifically pages 2-8 through 2-13, provides the various land-use development types that will be included into the Project. For example, light industrial, manufacturing, commercial, and mixed-use just to name a few. These land-use development types have the potential to generate HHD truck trips. As such, the District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions.

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

This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

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

The RDPEIR, specifically pages 2-8 through 2-13, provides the various land-use development types that will be included into the Project. For example, light industrial, manufacturing, commercial, and mixed-use just to name a few. These

SJVAPCD

14 CONT
16 15
•
•
•
•
9) ___ _
10) __________ _
meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District's San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
land-use development types have the potential to generate HHD truck trips. As such, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:

Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.

Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

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

The Project is expected to result in future development (e.g. commercial, industrial, etc.), that have the ability to result in HHD truck trips. The District recommends the RDPEIR be revised to include a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Electric Infrastructure For Future Development Projects The District recommends that the RDPEIR be revised to require all nonresidential buildings be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support the use of on-road zero emissions vehicles, such as HHD trucks associated with a warehouse or commercial project.

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

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

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

SJVAPCD

16 CONT
19 18
17 •
•
11) _________ _
12) _________________ _
rpose of the District's
13) ______ _
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 11 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
near sensitive receptors.

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

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

The District is available to assist the City and project proponents with this assessment. Additionally, the District is currently offering substantial incentive funding that covers the full cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the system during a demonstration period covering two years of operation. Please contact the District at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] for more information, or visit:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/restaurant-charbroiler-technology-partnership/ Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
The Project is expected to result in future development (e.g. commercial, industrial, etc.). As such, the District suggests the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

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

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Gas-powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide

SJVAPCD

19 CONT
21 20
14) ____________ _
to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population's exposure to air 15) _________________ _
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 12 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/cleangreen-yard-machines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emission-landscaping-equipment-voucherprogram/.

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

Incorporating design elements (e.g., installing bikeways) within the Project that enhance walkability and connectivity can result in an overall reduction of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and improve air quality within the area. The Project includes new bikeways and bikeways improvements, and may be eligible for funding through The Bikeway Incentive Program provides
funding for eligible Class 1 (Bicycle Path Construction), Class II (Bicycle Lane Striping), or Class III (Bicycle Route) projects. These incentives are designed to support the construction of new bikeway projects to promote clean air through the development of a widespread, interconnected network of bike paths, lanes, or routes and improving the general safety conditions for commuter bicyclists. Only municipalities, government agencies, or public educational institutions are eligible to apply. More information on the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/bike-paths/
Guidelines and Project Eligibility for the grant program can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/drpijuw1/bikeway-program-guidelines-62515.pdf District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II

SJVAPCD

21 CONT
22 24
23 recommends the Project proponent consider the District's Clean Green Yard 16) ______ _
17)District's Bikewav Incentive Program
the District's Bikeway Incentive Program.
18) _______ _
District's
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 13 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
(Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rulesand-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are
Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

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

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

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

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air

SJVAPCD

24 CONT
strongly encouraged to contact the District's Small Business 18a)
District's
18b)
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 14 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

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

Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds
Development
Type
Discretionary
Approval Threshold
Ministerial Approval /
Allowed Use / By Right
Thresholds
Residential 50 dwelling units 250 dwelling units
Commercial 2,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Light Industrial 25,000 square feet 125,000 square feet Heavy Industrial 100,000 square feet 500,000 square feet Medical Office 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
General Office 39,000 square feet 195,000 square feet
Educational Office 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet Government 10,00 square feet 50,000 square feet
Recreational 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
Other 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet
District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/formsand-applications/ District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if future development projects will be subject to Rule 9510, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

SJVAPCD

24 CONT
incorporated into the public agency's analysis.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 15 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more an Employer Trip Reduction
Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

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

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4002.

This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolition-renovation/ District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 since they may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/tkgjeusd/rule-4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII,

SJVAPCD

24 CONT
18c)
18d)
18e)
18f)
"eligible" employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more "eligible" employees at a worksite to establish
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 16 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
specifically Rule 8021 Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

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

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol
District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.

Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.

Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/residential-wood-smoke-reductionprogram/ Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

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

Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. referral documents and environmental review documents

SJVAPCD

24 CONT
25 18g)
18h)
19) ________________ _
A project's
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 17 of 17 District Reference No: 20250134
March 19, 2025
provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Michael Corder by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5818.

Sincerely,
Tom Jordan
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager

SJVAPCD

25 CONT
26 District's Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-139
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Response to SJVAPCD-1
The comment is noted. Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR discussed policies and mitigation measures to reduce impacts on air quality at the individual project level. Specifically, Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Framework, details federal, State, regional, and local regulations and policies related to air quality, including but not limited to, the Clean Air Act, various rules from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and policies from the City of Fresno General Plan and proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed project incorporates MM AIR1a, MM AIR-1b, MM AIR-1c, MM AIR-1d, and MM AIR-4, which would apply to the proposed project and/or future development under the proposed project. The proposed project would also include Policies HC-3.2 and HC-3.3, which would encourage accessible, mixed-use development and smallerlot single-family and multi-family housing types to reduce energy use and daily VMT. Policy OS-2.5 would support renewable energy technology systems in open spaces and pursue arrangements with public agencies and private partners to accommodate renewable energy systems. Policy OS-6.1 and Policy OS-6.3 would require park buildings to conform to green building standards and explore renewable energy systems to provide power. Various other policies include Policy RC-1.1 through 1.7 which address the statewide targets set for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions as set forth in the City’s updated GHG Reduction Plan. Further development under the proposed project would be evaluated for impacts to air quality. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-2
The comment is noted. Future development projects associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be required to comply with various rules and regulations related to air quality and VMT. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area.

Future projects would comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9410, which helps to reduce VMT, and emissions associated with work commutes. Policy MT-2-c of the City’s General Plan would provide incentives for infill development to reduce citywide VMT. Additionally, the proposed project emphasizes development of mixed-use areas and improvements to active and public transit facilities to reduce VMT. Additionally, MM AIR-1b of the proposed project would require future development projects to demonstrate that off-road construction equipment is equipped with engines meeting the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier IV Final off-road engine emission standards or cleaner.

Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan is designed to reduce VMT by locating homes, schools, and jobs in proximity to one another while also providing high quality amenities for walking, biking, and public transit. The Specific Plan also includes Policy UF-7.1, which directs the City to conduct parking studies to better understand the parking needs within the Plan Area in order to establish accurate City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-140 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx parking maximums that cap the number of parking spaces associated with land uses or developments. Less demand for parking would reduce VMT and align with the City’s VMT Guidelines and reduce emissions. Additionally, the Specific Plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Strategy to be developed for the Plan which is consistent with the City’s VMT program. A mix of uses are intended to be developed in the Plan Area, thereby creating a more compact lifestyle and reducing VMT. Please refer to the Specific Plan for more information regarding how the Specific Plan’s land use plan is designed to reduce VMT and GHG emissions. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-3
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area.

Also, please refer to Response to SJVAPCD-1 and Response to SJVAPCD-2, which further describe how subsequent development projects would be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable rules and regulations in place at the time of the application, including all applicable air district rules, and State emission reduction requirements.

MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1d would require future development projects within the Plan Area to comply with design features that would reduce construction and operational emissions. These mitigation measures are consistent with the goals of the Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) to reduce criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions generated by the proposed project in impacted disadvantaged communities.

Please also note that the Plan Area is not within a community identified as disproportionately impacted by air pollution under Assembly Bill 617. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-4
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area.

MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1d would require future development projects within the Plan Area to comply with design features that would reduce construction and operational emissions. These measures would require an evaluation of potential impacts on disadvantaged communities. If operation-related emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed adopted thresholds of significance, applicants would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction and operation. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-5
The comment is noted. As specified in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, all future development would be required to comply with MM AIR-1b prior to project approval. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-141
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SJVAPCD-6
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. All future development would be required to comply with SJVAPCD requirements related to mobile and stationary source operational emissions. If operation-related emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance, applicants would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction and operation. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-7
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. As such, future discretionary projects would be required to review environmental impacts to air quality pursuant to CEQA prior to discretionary project approval. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-8
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. As such, future discretionary projects would be required to review environmental impacts to air quality pursuant to CEQA prior to discretionary project approval, including, but not limited to, quantifying air emissions using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-9
The comment is noted. MM AIR-1b and MM AIR-1c require development project applicants to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-related and construction-related air quality impacts prior to discretionary project approval in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. It is not anticipated that any large development projects with potential significant air quality impacts would be approved without discretionary review and approval.

Ministerial projects that are not subject to environmental review under CEQA must still comply with the Fresno Municipal Code and other applicable rules, regulations, and environmental programs.

Accordingly, the City can reasonably rely on these mandatory regulations and policies to reduce potential environmental impacts. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-10
The comment is noted. Clarifying edits have been made in Section 4, Errata, to revise MM AIR-1d to reflect SJVAPCD comments. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-142 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SJVAPCD-11
The comment is noted. Clarifying edits have been made in Section 4, Errata, to revise MM AIR-1d to reflect SJVAPCD comments.

Response to SJVAPCD-12
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area.

MM AIR-1b and MM AIR-1c require development project applicants to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-related and construction-related air quality impacts prior to discretionary project approval in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. If operation- or construction-related emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance, applicants would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction and operation. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-13
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area.

MM AIR-1b and MM AIR-1c require development project applicants to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-related and construction-related air quality impacts prior to discretionary project approval in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. If operation- or construction-related emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance, applicants would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction and operation, which can include the option of preparing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA). Therefore, entering into a VERA is one of several feasible mitigation options that is available to be implemented on a sitespecific project-by-project basis. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-14
The comment is noted. MM AIR-1c requires future development project applicants to prepare and submit a technical evaluation of project operation-related air quality impacts in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. Applicants would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. Project-specific mitigation measures consistent with the performance standards established by the Draft PEIR mitigation measures would be implemented and made enforceable as applicable on a project-by-project basis during the discretionary review process. All potential measures would be considered, consistent with District guidance. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-15
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-143
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. The Recirculated Draft PEIR include MM AIR-1b and MM AIR-1c, which requires that future development project applicants prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operationrelated and construction-related air quality impacts prior to discretionary project approval in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. Truck routing patterns and associated emissions would be evaluated consistent with the operational analysis requirements of MM AIR-1c. Therefore, no further response is needed.

Response to SJVAPCD-16
The comment is noted. All future development projects proposed within the Plan Area would comply with the State’s requirements regarding electrification of heavy heavy-duty (HHD) fleets. The ARB regulates emissions from HHD vehicles at the State level to meet the State’s emission goals.

Trucks used for operations would be required to meet EPA and ARB regulatory requirements that will put more alternatively fueled and clean trucks onto the road. The trucks which meet the new ARB Heavy-Duty Low Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) Omnibus Regulation, and new federal Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards will have significantly decreased particulate emissions from today’s diesel trucks.

Likewise, all on-site service equipment will meet applicable Statewide regulations. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-17
The comment is noted. All HHD trucks would be subject to the State anti-idling regulation (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480), which, including but not limited to, restricts truck idling to less than five consecutive minutes. Limiting idling to no greater than three minutes would not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts to below the significance thresholds because the suggested mitigation is not considerably different compared to compliance with State anti-idling regulation 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485 and 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2480.

Further, all future development within the Plan Area would be subject to MM AIR-1d, as applicable, which requires an HRA be prepared and mitigation measures to reduce potential health risks to an acceptable level. As discussed in MM AIR-1d, one T-BACT measure includes restricting idling on-site or electrifying warehouse docks to reduce diesel particular matter (DPM). Therefore, MM AIR-1d would satisfy this request. No further response is needed.

Response to SJVAPCD-18
The comment is noted. All future development projects within the Plan Area, including ministerial and discretionary projects, are required to comply with the California Green Building Code, which contains electric vehicle charging requirements. Specifically, warehouses are required to provide electric vehicle (EV) supply and distribution equipment, such as spare raceway(s) or busway(s) and adequate capacity for transformer(s), service panel(s) or subpanel(s) shall be installed at the time of construction to accommodate for future medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would provide the EV charging infrastructure that would support future use of electric trucks. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-144 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SJVAPCD-19
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. The Recirculated Draft PEIR include MM AIR-1b and MM AIR-1c, which requires that future development project applicants prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operationrelated and construction-related air quality impacts prior to discretionary project approval in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology. Additionally, MM AIR-1d requires that new development proposals with the potential to introduce sources of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and/or toxic air contaminants (TACs) (such as diesel backup generators or significant truck trips) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall prepare and submit to the Director of the Planning and Development Department, or a designee, a HRA. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and SJVAPCD.

Therefore, individual developments that would include char broilers would be required to assess TACs associated with char broilers, as applicable. In addition, development projects within the Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including demonstrating consistency with SJVAPCD Rule 4692 for commercial charbroiling and an associated HRA. No further response is needed.

Response to SJVAPCD-20
The comment is noted. All development projects within the Plan Area would be required to meet the City’s landscaping requirements, which will be enforced through Conditions of Approvals. The City requires urban greening to be incorporated into projects and requires appropriate landscaping and setbacks (Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15 Article 23). Therefore, the City’s design standards that will be enforced through Conditions of Approvals and the analysis contained in the Draft Recirculated PEIR already address the concerns raised in the comment. No further response is needed.

Response to SJVAPCD-21
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required. Additionally, please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area.

Response to SJVAPCD-22
This comment is noted. The California Building Standards Code (CBC) requires that nonresidential projects construct their roofs to be solar-ready to accommodate the future installation of solar panels. The proposed project would be required to comply with the foregoing, thereby contributing City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-145
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to improved air quality and making progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the facilitation of the future production of solar energy.

Further, as discussed in the Section 3.6, Energy, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity.

No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-23
The comment is noted. Various policies of the General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan would promote complete streets, mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhoods, and increased capacity for alternative transportation modes, which would help reduce air pollutant emissions. As included in the Regulatory Framework section of Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, these policies include General Plan policies UF-1c, UF-12a-f, UF-14a and 14b, LU-2, LU-3, LU-5-f, RC-4, HC3-d, HC-3-f, MT-1 and MT-2. Proposed Fresno SEDA Specific Plan policies related to air quality include HC-3.2 and 3.3, OS-6, and the policies included in the draft Plan’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Conservation chapter, including Policy RC-1.1 through 1.7. These policies promote active transit, clean air measures, and support the reduction in average vehicle trip distances, which contribute to reducing overall per capita VMT in the region. Specifically, Specific Plan Policy RC-1.2, which calls for interconnected transportation facilities to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle trips. This policy also ensures the Plan Area is well-served by pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure pursuant to the Active Transportation Plan. No further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-24
The comment is noted. All future projects proposed within the Plan Area would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations. No environmental issues are raised, and no further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-25
The comment is noted. No environmental issues are raised, and no further response is required.

Response to SJVAPCD-26
The comment is noted. No environmental issues are raised, and no further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 24, 2025
Sent via email
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Re: Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan (SCH # 2022020486)
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan (SCH # 2022020486) The Center has reviewed the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ( EIR ) closely and is concerned about
water supply impacts, staggering air quality impacts that will not be mitigated, and inadequate analysis and mitigation of significant greenhouse gas impacts. The Center urges the City of Fresno to revise the EIR to disclose and analyze these impacts and mitigate accordingly.

The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.

The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Fresno County.

I. THE EIR LACKS AN ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF AND MITIGATION -status
to local and regional wildlife connectivity.

A.
to Birds that Occupy Agricultural Lands
CBD

1 2
CEN TE R for BI OLOG I CAL DI VER SITY Because life is good. "Center") regarding
(the "Project").
" "
errors in the Project's biological resources analysis, inadequate consideration of FOR THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

The EIR fails to adequately describe and analyze the Project's impacts to special species in and near the Plan area. The EIR also fails to mitigate the Project's significant impacts The EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts Arizona . California . Colorado . Florida . N. Carolina . Nevada . New Mexico . New York . Oregon . Washington, D. C. . La Paz, Mexico Biological Diversity.org
December 4, 2024

Many bird species throughout North America area experiencing declines. The widelypublicized results of a 2019 research study showed that nearly three billion birds have been lost in the last half-century, with grassland birds experiencing the heaviest losses (Rosenberg et al., 2019). Threats to birds are numerous and complex, and include habitat loss, pesticide and rodenticide use, urban and agricultural development, and climate change, among others.

Although the intensification of agriculture throughout the United States has contributed to these declines (Stanton et al., 2018), some species including numerous sensitive and specialstatus birds are able to use agricultural lands as nesting and/or foraging habitat (Iglay et al., 2017). For example, white-faced ibis, longvarious extents on alfalfa fields for wintering, breeding, and foraging habitat respectively (Hartman & Kyle, 2010). While species richness is lower in agricultural landscapes than intact native habitats, diverse bird communities can still exist in orchards and vineyards. For example, a study of bird community composition across different types of orchards and vineyards in Australia observed 56 species in almond orchards and 48 in vineyards (Luck et al., 2015). As noted in the EIR, orchards make up the majority of the existing landscape of the Plan Area (EIR at 3.4-7), and destruction of these landscapes may have significant impacts on native birds.

Plan Area. (EIR at 3.4-9.) If these species (or any other native birds) are present, it is likely that they are using agricultural landscapes for foraging, wintering, and potentially nesting habitat.

Conversion of agricultural land to other land uses is therefore extremely likely to impact these species, yet the EIR failed to acknowledge this and failed to provide any analysis on the impacts of agricultural land loss to these species whatsoever. The EIR therefore fails to sufficiently analyze and mitigate its impacts in violation of CEQA.

Burrowing Owl
The EIR misrepresents the status of burrowing owls. Burrowing owls are not a specialstatus species (EIR at 3.4-9), they are a listed species, with all the attendant protections. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) made the Western Burrowing Owl a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).1 As a candidate species, the Western Burrowing Owl now has full protection of a threatened species under CESA. Take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species that results from a project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9.)
Burrowing owls have experienced significant declines in California. The Southwestern California population, which includes burrowing owls local to the Project area, along with two other populations, was recently petitioned for listing as endangered under CESA due to substantial population declines. As the petition states:

Burrowing owls were historically abundant throughout Southwestern California.

Focused surveys from 1991-1993 estimated 263 pairs in the region (227 in the interior and 36 on the coast), a 57-85% decline since the midefforts from 2006-2007 estimated 150 pairs in the interior, a further 34% 1 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=227089&inline CBD

2 CONT
3 billed curlew, and Swainson's hawk all depend to
The EIR acknowledges that Swainson's hawk and tricolored blackbird may occur in the 1980s ... Resurvey
December 4, 2024

southwestern San Bernardino counties, where further recent declines have been documented and long term persistence is unlikely. Southwestern California owls are threatened by urban development, habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, ground squirrel eradication, coastal predator management, and disturbance. (Miller, 2024).

Any impacts to burrowing owls in the Project area, including loss of current or potential habitat and further habitat fragmentation, will push this population closer to extinction. Harm prevention is especially essential for this species, as scientists have never successfully reintroduced burrowing owls to a location where they have been extirpated, partly due to the prefer not to move to a different burrow, especially during nesting season. Adding more intensive development will hurt this protected species.

The City must recirculate the EIR to acknowledge the listen status of burrowing owls and properly mitigate impacts to avoid take.

As the EIR acknowledges, the Specific Plan could result in approximately 5,000 acres of farmland being converted to urban uses. The EIR wholly fails, however, to address the highly migratory raptor species known to occur in the Specific Plan area. (EIR at 3.4-14.) The The EIR does not disclose the potential impact to
agricultural lands, nor does it evaluate potential mitigation measures for this impact. While the EIR discusses measures to mitigate the loss of farmland, it does not address the value of the lost necessarily address the biological impact. The EIR should be revised and recirculated to fully B.
and Improperly Deferred.

Although the Project will have significant impacts on special-status species, the EIR includes no specific or enforceable mitigation measures. The mitigation merely says that take developed by the developer and the City in consultation with CDFW. (EIR at 3.4-31-33.) None of the mitigation measures address any species specifically.

The EIR provides insufficient detail for the public and decision makers to ascertain biological impacts
before the Project is approved. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670 [EIR inadequate where the success or failure of mitigation his improperly deferred mitigation
violates CEQA. (see San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670 [EIR inadequate where
CBD

3 CONT
5 4
decline ... Significant breeding populations remained in western Riverside and owl's strong fidelity to burrow sites. Owls regularly reuse burrows from one year to the next, and Swainson 's Hawk
importance of these agricultural lands as nesting and foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk, a Swainson's hawk is listed as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act.

Swainson' s hawks due to the loss of
farmland to Swainson's hawks, and measures that may mitigate the agricultural impact will not disclose and mitigate the Specific Plan's impacts to Swainson's hawks.

The EIR's Mitigation for Impacts to Biological Resources is Inadequate will be "avoided to the greatest extent feasible," if it is unavoidable, further mitigation will be whether such measures would adequately mitigate the Project's impacts to efforts "may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR"]). T the success or failure of mitigation efforts "may
December 4, 2024

largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been mitigation is appropriate, the agency must meet all of the following elements: (1) practical considerations prevented the formulation of mitigation measures during the planning process; (2) the agency committed itself to developing mitigation measures in the future; (3) the agency adopted specific performance criteria prior to project approval; and (4) the EIR lists the mitigation measures to be considered, analyzed, and possibly incorporated into the mitigation plan. (See POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 736-37 [review denied].)
as envisioned by CEQA, is not meant to be a bilateral negotiation between a project proponent and the lead agency after project approval, but rather, an open process that also involves other Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 93.) The EIR contains no reason why mitigation measures cannot be developed now and does not include specific performance criteria. It violates CEQA and must be revised and recirculated to provide evidence of mitigation now not in a negotiation between the developer and the agency after approval.

II. THE EIR
IMPACTS IS INADEQUATE.

California is facing unprecedented challenges in its effort to allocate and conserve limited water resources, especially as water supply dwindles in the face of climate change and population growth. Studies predict that in the next 35 to 60 years, if emissions of carbon dioxide continuously shrink, disappearing for a decade or more at a time. (Siirila-Woodburn et al., 2021) Groundwater reserves in the Central Valley have been declining over the past decades, and without proper mitigation, that decline will continue at an accelerated rate due to climate change. (Alam et al., 2019) Consequently, a recent Executive Order from Governor Newsom declared near-, medium-, and long-term efforts to adapt its water (Executive Order N-7-22 (2022).)
resources that is in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes, and include that analysis in its discussion of water supply for the Project. (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne (2007) 506 F.Supp.2d 322, 369; County of Butte, 90 Cal.App.5th at 162, internal citations omitted; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 504.) Considering that both groundwater and surface water supplies will be negatively impacted by climate change, the EIR must discuss what measures will be implemented to ensure that future water needs will be met. development under the Specific Plan, which could include 45,000 new residential units by 2050, while still meeting existing demands (EIR at 3.18-67). Accordingly, the EIR does not evaluate on existing residents.

CBD

5 CONT
6 subject to analysis and review within the EIR"]). In the limited circumstances in which deferred As courts have pointed out "[f]undamentally, the development of mitigation measures, interested agencies and the public." (
'S ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION OF WATER SUPPLY
and other greenhouse gases continue unchecked, the American West's snowpack will that California must "redouble
management to a changing climate, shifting precipitation patterns, and water scarcity." Fresno must engage in a meaningful analysis of climate change's effects on water The EIR concludes that the City's existing water supplies will be adequate to serve future the Specific Plan's environmental consequences of obtaining new water sources, or its impacts December 4, 2024

-term average water supply obtained
from surface water sources will remain relatively stable. According to Appendix F at p. 6-17 Kings River is projected to remain at a steady percentage of the average Fresno Irrigation District deliveries between 1964 and 2019 453,800 acre-feet per year. This assumption is likely invalid in light of the foreseeable effects of climate change. Indeed, it is directly inconsistent snowpack is projected to decline to two-thirds from historical levels. If emissions reductions do not occur, water from snowpack could fall to less than one- (EIR at 3.8-10.)
If the anticipated decline in surface water supplies due to climate change are considered in a significant shortfall in water supplies. The EIR should be revised and recirculated to address the foreseeable effects of climate change on water supply available for development pursuant to the Specific Plan.

III. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
IS INADEQUATE.

Air quality is a significant environmental and public health concern in California.

Unhealthy, polluted air contributes to and exacerbates many diseases and increases mortality rates. The U.S. government has estimated that between 10 to 12 percent of total health costs can be attributed to air pollution. (Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 2003) Greenhouse gases, such as the air pollutant carbon dioxide, which is released by fossil fuel combustion, contribute directly to human-induced climate change, and in a positive feedback loop, poor air quality that contributes to climate change will in turn worsen the impacts of climate change and attendant air pollution. (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2016) Air pollution and its impacts are felt most heavily by young children, the elderly, pregnant women and people with existing heart and lung disease. People living in poverty are also more susceptible to air pollution as they are less able to relocate to less polluted areas, and their homes and places of work are more likely to be located near sources of pollution, such as freeways or ports, as these areas are more affordable. (American Lung Association, 2024) Some Ibid.) According to the
-worst
county in the country for particle pollution and sixth-worst county in the country for ozone pollution. (Ibid.) Even more disturbing, the same report found that Fresno County is one of only air quality metrics. (Ibid.)
Although there are many different types of air pollution, ozone, PM2.5, and toxic air contaminants (TACs) are of greatest concern in Fresno County. These three air pollutants have been linked to an increased incidence and risk of cancer, birth defects, low birth weights and premature death, in addition to a variety of cardiac and lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, CBD

6 CONT
7 The EIR's analysis considers potential water availability during wet, dry, and multiple dry years, but its conclusion assumes that the City's long (Water Technical Study), the City's allocation of Fresno Irrigation District water diverted from with the acknowledgment elsewhere in the EIR that "By 2050, the average water supply from third of historical levels by 2100"
in the Specific Plan's water supply analysis, the Specific Plan's water demand is likely to result

THE EIR'S ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION OF
of the nation's most polluted counties are in the Central Valley. ( American Lung Association's 2024 "State of the Air" report, Fresno County is the second thirty counties in the country that received a "Fail" grade in all December 4, 2024

stroke and heart attack. (American Lung Association, 2024; Laurent et al., 2016) Ozone (commonly referred to as smog) is created by the atmospheric mixing of chemicals released from fossil fuel combustion such as reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sunlight. Although it is invisible, ozone poses one of the greatest health risks, prompting the EPA to strengthen its National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in 2015. (American Lung Association, 2024.) PM2.5 is a common component of vehicle exhaust emissions and contributes to visible air pollution. These tiny particles are dangerous because they are small enough to fine particulate matter that results from disturbance by human activity such as construction and road-building operations. (VCAPCD 2003.) TACs are released from vehicle fuels, especially diesel, which accounts for 70% of the cancer risk from TACs. (CARB, 2022) the Project will emit staggering levels of air pollutants. The VOC emissions will exceed the significance threshold by over one hundred times during operations. The NOx emissions are thirty times the limit. In an air basin that already some of the the highest levels of these pollutants in the county, permitting additional pollution on this scale is inexcusable. Doing it without proper analysis, disclosure, and mitigation is a violation of CEQA.

A. Quality Mitigation is Vague and Improperly Deferred.

Mitigation must include concrete, specific, and enforceable actions. (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 [ urban decay mitigation measures were inadequate under CEQA to address the impact from the development of a 234-acre regional shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land because the measures did not ensure the city would take concrete, measurable actions].) In the limited circumstances in which deferred mitigation is appropriate, the agency must meet all of the following elements: (1) practical considerations prevented the formulation of mitigation measures during the planning process; (2) the agency committed itself to developing mitigation measures in the future; (3) the agency adopted specific performance criteria prior to project approval; and (4) the EIR lists the mitigation measures to be considered, analyzed, and possibly incorporated into the mitigation plan. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15126.4(a)(1)(B); POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 736-37 [review denied]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670;
(2017) 17 Cal.App.5th
these standards.

Instead of mitigating the significant air quality impacts by requiring specific mitigation measures, the EIR instead relies on mitigation measures AIR-1a through 1d, which amount to a promise to develop a mitigation plan in the future. Mitigation measure AIR-1b, 1c, and 1d say that impacts will be analyzed and mitigated by the applicant after the Project is approved. (EIR at

3.3-43-46.) The mitigation measures list possible methods to reduce emissions that might be required in the future but do not require any of them. Fatally, the mitigation measures do not include any specific performance criteria. Measures 1b and 1c merely promise to ht be. This leaves the public and decision-makers
CBD

7 CONT
8 escape our body's natural defenses and enter the blood stream. Fugitive dust is a term used for Air quality analysis and mitigation is crucial here because, by the EIR's own admission, The Project's Air
City's
Cleveland Nat 'l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass 'n of Gov 'ts 413, 442.) Unfortunately, the EIR's proposed mitigation fails to meet "reduce"
emissions an unspecified amount, and measure 1 c says it will "reduce risks to an acceptable level" without any indication what that mig
December 4, 2024

with no assurances that impacts will be mitigated in any significant way, much less to the maximum extent feasible, as required by CEQA.

A
upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to analysis San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 670.) As courts CEQA, is not meant to be a bilateral negotiation between a project proponent and the lead agency after project approval, but rather, an open process that also involves other interested Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 93.) Here, the City proposes exactly that a mitigation plan that will be developed by the City and the developer after Project approval, with no metrics for success. This is especially egregious in an air basin with that has long had some of the worst air in the country, when evaluating a Project that will exceed significance thresholds for air pollutants by up to one hundred times. (EIR at 3.3-51.)
IV.

The Project will emit significant GHG emissions, which the EIR obscures with an climate plans. The Project will emit 510,791 MT CO2e at full buildout in 2050, five years after California needs to achieve net zero emissions. (EIR at 3.8-43.) Approving a Project of this scale without adequate consideration of GHG impacts is irresponsible and a violation of CEQA.

A. The Climate Crisis Is a Catastrophic and Urgent Threat to California.

A strong, international scientific consensus has established that human-caused climate change is causing widespread harms to human society and natural systems, and that climate change threats are becoming increasingly dangerous. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international scientific body for the assessment of climate change, land use as well as more than a century of burning fossil fuels have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011- (IPCC, 2023) The increase in global surface temperature has resulted in sea level rise, increased Fifth National Climate Assessment, prepared by scientific experts and reviewed by the National global warming observed over the industrial era is unequivocally caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities -term responses include (US Global Change Research Program, 2023)
In its 2020 update, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society concluded (National Academy of Sciences & Royal
Society, 2020) The additional carbon input from human activities has significantly disturbed the CBD

8 CONT
9 10
n EIR is inadequate if"[t]he success or failure of mitigation efforts may largely depend and review within the EIR." (
have pointed out "[f]undamentally, the development of mitigation measures, as envisioned by agencies and the public." (
THE EIR'S GHG ANALYSIS IS INADEQUATE AND MISLEADING.
incorrect threshold of significance that ignores feasible mitigation and misrepresents the state's concluded in its 2023 Sixth Assessment Report that: "[ u ]nsustainable and unequal energy and 2020."
frequency of extreme weather events, and has resulted in "irreversible losses" at the species and ecosystem levels. (IPCC, 2023). These findings were echoed in the United States' own 2023 Academy of Sciences and multiple federal agencies. The 2023 Assessment concluded that "[t]he -primarily burning fossil fuels" and long
"sea level rise, ice sheet losses, and associated disruptions to human health, social systems, and ecosystems."
that climate change is largely a result of human activity, as "natural causes alone are inadequate to explain the recent observed changes in climate."
December 4, 2024

natural carbon cycle, resulting in an imbalance in the system that fosters global climate stability. (National Academy of Sciences & Royal Society, 2020). Based on observed and expected harms from climate change, in 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gas pollution endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations. (74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) [U.S. EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule].) In 2021, EPA again (US Environmental Protection Agency,
2021)
These authoritative climate assessments decisively recognize the dominant role of greenhouse gases in driving climate change. In its 2023 Assessment Report, IPCC stated that from reaching an irreversible point, policies must be implemented to reach net zero CO2 emissions and achieve significant reductions in other greenhouse gases. (IPCC, 2023).

The impacts of climate change will be felt by humans and wildlife. Climate change is increasing stress on species and ecosystems causing species-level changes in morphology, behavior, phenology, and geographic range shifts, and ecosystem-level changes such as the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, widespread changes in productivity, species interactions, and vulnerability to biological invasions (Weiskopf et al., 2020) Climate-changerelated local extinctions are already widespread and have occurred in hundreds of species. ((Wiens, 2016) Catastrophic levels of species extinctions are projected during this century if climate change continues unabated (Maclean & Wilson, 2011; Thomas et al., 2004; Urban, 2015) Conservation actions aimed at protecting biodiversity can slow the progression of climate change the ecosystem services provided by biodiverse ecosystems are an integral part in the balanced functioning of our climate system (Shin et al., 2022) Therefore, immediate and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions are necessary to keep warming well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and other expert assessments have established global carbon budgets, or the total amount of carbon that can be burned while maintaining some probability of staying below a given from the beginning of 2020 are 500 GtCO2 for a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to -2030 stayed, on average, at the same
level as 2019, the resulting cumulative emissions would almost exhaust the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C (50%), and deplete more than a third of the remaining carbon budget for 2°C estimated 2.7°C of warming, and possibly up to 3.4°C of warming, well above the level needed to avoid the worst dangers of climate change (Climate Action Tracker, 2023) The United States has contributed more to climate change than any other country. The CBD

10 CONT
recognized the critical nature of the climate crisis, stating that: "[t]he changing climate is affecting people's health and livelihoods and damaging infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems in communities in every region of the nation."
''the extent to which current and future generations will experience a hotter and different world depends on choices now and in the near term." (IPCC, 2023). In order to prevent global warming temperature target. According to the IPCC, "[t]he best estimates of the remaining carbon budgets l.5°C and 1150 GtCO2 for a 67% likelihood oflimiting warming to 2°C." (IPCC, 2023).

Additionally, "[i]fthe annual CO2 emissions between 2020 (67%)." (IPCC, 2023). As of 2023, climate policies by the world's countries would lead to an U.S. is the world's biggest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, responsible for 24 December 4, 2024

percent of cumulative global CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2022, and the U.S. is currently the (Friedlingstein et al., 2023;
Friedrich et al., 2023) U.S. climate policy is wholly inadequate to meet the international climate target to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst dangers of climate change. Current U.S. climate policy has been ranked as from meeting its domestic climate target, let alone get it (Climate Action Tracker, 2023). In its 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the IPCC the leading international scientific body for the assessment of climate change described the devastating harms that would occur at 2°C warming. The report highlights the necessity of limiting warming to 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic impacts to people and life on Earth (IPCC, 2018) The report also provides overwhelming evidence that climate hazards are more urgent and more severe than previously thought, and that aggressive reductions in emissions within the next decade are essential to avoid the most devastating climate change harms.

In California, climate change will transform our climate, resulting in such impacts as increased temperatures and wildfires, and a reduction in snowpack and precipitation levels and water availability (Turco et al., 2023) In response to inadequate action on the national level, California has taken steps through legislation and regulation to fight climate change and reduce statewide GHG emissions. Enforcement and compliance with these steps are essential to help stabilize the climate and avoid catastrophic impacts to our environment. California has a mandate under AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, to achieve net zero GHG emissions by no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 85% the level in 1990. (AB 1279 2022.) In 2019, Governor Newsom issued an executive order to leverage state investments to further -19-19 (2019).) Newsom has continued to issue
climate-related executive orders, such as a 2020 order requiring that, by 2035, all passenger vehicles will be zero-emission, in addition to other motor vehicle emission goals. (Executive Order N-79-20 (2020).) Through these bills and orders, California has laid a path that may allow the state to achieve tangible climate solutions, but there is still work to be done.

Although some sources of GHG emissions may seem insignificant, climate change is a problem with cumulative impacts and effects. (
Traffic Safety Admin.
must conduct).) One source or one small project may not appear to have a significant effect on climate change, but the combined impacts of many source climate as a whole. Therefore, project-specific GHG emission disclosure, analysis and mitigation is vital to California meeting its climate goals and maintaining our climate.

B. The EIR fails to accurately analyze and mitigate the GHG impact of destroying habitat and converting agricultural land.
construction, stating (EIR at 3.8- Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not
CBD

10 CONT
11 world's second highest emitter on an annual and per capita basis "insufficient" by an international team of climate policy experts and climate scientists which concluded: "[w]ithout additional, drastic emission reductions measures, the US will still be far s emissions onto a l.5°C trajectory."
California's climate goals (Executive Order N
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat 'l Highway
, (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 ("the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis" that agencies scan drastically damage California's
The EIR improperly discounts the Specific Plan's anticipated GHG impacts from 42) that"
expected to significantly contribute to global climate change." The December 4, 2024

EIR, however, projects that construction emissions will total more than 2.3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents over 20 years, with average annual emissions of over 115,000 metric tons. (EIR at 3.8-
proposed project at construction would not result in significant adverse effects related to GHG -42.)
Moreover, even the 2.3 million MT CO2e this analysis dismisses is in fact a dramatic underestimation of the construction emissions from the Project because it ignores the loss of carbon sequestration and storage. CEQA requires a thorough disclosure and analysis of a (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 89-
an EIR must disclose all potential sources of a GHG emission resulting from the project. Lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Yet the EIR fails to comply with these requirements. When describing the -duty
construction equipment, (DEIR at 4.8-41).

The EIR fails to account for carbon emissions from intact habitats or agricultural landscapes that would be dug up and paved over during construction as well as the annual loss of carbon that existing open space would have continued to sequester for 30 years if the Project were not constructed.
(Yap et al., 2023), agricultural lands can store significant amounts of carbon by keeping it from being released and sequester it by removing it from the atmosphere. (Kroodsma & Field, 2006). Carbon cycling in agricultural landscapes can vary greatly depending on crop species and agricultural practices, and some agricultural lands can act as carbon sources themselves (Ceschia et al., 2010). However, numerous crop types including orchards, which make up the majority of the agricultural landscape of the Plan Area (EIR at 3.4-7) are able to sequester carbon, and act as carbon sinks (Kroodsma & Field, 2006; Scandellari et al., 2016).

Given the increased urgency in combatting climate change and new knowledge that California is currently not on track to meet its GHG reduction targets, it is important to accurately quantify and mitigate for loss of carbon storage and sequestration potential. However, the EIR fails entirely to consider the impact of conversion of native habitats, open space and agricultural landscapes and the loss of carbon sequestration capacity of these landscapes on GHG emissions. This is an egregious oversight, as the conversion of 5,000 acres of open space to industrial, commercial, residential, or uses necessitates the removal of 5,000 acres of vegetation that is potentially sequestering carbon. This exclusion is particularly inexcusable because CalEEMod, upon which the EIR relies, has the modelling capabilities to calculate the loss of carbon from changes in land use and the associated loss of vegetation (CAPCOA, 2022). The modelling also provides detailed inputs for calculating GHG emissions from land use changes construction (EIR at 3.8-41), the EIR fails to perform any of the available analyses of land use change and sequestration.

The failure to account for emissions resulting from land conversion and loss of sequestration ability of existing vegetation leads to an inaccurate estimation of total Project emissions. The omission of any sequestration analysis is particularly concerning, as the loss of CBD

11 CONT

42.) There is no support for the EIR's conclusion that "future development under the emissions." (EIR at 3.8
project's impact on climate change. (See Communities for a Better Env 't v. City of Richmond 91). In order to meet CEQA's requirement for adequate analysis, emissions sources during construction activities, the EIR only lists emissions from "heavy worker trips, and material delivery and handling."
As detailed in a 2023 Center Report, "Hidden in Plain Sight: California's Native Habitats are Valuable Carbon Sinks"
and vegetation loss. While the EIR uses CalEEMod to model the Project's GHG emissions from December 4, 2024

sequestration ability of existing landscapes will lead to a continued increased net emissions into from anticipated development under the plan through the planning horizon of 2040, and analysis of carbon sequestration whatsoever, the document fails to account for the annual loss of carbon that existing habitats would have continued to sequester for 30 years if the Project were not constructed. The EIR therefore fails to meet this requirement.

Because the EIR does not account for either carbon emissions resulting from land use conversion, which could be substantial in the proposed Plan, nor the loss of carbon sequestration capacity that will result from such land use conversion, the estimate of total emissions is inaccurate, and the true levels of GHG emissions resulting from the proposed Plan are likely to be higher than stated in the EIR. A supplemental EIR must disclose the carbon emissions associated with the loss of currently stored carbon as well as the loss of future carbon that would have been sequestered by these habitats over the Project lifetime.

Destroying native habitats, agricultural landscapes, and open space could release significant decision makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible of the -term and longthe carbon emissions associated with the loss of currently stored carbon as well as the loss of future carbon that would have been sequestered by these habitats over the Project lifetime the FEIR fails as an informational document.

C.

The EIR contains a surprising claim
service population over 80%, from 45 down to 5.07. (EIR at 3.17-35.) A VMT per capita of 5 is unheard of in the United States. The VMT per capita in New York City, the most dense and public-transit-oriented area in the country, is 15.2. (US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2022) The EIR does not acknowledge the implausibility of this claim, and supports it with no evidence beyond stating that the analysis was done by FresnoABM. The EIR must be revised and recirculated with an evidenced-based analysis of VMT.

D.

Foreseeable GHG Impacts and Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
substantial evidence. Moreover, a determination that an environmental impact complies with a particular threshold of significance does not relieve a lead agency of its obligation to consider evidence that indicates the impact may be significant despite compliance with the threshold. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b)(2).) If evidence shows that an environmental impact might be significant despite the significance standard used in the EIR, the agency must address that evidence. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111.)
CBD

11 CONT
13 12
the future. The EIR states that "the analysis presented herein quantifies GHG emissions resulting describes, calculates, and estimates those emissions." However, because the EIR performs no CEQA requires the adequate assessment and mitigation of a project's impacts. amounts of carbon that must be accounted for. An EIR must disclose and "give the public and project's likely near term impacts." (Guidelines§ 15125(a).) By failing to disclose The EIR's Analysis ofVMT Is Not Supported by Evidence.
-that the Project will shrink the area's VMT per
The EIR's Threshold of Significance Forecloses Consideration of A lead agency's selection of a threshold of significance must be supported with December 4, 2024

The EIR incorrectly finds a less than significant GHG impact based on claimed consistency with -56) and
does not support that finding with evidence.

It claims the Project is consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, but the consistency analysis is incorrect. First, and most glaringly, the 2022 Scoping Plan requires a reduction in above. And the consistency analysis contains other errors. For one example, the EIR says the Project complies with the parts of the Scoping Plan that require adopting energy efficiency and -46.)
Voluntary, unenforceable measures cannot be the basis for a finding of no significant impact. to urban uses, but it does not admit that CARB considers agricultural land to be greenfield land. (EIR at 3.8-46, CARB 2025.) A project that develops 5,000 acres of agriculture is not consistent with this requirement.
conducts this analysis at such a high level of generality that it is meaningless. (EIR at 3.8-48-49.) sustainable transportation options, and asserts that the Project advances each of these goals in some way. It does not acknowledge that the RTP/SCS contains specific growth projections for different areas of the City, specific action steps to achieve each of the five general goals, and metrics for success, and it does not analyze consistency with any of those aspects of the plan.

Moreover, if some effort generally in line with each of the five goals was all the RTP/SCS required, then the EIR would have to defend this supposed threshold of significance by establishing in any way could
not possibly have GHG impacts. Given that under this interpretation the threshold of significance would contain no concrete metrics either qualitative or quantitative it would fail the meet of significance.

E. The EIR Does Not Mitigate
The City proposes no mitigation measures at all for GHG emissions. But CEQA does not exempt specific plans from the requirement to adopt all feasible mitigation measures, nor does it relieve program EIRs from the requirement to evaluate feasible mitigation measures for the foreseeable environmental consequences of a specific plan. The EIR concludes that there are no feasible project-specific mitigation measures, but none are considered. In fact, there is a broad range of mitigation measures that can be adopted at the Specific Plan level to guide future development. A representative but non-exclusive list of such measures includes the following:

Require onsite renewable energy generation (ideally rooftop solar or community solar) to meet all residential and commercial energy demand.

Require all construction to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by 20% in light Require installation of all-electric energy efficient appliances.

Require use of high efficiency public street and area lighting.

CBD

13 CONT
14 CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan and the Fresno 2022 RTP/SCS (EIR at 3.8 VMT. The EIR's claim to achieve that is contrary to logic and common sense, as discussed electrification policies because the Project "considers adopting" such policies, and "encourage[es]" compliance with "voluntary energy conservation programs." (EIR at 3.8 The EIR also says the Project is consistent with the requirement not to convert "greenfield" land The DEIR also purports to find consistency with Fresno COG's 2022 RTP/SCS, but it It lists each of the plan's five goals, which are general, aspirational statements that include "improved mobility and accessibility for all" and "vibrant communities that are accessible by "
that any project that "improved mobility and accessibility for all" CEQA's requirements for an adequate threshold
•
•
•
•
of the Specific Plan's extended buildout.
the Project's Foreseeable GHG Impacts .

December 4, 2024

Increase transit accessibility and reach by providing transit incentives to construction personnel and future residents; build transit facilities during initial phase of build out; include reliable connections to existing public transit.

Require pedestrian friendly measures including interconnecting street/pedestrian networks; narrower roadways and shorter block lengths; sidewalks; tree canopy for shade and transit shelters.

Require traffic calming measures including marked crosswalks, curb extensions, raised crosswalks, roundabouts, and planter strips with native vegetation.

Require a neighborhood electric vehicle network.

Require bicycle-friendly designs including bike lanes, bike sharing programs, bike parking, and dedicated bike trails.

Update provides a set of measures and criteria to achieve equitable reduction of GHG emissions, including:

Utilizing existing infill sites that are surrounded by urban uses, and reuse or redevelop previously developed, underutilized land presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).

Providing proximity to public transit (within ½ mile).
and working lands.

Requiring installation of all electric appliances, without any gas connections for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

Making at least 20 percent of residential units affordable to lower-income residents.

Ensuring no net loss of existing affordable units.

Providing EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with CalGreen Tier 2 standards.

The EIR must be revised and recirculated to include these mitigation measures and others like them to the maximum extent feasible.

V. CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan. We urge the City to revise the EIR to address the issues detailed here, and recirculate a legally compliant document.

Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies in order to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and (§ 21167.6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 762-

65.) The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that relate to any and all actions taken by the City
CBD

14 CONT
15 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition, Appendix D of the California Air Resources Board's 2022 Scoping Plan • Ensuring that development does not result in the loss or conversion of the State's natural •
•
•
•
communications that may constitute part of the "administrative record" of this proceeding. with respect to the Project, and includes "pretty
much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or[] the agency's compliance with December 4, 2024

CEQA County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the Ci
correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the Ci administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.

Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.

Sincerely,
Frances Tinney
Attorney
1212 Broadway, Suite #800
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (509) 432-9256
[email protected]
CBD

15 CONT
... " (
ty's representatives or employees, that relate to the Project, including any ty's representatives or employees
and the Applicant's representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the December 4, 2024

References
Alam, S., Gebremichael, M., Li, R., Dozier, J., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2019). Climate change impacts on groundwater storage in the Central Valley, California. Climatic Change, 157(3 4), 387 406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02585-5 American Lung Association. (2024). State of the Air Report. American Lung Association. https://www.lung.org/getmedia/dabac59e-963b-4e9b-bf0f-73615b07bfd8/State-of-theAir-2024.pdf Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (2016, May). Planning Healthy Places. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-healthyplaces/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf CAPCOA. (2022). CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

CARB. (2022).

Protection Act. California Air Resources Board.

CARB. (2025). Priority Areas for Local Climate Action. California Air Resources Board.

Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/local-actions-climatechange/priority-areas-local-climate-action Ceschia, E., Béziat, P., Dejoux, J. F., Aubinet, M., Bernhofer, Ch., Bodson, B., Buchmann, N., Carrara, A., Cellier, P., Di Tommasi, P., Elbers, J. A., Eugster, W., Grünwald, T., Jacobs, Wattenbach, M. (2010). Management effects on net ecosystem carbon and GHG budgets at European crop sites. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139(3), 363 383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.09.020
CBD

2022 Progress Report California's Sustainable Communities and Climate C. M. J., Jans, W.W. P., Jones, M., Kutsch, W., Lanigan, G., Magliulo, E., ...

December 4, 2024

Climate Action Tracker. (2023). Warming Projections Global Update. Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Earth System Science
Data, 15(12), 5301 5369. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023 Friedrich, J., Ge, M., Pickens, A., & Vigna, L. (2023). This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in . World Resources Institute.

Hartman, C. A., & Kyle, K. (2010). Farming for Birds: Alfalfa and Forages as Valuable Wildlife Habitat. Proceedings, 2010 California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium and Corn/Cereal Silage Mini-Symposium. Iglay, R. B., Buckingham, B. N., Seamans, T. W., Martin, J. A., Blackwell, B. F., Belant, J. L., & DeVault, T. L. (2017). Bird use of grain fields and implications for habitat management at airports. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 242, 34 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.022
IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC. (2023). Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

CBD

Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Anthoni, P., ... Zheng, B. (2023). Global Carbon Budget 2023. the World's Top 10 Emitters
December 4, 2024

Kroodsma, D. A., & Field, C. B. (2006). Carbon Sequestration in California Agriculture, 1980 2000. Ecological Applications, 16(5), 1975 1985. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051- 0761(2006)016[1975:CSICA]2.0.CO;2
Laurent, O., Hu, J., Li, L., Kleeman, M. J., Bartell, S. M., Cockburn, M., Escobedo, L., & Wu, J. (2016). Low birth weight and air pollution in California: Which sources and components drive the risk? Environment International, 92 93(May), 471 477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.034
Luck, G. W., Hunt, K., & Carter, A. (2015). The species and functional diversity of birds in almond orchards, apple orchards, vineyards and eucalypt woodlots. Emu - Austral Ornithology, 115(2), 99 109. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU14022 Maclean, I. M. D., & Wilson, Robert. J. (2011). Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(30), 12337 12342.

Miller, J. (2024). Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission To List California Populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity; Defenders of Wildlife; Burrowing Owl Preservation Society; Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society; Urban Bird Foundation; Central Valley Bird Club; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.

National Academy of Sciences & Royal Society. (2020). Climate Change: Evidence and Causes:

Update 2020 (p. 25733). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25733 Rosenberg, K. V., Dokter, A. M., Blancher, P. J., Sauer, J. R., Smith, A. C., Smith, P. A., Stanton, J. C., Panjabi, A., Helft, L., Parr, M., & Marra, P. P. (2019). Decline of the CBD

December 4, 2024

North American avifauna. Science, 366(6461), 120 124.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1313
Scandellari, F., Caruso, G., Liguori, G., Meggio, F., Palese Assunta, M., Zanotelli, D., Celano, G., Gucci, R., Inglese, P., Pitacco, A., & Tagliavini, M. (2016). A survey of carbon sequestration potential of orchards and vineyards in Italy. European Journal of Horticultural Science, 81(2), 106 114. https://doi.org/10.17660/eJHS.2016/81.2.4 Shin, Y., Midgley, G. F., Archer, E. R. M., Arneth, A., Barnes, D. K. A., Chan, L., Hashimoto, Pires, A. P. F., Pörtner, H., Rogers, A. D., Scholes, R. J., Settele, J., & Smith, P. (2022).

Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate. Global Change Biology, 28(9), 2846 2874. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16109 Siirila-Woodburn, E. R., Rhoades, A. M., Hatchett, B. J., Huning, L. S., Szinai, J., Tague, C., Nico, P. S., Feldman, D. R., Jones, A. D., Collins, W. D., & Kaatz, L. (2021). A low-tono snow future and its impacts on water resources in the western United States. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(11), 800 819. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017- 021-00219-y
Stanton, R. L., Morrissey, C. A., & Clark, R. G. (2018). Analysis of trends and agricultural drivers of farmland bird declines in North America: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 254, 244 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.028 Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C., Erasmus, B. F. N., de Siqueira, M. F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A. S., Midgley, G. F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M. A., Peterson, A. T., Phillips, O. L., & Williams, S. E. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature.

CBD

S., Hoegh-Guldberg, 0., Insarov, G., Leadley, P., Levin, L.A., Ngo, H. T., Pandit, R., December 4, 2024

Turco, M., Abatzoglou, J. T., Herrera, S., Zhuang, Y., Jerez, S., Lucas, D. D., AghaKouchak, A., & Cvijanovic, I. (2023). Anthropogenic climate change impacts exacerbate summer forest fires in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(25), e2213815120.

Urban, M. C. (2015). Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science, 348(6234), 571 573. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4984
US Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2022). U.S. Department of Transportation 2022 Daily VMT per Capita. https://www.bts.gov/geography/geospatial-2/daily-vehicle-milestraveled-capita-urbanized-area-2022 US Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Climate Adaptation Action Plan. US Global Change Research Program. (2023). Fifth National Climate Assessment. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. (2003). Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf Weiskopf, S. R., Rubenstein, M. A., Crozier, L. G., Gaichas, S., Griffis, R., Halofsky, J. E., Hyde, K. J. W., Morelli, T. L., Morisette, J. T., Muñoz, R. C., Pershing, A. J., Peterson, D. L., Poudel, R., Staudinger, M. D., Sutton-Grier, A. E., Thompson, L., Vose, J., Weltzin, J. F., & Whyte, K. P. (2020). Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States.

Science of The Total Environment, 733, 137782.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137782
Wiens, J. J. (2016). Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biology, 14(12), 1 18.

CBD

December 4, 2024

Yap, T. A., Prabhala, A., & Anderson, I. (2023).

Habitats are Valuable Carbon Sinks. Center for Biological Diversity.

CBD

Hidden in Plain Sight: California's Native
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-167
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Organizations
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
Response to CBD-1
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

Response to CBD-2
The comment is noted. Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, evaluated the existing biological setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce these potential effects to less than significant levels. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on the Fresno General Plan (General Plan), the Specific Plan, the Fresno Municipal Code (Municipal Code), aerial photographs and maps, existing reports relevant to the Specific Plan area (Plan Area), and the results of database searches. As noted in this comment, the Recirculated Draft PEIR accurately describes the various vegetation community types present in the Plan Area, including irrigated row and field crops and deciduous orchards.

Section 3.4, Biological Resources of the Recirculated Draft PEIR provided a table (Table 3.4-3, Vegetation Communities within the Plan Area) that identifies the suitability for special-status species per the General Plan. The Recirculated Draft PEIR indicates that deciduous orchards are relatively disturbed, containing very little groundcover and planted trees that provide moderately suitable habitat for only one special-status species: California horned lark. Similarly, irrigated row and field crops contain active agriculture and are significantly disturbed with altered substrates. This vegetation community does not provide a suitable habitat for special-status plant species and provides limited habitat for special-status wildlife species such as burrowing owl and California horned lark. As such, the Recirculated Draft PEIR does identify the habitat suitability for specialstatus species in agricultural land.

Furthermore, the proposed project would require the implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1d, which provide protections for special-status species. All future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with these mitigation measures. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-3
The comment is noted. As specified in Impact BIO-1 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, a specialstatus wildlife species is defined as any wildlife species which is listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. It also includes any species designated by the CDFW as a “candidate” or “species of concern.” The burrowing owl is accurately described as a California Species of Special Concern in Table 3.4-5, Special-status Wildlife Species within the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-4
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CBD-2. The Recirculated Draft PEIR identifies that the Pasture vegetation community, which makes up less than one percent of the Plan Area, is the City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-168 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx only vegetation community that provides limited habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. However, the Recirculated Draft PEIR discloses that the Swainson’s hawk has the potential to occur or is known to occur within the Plan Area, and direct project impacts to species listed as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species by local, State, and federal agencies should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. However, the Recirculated Draft PEIR acknowledges that it may not be feasible for future projects to avoid these species, and any project-related impacts that result in the direct take of a special-status species may be considered a significant impact. The presence/absence of a specialstatus species on a project site and the potential to impact a special- status species must be determined prior to project construction. Future development proposed in the Plan Area would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources, specifically within the Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element (POSS), as outlined above. Project level implementation of the General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f would reduce potential project impacts to special-status species and their associated habitats. Furthermore, incorporation of MM BIO-1a to MM BIO-1d into the conditions of approval would ensure that if one or more of these special-status species occur in the Plan Area, their presence would be detected and the risk of mortality would be avoided to the maximum extent feasible, in accordance with adopted policies and mitigation measures. Additionally, all future development in the Plan Area would be required to comply with the proposed Specific Plan policies pertaining to biological resources, including Policy OS-2.2, which protects passive open space, and Policy OS-5.2, which protects habitat corridors. As such, the Recirculated Draft PEIR accurately finds impacts to special-status species, including the Swainson’s Hawk, less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Additionally, please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-5
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CBD-4, which outlines that General Plan policies, Specific Plan policies, and mitigation measures that would apply to future development within the Plan Area. Please note that the City of Fresno is the Lead Agency for the Specific Plan and the Recirculated Draft PEIR. The proposed project is a policy-level document and does not propose any specific site development at this time. As such, in many cases, it is too speculative to determine what specific mitigation measure is needed; however, the mitigation measures included in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR commit future projects within the Plan Area to mitigate any known significant impacts. Future development associated with the proposed project would be required to undergo CEQA analysis on a project-by-project basis as necessary. Any future project that could potentially result in a significant impact would be required to analyze any available, feasible mitigation prior to approval. The details of exactly how the mitigation would be achieved will be determined upon completion of environmental review or further study. As such, the proposed project does not improperly defer mitigation.

Additionally, please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-169
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. As such, this comment does not identify a legitimate basis for recirculation and no further response is required.

Response to CBD-6
The comment is noted. Section 3.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, describes the existing conditions related to utilities and service systems (water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste) in the City and Plan Area as well as the relevant regulatory framework.

The section also evaluates the possible impacts related to such utilities and service systems that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Information in the section is based on information provided by the planning documents for each utility type. Water supply and facilities information was obtained from the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. in 2021; the technical memorandum prepared by West Yost Associates in 2013 for the Hydraulic Evaluation of the Proposed 2035 General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Update for the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR); and the Water Technical Study prepared for the Specific Plan by Blair, Church & Flynn in 2022 (see Appendix I of the Recirculated Draft PEIR). Recycled water supply and facilities information was obtained from the Recycled Water Master Plan prepared by Carollo in 2010; the Engineering Report for the Production, Distribution and Use of Recycled Water prepared by Blair, Church & Flynn in 2015; and the Recycled Water Technical Study prepared for the Specific Plan by Blair, Church & Flynn in 2022 (see Appendix I of the Recirculated Draft PEIR).

The potential project-related impacts related to utilities and service systems were evaluated on a qualitative basis due to the programmatic nature of this Recirculated Draft PEIR. Qualitative impacts were assessed by evaluating the proposed project’s potential for impacting utilities and service systems within the Planning Area based on information regarding the current service commitments and capacities of public service providers within the Plan Area. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area.

Technical studies were developed to analyze the impacts of development under the proposed Specific Plan versus the approved General Plan. General Plan land use classifications and Specific Plan land use classifications were provided by the City’s Planning and Development Department in the form of GIS (Geographic Information System) and Shape files. GIS and Shape files were also obtained from the City’s Department of Public Utilities for the existing facilities in Fresno, including the Plan Area.

The Water Technical Study focused on the analysis of water demand in the Plan Area, and how demand may change based on Specific Plan development. For the General Plan, the technical memorandum prepared by West Yost Associates for the City of Fresno General Plan Update MEIR was used to identify projected water demand data for SEDA. For the Specific Plan analysis, water demand factors were prepared by Akel Engineering as part of the Metro Plan Update. The GIS files for the General and Specific Plan land uses were used to determine the total areas of each land use City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-170 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx classification. The water demand factors were then applied to each area of the corresponding land use classification to determine a total water demand for the Plan Area based on the General Plan and the Specific Plan developments. The total water demand for the Plan Area based on the General Plan analysis was compared to that of the Specific Plan case to identify the total potential change in water demand for the Plan Area.

The Recycled Water Technical Study focused on the analysis of potential recycled water demand in the Plan Area, and how it may affect development in accordance with the Specific Plan. The Plan Area presents a unique opportunity to develop the recycled water distribution system along with the area-wide development, allowing recycled water use to be engrained into the Plan Area. However, recycled water is not yet utilized in the Plan Area, and the Recycled Water planning documents do not account for the development of a recycled water distribution system within the Plan Area until after the planned development of the City’s growth areas. Thus, the analysis contained within this section utilizes the best available data, which does consider the projected changes to the City’s water supplies, to determine whether the Specific Plan would result in any significant impacts.

The potential long-term impacts related to water supply requirements of the baseline General Plan conditions for the Plan Area versus the proposed Specific Plan conditions for the Plan Area differ by

1.7 percent, which is considered less than significant for full implementation of the proposed Specific Plan with mitigations incorporated. However, as noted above, the proposed project is a policy-level document and does not propose any specific site development at this time. Future development associated with the proposed project would be required to undergo CEQA analysis on a project-byproject basis, as necessary.

Please refer to Master Response 8, Clarifying Information on Water Supply and Water Quality, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 8 further elaborates on the availability of water supply and potential impacts to water quality in the Plan Area under full build out conditions. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-7
The comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 7, Clarifying Information on Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 7 provides additional clarifying information on the significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed within the PEIR. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-8
The comment is noted. As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the proposed project has the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds during construction and operation. Full build out of the proposed project would result in the generation of substantial long-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds and would therefore not be considered consistent with the existing AQPs.

MM AIR-1a, MM AIR-1b, MM AIR-1c, and MM AIR-1d would serve to reduce construction and operation-phase criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the mitigation measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. However, due to the magnitude and intensity of City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-171
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx development accommodated by the proposed project, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

As noted above, the proposed project is a policy-level document and does not propose any specific site development at this time. As such, it is too speculative to prepare project-level mitigation measures when the specific details of future development are unknown. Therefore, these practical considerations prevent the proposed project from formulating project-level mitigation during the planning process for the specific plan. However, future development associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with the plan-level mitigation measures identified in Section

3.3, Air Quality, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR and undergo CEQA analysis on a project-by-project basis as necessary. The mitigation measures identified above require future development in Plan Area to provide technical analyses as part of the project environmental review for construction, operational, and health impacts and mitigate the identified impacts in those technical studies to the greatest extent possible. The mitigation measures also include potential mitigation strategies for future development to utilize to reduce air quality impacts. Ultimately, compliance with these planlevel mitigation measures will help determine what project-specific mitigation measures would need to be implemented for each specific development project.

Future development in the plan area will still have to go through the appropriate level of environmental review where impacts to air quality will be evaluated against the suggested significance thresholds in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, which is the City’s standard practice.

Furthermore, applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including project-specific air district significance thresholds, in addition to the proposed project’s policies and design guidelines would contribute to reducing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible for each future development within the Plan Area. As such, the proposed project does not improperly defer mitigation.

Additionally, please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. Additionally, please also refer to Master Response 7, Clarifying Information on Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 7 provides additional clarifying information on the significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed within the PEIR. The comment does not identify a legitimate basis for recirculation, and as such, no further response is required.

Response to CBD-9
The comment is noted. As discussed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Emissions, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the City utilizes the criteria in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether greenhouse emissions impacts are significant environmental effects. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution toward an impact is cumulatively considerable. As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355, “cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-172 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG Reduction Plan (such as a CAP).

The City of Fresno developed its first GHG Plan in 2014, which includes GHG reduction targets and emissions inventories for the years 2020 and 2035. An updated GHG Plan (the GHG Plan Update) was adopted on September 30, 2021, pursuant to a certified General Plan Program EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019050005). However, in 2024, following a legal challenge, the 5th District Appellate Court rejected the City’s PEIR and GHG Plan Update. Both were rescinded pursuant to a Court order. The City’s previously adopted GHG Reduction Plan (2014) has not been the subject of a legal challenge and has not been invalidated by the court. As stated, the 2014 GHG Plan includes reduction targets for 2035; however, the full 25 year buildout of the proposed project goes beyond the year 2035 and is anticipated to be fully operational in the year 2050. Therefore, this analysis will evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with ARB’s latest 2022 Scoping Plan, including the proposed project’s consistency with relevant Scoping Plan measures and the latest RTP/SCS for the region within which the Plan is located. The 2022 Scoping Plan is consistent with the State’s longerterm AB 1279 GHG reduction targets of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and reducing GHG emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Therefore, consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan would also demonstrate consistency with the State’s long-term GHG reduction targets encapsulated by AB 1279.

The analysis contained within Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR provides a qualitative assessment of the proposed project’s compliance with the applicable plans, policies and regulations for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions to determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment relative to GHGs. The comment does not identify a legitimate basis for recirculation, and as such, no further response is required.

Response to CBD-10
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CBD-9. Additionally, please note that the City of Fresno is the Lead Agency for the Specific Plan and the Recirculated Draft PEIR. The proposed project is a policy-level document and does not propose any specific site development at this time. Future development associated with the proposed project would be required to undergo CEQA analysis on a project-by-project basis as necessary. Please refer to Master Response 5, Clarification of the Programmatic Document, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 5 provides additional information on the level of review included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the subsequent environmental review that would be performed as the City receives specific development applications in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-11
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CBD-9, which outlines the methodology used to analyze GHG impacts in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. As discussed above, the proposed project’s GHG emissions impact determination is based on the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-173
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, and indirectly through off-site energy production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal.

The proposed project’s short-term construction-related GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 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. Therefore, the construction impacts were analyzed using this accepted, uniform model.

As discussed in Response to CBD-9, the GHG analysis is cumulative in nature, so the analysis is based on consistency with applicable plans that account for the GHG reduction on a State, regional, and local scale. Specifically, the analysis in the Recirculated Draft PEIR evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with CARB’s latest 2022 Scoping Plan, including the proposed project’s consistency with relevant Scoping Plan measures and the latest RTP/SCS for the region within which the Plan is located. The 2022 Scoping Plan is consistent with the State’s longer-term AB 1279 GHG reduction targets of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and reducing GHG emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Therefore, consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan would also demonstrate consistency with the State’s long-term GHG reduction targets encapsulated by AB 1279.

Please refer to Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR, and Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final PEIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. This master responses provide additional information on the scope of CEQA. The comment does not identify a legitimate basis for recirculation of the preparation of additional environmental documents, and as such, no further response is required.

Response to CBD-12
The comment is noted. The City of Fresno CEQA standards for land use plans, such as SEDA, states that the project should compare the base year existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee with the horizon year with project VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee. If the horizon year with project VMT is higher than the base year, then there will be an impact. The project generates fewer VMT/capita and VMT/employee in the horizon year, and thus the impact would be less than significant. As such, the analysis included in Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic, was appropriately analyzed using this guidance. The latest approved version of the Fresno Activity Based Travel Demand Model (FresnoABM) was obtained for use in travel demand forecasting and VMT analysis for this project. All traffic volume forecasts were adjusted, using the difference (delta) method, to account for the difference between existing counts and base year model forecasts. The FresnoABM has a base year of 2019 and a forecast year of 2035, while the count data collected from the Fresno City count database were from the year 2018.

The VMT per Service Population in the project area with the project built out in 2035 drops from

45.72 to 5.07. There is a substantial reduction in VMT per Service Population in the horizon year (2035). While total VMT is projected to increase due to population and employment growth, the VMT per Service Population is expected to decrease from 45.72 in the “No Project” scenario to 5.07 in the “With Project” scenario. The transition from a mostly rural area (which the project area City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-174 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx currently is) to a developed urbanized mixed-use site results in a large VMT reduction. This is because trip distances for both the production side (residential) and attraction side (commercial) are shortened since residents and employees are now better connected to jobs and services within the project area. By grouping residential, commercial, and employment land uses, the proposed project minimizes the needs for long vehicular trips. This integration significantly reduces trip lengths, as daily needs can be met within the Plan Area itself. This significant reduction demonstrates the proposed project’s alignment with sustainable land use and transportation principles, as it facilitates shorter and more efficient trips for residents and employees.

Please refer to Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR, and Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final PEIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. These master responses provide additional information on the scope of CEQA, including any non-CEQA issues, and respond to comments that express general opposition to or disapproval of the proposed project or the environmental analysis. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-13
The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses to CBD-9 through CBD-12. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-14
The comment is noted. As previously discussed, no single land use project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. Cumulative GHG emissions, however, contribute to global climate change and its significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposed project would be consistent with relevant plans, policies, and regulations associated with GHGs, notably the most recent version 2022 version of ARB’s Scoping Plan, as well as the SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS and the City’s General Plan. The proposed project would not impede upon the State’s ability to reach mandated GHG reduction targets in the future and will support State-level efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, development of the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. In addition, the implementation of MM AIR-1b, MM AIR-1c, and MM AIR-1d would serve to further reduce GHG emissions along with criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Notably, MM AIR-1c includes potential mitigation strategies that address the majority of mitigation measures proposed by the comment.

The proposed project would also include Policies HC-3.2 and HC-3.3, which would encourage accessible, mixed-use development and smaller-lot single-family and multi-family housing types to reduce energy use and daily VMT. Policy OS-2.5 would support renewable energy technology systems in open spaces and pursue arrangements with public agencies and private partners to accommodate renewable energy systems. Policy OS-6.1 and Policy OS-6.3 would require park buildings to conform to green building standards and explore renewable energy systems to provide power. Various other policies include Policy RC-1.1 through 1.7 which address the statewide targets set for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions as set forth in the City’s updated GHG Reduction Plan.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-175
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/wp/31680037 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As individual projects applications are submitted, the City will review to identify appropriate projectspecific mitigation related to energy efficiency and transit. No further response is required.

Response to CBD-15
The comment is noted. This comment has been passed to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. However, no environmental issues pursuant to CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CLC/RCI

1 2

PATIENCE MILROD

L AWY E R LICENC IADA EN LEYE S
March 24, 2025
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Sent by email: [email protected]
RE: Public Comment on 2025 Recirculated draft Program Environmental Impact Report for Southeast Development Area Plan
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

On behalf of the Fresno Madera Tulare and Kings Counties Central Labor Council and Regenerate California Innovation (RCI), I respectfully request the City incorporate the following comments, and attachments, regarding the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan and Recirculated draft Program Environmental Impact Report into the record of this matter. We look forward to substantive responses to these comments.

NOTE: Due to the fact that the infrastructure plan, budget, and public facilities financing plan have not yet been released for public review or comment, these commenters respectfully request an extension of 45 days from the date they are released for public comment on the SEDA Recirculated draft EIR. See section 7.e, infra.

1. The City's contract with HCD does not require that the City Council adopt the SEDA Plan, nor that it approve the SEDA EIR.

The City's application for the grant that funded the SEDA EIR1 includes Schedule F, which identifies Council adoption as a "deliverable" under the grant. The Grant Agreement itself,2 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
2 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2. See specifically, Exhibit D, Section 4 (Remedies of [sic] Non-performance), subsection E. Similarly, Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant Program Year 1 Guidelines (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ grants-funding/ active-funding/planning-grants/ docs/ sb2-planning-grant985 NORTH VAN NESS A VENUE FRESNO, CALIFORN IA 93728
559 .246.7239
PM@PA TIENCEMILROD .COM

CLC/RCI

2 CONT
3 however, while requiring a "strong implementation component," recognizes that the locality may only formally adopt the completed planning document "where appropriate." In this case, for the reasons set out in this letter, adoption of the SEDA Plan and approval of the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report would not be an appropriate exercise of the City Council's legislative discretion, nor can the SB2 grant award contract compel the City Council to exercise its sovereign legislative discretion in such a fashion.

2. If the language of Section 4 of the Grant Agreement were to be interpreted as requiring the City Council to adopt the SEDA Plan and associated documents, it would be null, void ab initio, and unenforceable.

At Section 17, the General Terms and Conditions applicable to the grant award contract provide for severability "[i]n the event that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable or held to be unenforceable." Standard Grant Conditions also provide for severability of unenforceable provisions, at Section 10.A.

However, "[t]he California Constitution provides that a county or city may make and enforce within its limits 'all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.' (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) From this police power, a California city derives its power to control land use and enact comprehensive land use and zoning laws." Discovery Builders, Inc. v . City of Oakland, 92 Cal.App.5th 799,810,310 Cal.Rptr.3d 241,249 (2023) [citations omitted].

Since land use regulations involve the exercise of police power (Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal.App.4th 921, 934, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 574 (2012)), any agreement that functions to divest a municipality of its ability to exercise its police power with respect to land use laws is invalid. Discovery Builders, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at 812. This responsibility extends to a city's consideration of an environmental impact report: "CEQA confers the duty upon the local lead agency to produce an adequate EIR" and this "statutory obligation may not be the consideration for a contract or promise, nor may the County bargain away its constitutional duty to regulate development." Mission Oaks Ranch, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara, 65 Cal.App.4th 713, 723 (1998), quoted in Discovery Builders, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at 812.

Thus, the City of Fresno could not have obligated itself as a condition of grant approval to adopt the SEDA Plan, nor to approve the SEDA EIR. In this situation in particular, the EIR is so inadequate across multiple functions, chapters, and analyses that approval would constitute an abuse of discretion.

3. The City has violated material terms of its SB 2 agreement with HCD in the following respects:
guidelines.pd£) include plan adoption among Program Objectives (Section 101, subd. (a) and (b)), Eligible Uses for the funding (Section 302, subd. (a) and (b)). However, among Remedies of [sic] Nonperformance, Section 603(c) suggests only that "Localities that do not formally adopt the funded activity could be subject to repayment of the grant." [emphasis added] Comment letter - SEDA Recirculated PEIR March 24, 2025 2

CLC/RCI

3 CONT
4 a. The City has failed to produce a Public Review Draft of the Infrastructure Plan, Infrastructure Financing Plan, and Fee Nexus Study.

At Section C, subsection 3 of the City's application for the planning grant that funded the SEDA Plan and PEIR, the City commits to using the funding in support of a State Priority Policy Area, specifically "Housing Related Infrastructure Financing and Fee Reduction Strategies." Under Section D, Proposed Activities Checklist, the City commits to item 15, "infrastructure financing plans." At Section E, Project Description, the City acknowledges that" an infrastructure assessment [and] fiscal nexus study must be completed prior to adoption [of a SEDA Specific Plan]." At Appendix A, the City recognizes explicitly that:
"To implement a large-scale master planned community including infrastructure improvements and annexation, an analysis of the currently existing infrastructure, the infrastructure necessary to support development, and the gap is required. Additionally, the General Plan of the City of Fresno requires that all new annexations are fiscally neutral expansions to the City's General Fund budget. This requires a fiscal nexus study to show the anticipated costs and revenues associated with the annexation and mechanisms to fund any needed infrastructure gaps."
The costs of preparing the Infrastructure Assessment, Financing Plan, and Fee Nexus Study were built into the grant application, at a cost of $87,500.3 The 2020 Consultant Services Agreement between the City and HCD incorporated these items as deliverables4• Nevertheless, as of the date of this writing, the studies, plans, budget, etc. are not available. In 2023, in response to requests for information from members of the public, the City admitted that it had such documents, but refused to make them public, claiming (without evidence or justification) that they were "privileged," that the public interest in keeping them secret outweighed the public interest in disclosing them, because the studies were "ongoing" ( even though the Plan and its PEIR had already been released for public comment), and that disclosure of infrastructure cost estimates would provide "incomplete information." Given the complexity of the SEDA planning project, and the fact that an infrastructure analysis, budget, plan, nexus study, and financing mechanisms are integral components of the SEDA Specific Plan and have environmental impact ramifications, the City's failure to release these documents with the Specific Plan and PEIR is a material breach of the City's commitments to HCD in accepting SB2 grant funding.
b. The SEDA Plan and Recirculated DPEIR show the City's grant application misrepresented that it would use SB 2 grant funding to "accelerate housing production."
3 Gty SB2 Planning Grants Application, Schedule F.
4 Consultant Service Agreement between Gty of Fresno (Gty) and FirstCarbon Solutions (Consultant), Southeast Development Area Specific Plan, executed November 4, 2020, Scope of Services, Subtask 1.1.2,

1.1.3 -1.1.7, 1.1.8 -1.1.9, and Task 2.

Comment letter - SEDA Recirculated PEIR March 24, 2025 3

CLC/RCI

4 CONT
The City's grant application, Section D, subsection 3, claimed the Plan would include "environmental analyses that eliminate the need for project-specific review." At Section E, Project Description, the City promised to deliver a Program EIR under which "future development will also utilize an expanded exemption under Government Code Section 65457 that will apply to certain residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects that are consistent with a specific plan adopted pursuant to Government Code, Article 8, Chapter 3 and would be exempt from CEQA."
The Government Code § 65457 exemption would create a no-new-EIR presumption for all projects within SEDA, unless somebody happens to become aware of and can make the case that the proposed development project requires "substantial changes" to the PEIR, that there have been "substantial changes" in circumstances requiring major revisions to the PEIR, and/ or that there is new information unknown (and unknowable) at the time of PEIR certification.

Public Resources Code § 21166.

This is all well and good when the Plan-level PEIR has accurately analyzed the environmental impact data, and has created the Plan-level coordinated mitigation structures that will realistically minimize cumulative impacts, either through Plan-level design and land use decisions or through enforceable conditions of project approvals. But the SEDA Plan EIR does not deliver on the promised "environmental analyses that eliminate the need for project-specific review."
Generally, the SEDA draft PEIR unlawfully abdicates its responsibility to calculate impacts, disclaiming capacity to calculate impacts of the SEDA Specific Plan because site- and projectlevel planning have not yet been done. The PEIR essentially takes the position that Plan-level mitigation is impossible, as exemplified by its approach to air quality impacts: "there is currently not enough information to quantify emissions of specific project development that may occur under the proposed project. ... [D]ue to the size of the proposed {SEDA Plan] project, there is not sufficient feasible mitigation available to reduce the potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project to levels that would not exceed the Valley Air District thresholds of significance." PEIR, p. ES-6 [emphasis added].

In fact, the PEIR appears indifferent to the concept of plan-level mitigation. As drafted, impact analysis and mitigation either would occur on a piecemeal basis, as discretionary projects within the SEDA footprint come up for approval, or would not occur at all, as future SEDA development projects get a pass, falsely claiming approval of the PEIR means impacts have already been considered and mitigated, and using§ 65457 to "tier" off phantom environmental impact analyses and nonexistent mitigation measures. This approach defeats one of the essential functions of a Program EIR, to "ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis." CEQA Guidelines,§ 15168(b)(2).

Here, the Plan promotes case-by-case environmental impacts analyses, as each SEDA development project is proposed. Similarly, determination and application of missing mitigation measures are deferred to environmental reviews of discretionary projects (if such environmental reviews are ever done), again one by one. The result at the Specific Plan level is Comment letter - SEDA Recirculated PEIR March 24, 2025 4

CLC/RCI

4 CONT
5 6
fatally deficient cumulative impact analyses, no (or illusory) mitigation to address cumulative impacts, and very few additional-analysis conditions on project-level entitlements. These failures of analysis show the City has failed to fulfill its commitment to create a Specific Plan that" accelerates housing production."
c. The City has failed to produce the streamlining checklist promised in its grant application.

The City's grant application, Section E, Project Description, promised that the Program EIR to be funded with SB2 grant monies "will include a detailed programmatic evaluation of activities to be carried out through [the] Specific Plan and will allow the City to incorporate feasible mitigation measures including a streamlining checklist to evaluate site specific operations within the scope of the program EIR. This use of streamlining will fast-track the production of much-needed housing for the City and the region."
This concept of streamlining meshes well with a Specific Plan calling for tens of thousands of units over 9,000 acres, to be implemented in a largely greenfield geography ten miles from the city's center. Such a checklist could incorporate many standard mitigation measures to reduce the massive environmental impacts that implementation of such a plan unavoidably entails. ff the City had followed through on its commitment to include "environmental analyses that eliminate the need for project-specific review," deploying those analyses in a checklist format would have been an excellent strategy for expediting new-home construction.

However, neither the SEDA Plan, nor any of the three versions of the draft PEIR released to date, provides any such" streamlining checklist." Instead, both the Plan and the EIR repeatedly admit that the City will only evaluate "site specific" impacts within SEDA on a project-byproject basis, and will with each project start from scratch on whether there will be environmental review, whether there are impacts that meet the threshold of Public Resources Code 21166, and whether mitigation measures will be imposed, and if so which ones. (Please see comments, infra, regarding mitigation measures and the EIR as a tiering document.) This approach is the very opposite of a "fast-track" to production of new housing, building both delays and expensive environmental reviews into discretionary development projects within the SEDA footprint.

4. The City cannot approve the SEDA Plan and EIR until it has a valid General Plan.

In its now-invalidated5 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the City acknowledged that its 2014 General Plan was no longer compliant with new laws and regulations.6 A general plan 5 South Fresno Community Alliance v. City of Fresno, 2024 WL 3663122, August 6, 2024. 6 Gty of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update, March 2021, pp. 1-1 (General Plan's Greenhouse Gas Appendix must be updated to comply with SB 32, CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan, and the California Supreme Court's Newhall Ranch decision); and 1-2 (General Plan update required in order to bring it into conformance with current local and State law. CLC and RO join, and incorporate by this reference, the portions of the March 24, 2025, comment letter submitted by Douglas Carstens and Comment letter - SEDA Recirculated PEIR March 24, 2025 5

CLC/RCI

6 CONT
7 must be reviewed and revised as circumstances warrant. Gov't Code§ 65103, subd. (a); De Vita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763, 792 (1995) ("the [planning] agency ... is required periodically to review and revise the general plan to ensure that its elements remain integrated and internally consistent." [emphasis in original]). Above all, "the status of a general plan as the 'constitution' for the City's development requires that the plan be reasonably complete and current." Camp v.

Board of SupervisorsL 123 Cal.App.3d 334,351, 176 Cal.Rptr. 620 (1981).

The level of housing need, and demand, is a crucial component of a city's land use planning decisions, and flows directly from the rate at which the city's population is growing. The City of Fresno's 2014 General Plan was based on an average annual growth rate of 1.24%7. However, the city is no longer growing at that robust pace. The City's March 2025 draft EIR for the West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan acknowledges this new reality, citing U.S. Census Bureau and California State Department of Finance data showing Fresno's growth at one-sixth the 2014 rate-0.2%-as of 2024.8 Population growth out to 2035 for the whole City of Fresno is thus reduced from 2014 projections by approximately 184,000 residents9 -well over the anticipated population of SEDA alone.

Approval of SEDA's 45,000-unit plan based on the 2014 General Plan's materially outdated and erroneous population projections and housing demand assumptions would be consistent with the 2014 General Plan, but also an abuse of discretion because contradicted by more recent and more accurate record evidence. This is the very reason a planning agency must keep its General Plan "reasonably complete and current."

5. If the 2014 General Plan is not invalidated by failure to comply with State mandates, changed circumstances, and new information, the SEDA EIR would have to be consistent with that General Plan. It is not.
a. The SEDA Plan's Consistency analysis is fatally flawed.

The Draft PEIR offers a General Plan Consistency Analysis at p. 3.11-24 to -37, Table 3.11-1.

However, many of the consistency determinations sound more like Orwellian double Michelle Black on behalf of the Sierra Club, Central Valley Partnership, and League of Women Voters that relate to the General Plan's failures to comply with AB 170 (Gov't. Code§ 65302.1-General Plans must incorporate specified air pollution information) and SB 1000 (Gov't. Code§ 65302(h)(2)-General Plans must incorporate an Environmental Justice element).
7 City of Fresno 2014 General Plan, p. 1-24.
8 Recirculated Draft EIR - West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, p. 3.12-1, Table 3.12.1-Environmental Setting-Demographics--Population Trends.
9 The 2014 General Plan projects 226,000 new residents by 2035 (p. 1-23); Department of Finance growth projections would result in only about 22,877 new city residents during that period (calculated from Department of Finance's predicted 41,594 County population growth, multiplied by historical City of Fresno 55% share of county population increases). See also, fn. 11, infra.

Comment letter - SEDA Recirculated PEIR March 24, 2025 6

CLC/RCI

7 CONT
8 speak10 than planning professionals' analysis. A few examples (of many) follow. They have in common that they rely on unquantified assertions unsupported by record evidence, and/ or in fact contradicted by the evidence in the record.

UF-12: "Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areasdefined as being within the City on December 31, 2012- including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other noncorridor infill areas, and vacant land. Consistency Determination: Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with the City's strategy to focus on infill development within existing City limits. The proposed project would minimize the City's outward expansion while promoting vibrant, sustainable communities." SEDA EIR, p.

3.11-26.

IN FACT: Not consistent. Approval of SEDA would torpedo the General Plan's goal of ensuring approximately one-half of future residential development would occur in infill areas. (See, UF-13, infra.) Moreover, the proposed project itself is the very antithesis of "infill," since it is not located within the City limits and does not in any other way resemble infill. Its siting outside the very farthest southeast rim of the City maximizes outward expansion, and the massive additional infrastructure that must be built to serve it will create a growth-inducing dynamic far from the infill areas that are the focus of the 2014 General Plan. Finally, the expenditures on those SEDA-serving infrastructure projects will suck resources away from the billions of dollars in infrastructure construction, replacement, improvement, and repair that would "promot[e] vibrant, sustainable communities" within the City limits.

UF-13 "Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas - defined as unincorporated land as of December 31, 2012 SOI-which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed-use centers; or along future BRT corridors. Consistency Determination: Consistent. The proposed project is a comprehensive plan for the nearly 9,000-acre Southeast Growth Area. The proposed project concentrates residential development in Neighborhood Town Centers, consistent with the General Plan concept of complete neighborhoods." SEDA EIR, p. 3.11-26.

IN FACT: Not consistent. Approval of SEDA would torpedo the General Plan's goal of limiting development in Growth Areas to one-half of new residential construction. Due to reduced population projections, and concomitant reduced housing demand, the 10 "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms ( e.g., 'downsizing' for layoffs and 'servicing the target' for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language used by large entities such as corporations and governments." Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak, accessed March 19, 2025 [bolded emphasis in original; internal links and footnotes omitted].

Comment letter - SEDA Recirculated PEIR March 24, 2025 7

CLC/RCI

8 CONT
9 10
whole city of Fresno will need only about 7,600 new housing units by 2035. The SEDA's 2035 target is 14,900, almost twice the number needed11 for the entire city during that period, and perversely incentivizing suburban sprawl12 over the infill development the General Plan seeks to promote.

LU-2 "Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents. Consistency Determination: Consistent. The proposed project provides for the development of a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both existing and future residents." SEDA EIR, p. 3.11-26.

IN FACT: Not consistent. As is apparent from the Project Description13, SEDA is a greenfield plan, not an infill plan. However well-planned they may be, SEDA's 9,000 acres are located far from the portions of the City that could reasonably meet the 2014 General Plan's definition of "infill" in UF-12, supra.

LU-4 "Enhance existing residential neighborhoods through regulations, code enforcement, and compatible infill development. Consistency Determination: Consistent. The proposed project would design and implement a vision that would allow new growth to occur without negatively affecting existing neighborhoods.

IN FACT: Not consistent. The SEDA Specific Plan and EIR include no analyses, policies, or provisions that could conceivably affect regulations, code enforcement, or infill development in existing neighborhoods in the City of Fresno, except negatively.

Far more likely, adoption of the Plan would extinguish possibilities for new infill development, including by sapping resources needed for infill-supporting infrastructure 11 Assuming, based on state Department of Finance 2035 projections: Fresno County population increase of 41,594 people x 55% (historical Gty of Fresno share of population growth)= 22,877 people,+ 3 (average number of persons/ dwelling unit) = 7,626, total dwelling units needed to accommodate population growth in the entire Gty of Fresno by 2035.
12 This dynamic has been well documented. See, e.g., Patterns of Sprawl in Fresno and the Central San Joaquin Valley, Freemark, Fu, Rosenow, Su, May 2024, p.8 (copy attached): "As sprawl redirects growth from one part of a metropolitan area to another, one additional consequence is that housing development becomes rare in jurisdictions and neighborhoods with low incomes and low demand, since developers can respond to demand for homes by building at the far edge of regions, where there are low land costs and high demand (Freemark 2022). This may lead to low-income neighborhoods experiencing disinvestment and decay, while high-income, suburban neighborhoods benefit from the majority of private and public investment." Accord, Fresno Urban Decay Analysis, ECONorthwest, 2023 (copy attached).
13 "The predominant existing use in the Plan Area (approximately 5,000 acres) is agriculture, primarily vineyards, orchards, and vegetable farms. The average parcel size is approximately 25 acres and is typically used for growing a range of crops. The Plan Area also contains agriculture-related and commercial operations, such as plant nurseries, wineries, and other various agricultural businesses." SEDA Recirculated Draft PEIR, p. 2-4.

Comment letter - SEDA Recirculated PEIR March 24, 2025 8

CLC/RCI