Exhibit Q - Final Program EIR / Response to Comments — Fresno City Council, December 18, 2025 (part 1 of 7)

FINAL
Environmental Impact Report
Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project City of Fresno, Fresno County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2022020486
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Contact: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager, City of Fresno Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean and Phil Ault, Project Director
Rachel Krusenoski, Project Manager
Date: June 2, 2025
•• • FCS
An ADEC Innovation

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 - Document Background................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 - Document Organization ................................................................................................. 1-2 Section 2: Master Responses..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - List of Master Responses................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 - Master Responses .......................................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 1: Responses to Written Comments.............................................................................. 1-1

1.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 - Responses to Comments................................................................................................ 1-4

1.2.1 - Introduction......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses........................................................................ 1-4 Errata........................................................................................................................ 4-1 Changes in Response to Specific Comments.................................................................. 4-1 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Full CLC-RCI and GSEJA Letters
A.1 - CLC-RCI Letter
A.2 - GSEJA Letter
List of Tables
Table 4.1-1: 2035 Project and No Project Queue Analyses Results................................................... 4-16 Section 4:

4.1-

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Fresno (Lead Agency) has evaluated the comments received on the Fresno Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Recirculated Draft PEIR). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final PEIR includes a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Recirculated Draft PEIR; responses to the comments received regarding the Recirculated Draft PEIR; and errata, or revisions to the Recirculated Draft PEIR; as well as a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for use by the City of Fresno (City) during its review.

1.1 - Document Background
A Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) was prepared Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project (proposed project) by the City and circulated for public review and comment from July 14, 2023 through August 28, 2023. After the close of the 45-day comment period, the City determined that recirculation of two of the sections was required because new significant information was added to the Draft PEIR. As indicated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, “recirculation” provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the new or revised sections of the Draft PEIR. Recirculation of the entire document is not necessary or required.

Recirculation is not required where the new information merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications.

As such, the Partial Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR) was circulated for public review and comment for 45 days from October 3, 2023 to November 17, 2023. The Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR included the Geology, Soils, and Seismicity section, which was inadvertently omitted from the previously circulated Draft PEIR due to a technological syncing issue that occurred when the document was uploaded to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The Recirculated Draft PEIR also included a revised Transportation and Traffic section, which was updated to include ramp queueing analyses at the following State Route (SR) 180 interchanges and intersections: Clovis Avenue, Fowler Avenue, Temperance Avenue, De Wolf Avenue, Highland Avenue, and McCall Avenue as well as new proposed mitigation measures at the request of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Shortly after the completion of the 45-day public comment period for the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR, efforts for the proposed project were put on hold and a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) was not prepared at that time.

In 2024, the City began working on preparing a Recirculated Draft PEIR that was updated to incorporate the comments from both the Draft PEIR and Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR. The Recirculated Draft PEIR circulated for public review and comment for 45-days from February 7, 2025 to March 24, 2025. This Final PEIR addresses public comments on this document.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Introduction Final EIR
1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx

1.2 - Document Organization
This document is organized into three sections:
• Section 1—Introduction. Provides an introduction to the Final EIR. • Section 2—Master Responses. Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a particular topic.
• Section 3—Responses to Written Comments. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Recirculated Draft PEIR and responses thereto are included in this section.
• Section 4—Errata. Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Recirculated Draft PEIR, which have been incorporated.

The Final EIR includes the following contents:
• Recirculated Draft PEIR (provided under separate cover) • Recirculated Draft PEIR appendices (provided under separate cover) • Master Responses to the Recirculated Draft PEIR (Section 2) • Responses to Written Comments on the Recirculated Draft PEIR and Errata (Sections 3 and 4 of this document)
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx SECTION 2: MASTER RESPONSES
Master responses address similar comments made by multiple public agencies, businesses, organizations, or individuals through written comments submitted to the City of Fresno (City) on the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project (proposed project). Master responses are referenced by the Master Response’s number and title in Section 3. Please refer to Section 1, Introduction, of this Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) for further details on the previous draft environmental documents prepared for the proposed project.

2.1 - List of Master Responses
• Master Response 1–Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR • Master Response 2–General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final PEIR • Master Response 3–Clarification Regarding Previous Comments Received • Master Response 4–Future Implications of Annexation
• Master Response 5–Clarification of Programmatic Document • Master Response 6–Infill Development Priorities
• Master Response 7–Clarifying Information on Significant and Unavoidable Impacts • Master Response 8–Clarifying Information on Water Supply and Water Quality • Master Response 9–Clarifying Information on Population Projections • Master Response 10–Clarifying Information on Agricultural Resources • Master Response 11–Clarifying Information on VMT Projections • Master Response 12–Clarifying Information on Wildfire Analysis

2.2 - Master Responses
Master Response 1—Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final PEIR Summary of Relevant Comments
Various commenters commented on issues that either (1) reference environmental issues generally related but outside of the scope of recognized California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) frameworks discussed in the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Recirculated Draft PEIR (Recirculated Draft PEIR) ; or (2) relate to social, economic, or general health and safety topics that are not project impacts on the physical environment and thus fall outside the scope of CEQA.

Generally, these comments, referred to herein collectively as “Non-CEQA Issues” involve, but are not limited to, the following topics:
• Economic effects or other similar perceived impacts to property values, taxation, and infrastructure costs;
• Social effects or other similar concerns related to the proposed project’s impact to community culture;
• Public records requests;
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx • Comments on the objectives, policies, or content of the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan) unrelated to physical impacts on the environment.

This Master Response addresses why these Non-CEQA Issues are not further addressed in the Final PEIR and confirms that these comments will nonetheless be included in the administrative record and provided to City decision-makers for consideration during the proposed project’s public hearing process.

Response
In compliance with CEQA, the Recirculated Draft PEIR evaluates the potential for the proposed project to adversely impact the physical environment based upon an assessment of identified significance thresholds. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must evaluate comments on the Recirculated Draft PEIR and prepare written responses for inclusion in the Final PEIR. (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a), 15132). The written responses must describe the disposition of any “significant environmental issues” raised by commenters. Providing a detailed written response to all identified significant environmental issues that sets forth a reasoned, good faith analysis, helps ensure the lead agency fully considers the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made and thus facilitates informed decision-making. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)).

However, CEQA does not require that a lead agency respond to every comment received on an EIR, but only comments raising significant environmental issues. (CEQA § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a), (c), 15132(d), 15204(a); Citizens for E. Shore Parks v. State Lands Common (2011) 202 CA4th 549).

The CEQA Guidelines specify that comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). “Environment” is defined as the “physical conditions that exist within [an] area… affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora and fauna, noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” (PRC § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15360). Further, the impacts analyzed in an EIR must be “related to a physical change.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15358(b)). “Economic or social effects of a project” in and of themselves “shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15131(a)). Economic and social effects that are not related to physical impacts shall not be evaluated in an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15604(e), 15131(a), 15131(b)). Accordingly, issues related to revenue loss, infrastructure cost, budget deficits, and similar economic and/or social concerns are appropriately not addressed in this environmental document.

Additionally, as identified in the “Thresholds of Significance” section within each topical section (Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare through Section 3.19, Wildfire), the City utilized the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether the proposed project would have significant environmental impacts to that specific environmental topical area. A lead agency may exercise its discretion and apply standards that are based on its own determination of appropriate thresholds of significance, based on substantial evidence in the record, when deciding City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx whether a project’s environmental impacts are significant. Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 CA4th 690, overruled in part on other grounds by Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 C5th 1171. In the Recirculated Draft PEIR prepared for the proposed project, the Lead Agency elected to analyze the proposed project against the Appendix G Environmental Checklist significance thresholds to ultimately make a significance finding for that topical area, which is the City’s standard practice for EIRs.

Several commenters have discussed concerns that could be generally characterized as relating to a specific topical section, but these comments do not specifically relate or apply to any of the thresholds utilized by the Lead Agency and detailed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G or otherwise specifically connect the identified concerns to an adverse physical impact to the environment. For the reasons explained above, the Final EIR will not provide further responses to comments on NonCEQA Issues. However, each comment will be included in the administrative record on the proposed project and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration as part of the public hearing process on the proposed project. In this regard, the City will review, evaluate, and consider, as determined appropriate, all comments received as part of the decision-making process.

Finally, comments that address the objectives, policies, and contents of the Specific Plan document itself, and supporting documents, such as the Public Facilities Financing Options Report, that are not related to physical impacts to the environment but rather discuss the merit or constraints of implementing the policies included in the Specific Plan are appropriately not addressed in the Final PEIR. The City has conducted its own outreach and solicited public comment to discuss the contents of the Specific Plan. During the late spring and early summer of 2022, the City’s Planning and Development Department staff hosted a series of workshops and listening sessions to garner community feedback. In addition, in the summer of 2023, the City hosted three additional in-person drop-in sessions and one Zoom webinar. While comments on the contents and merits of the Specific Plan will not receive a detailed response in the Final PEIR, these comments will still be reviewed by City staff and decision-makers when considering approval of the proposed project as a whole. See also Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR. No changes are warranted, and no further response is required.

Master Response 2—General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final PEIR Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters expressed general opposition to the merits of the proposed project but did not raise any significant environmental issues related to the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis; and/or objected generally regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis but did not provide a specific basis to support the asserted inadequacy. The City reviewed all such general comments and prepared this Master Response to address them accordingly. Comments that were more specific in nature and provided supporting information are addressed in the individual, unique responses. The general comments addressed in this Master Response fall into one of several categories:

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx • The comment generally objected to either the merits of the entire proposed project, or a portion thereof, but did not raise any specific environmental issues related to the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis;
• The comment broadly identified environmental topics and requested additional evaluation but did not provide supporting information;
• The comment asked for additional studies, mitigation, or alternatives without explanation, supporting information, or rationale;
• The comment presented generalized claims challenging the adequacy of the analysis in the Recirculated Draft PEIRwhich were not supported by data or references offering facts; and • The comment stated an opinion, speculation, or conclusion regarding the merits of the proposed project but did not (1) provide any rationale, or (2) raise any issues related to the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis.

The foregoing types of comments received in response to the Recirculated Draft PEIR are referred to herein collectively as “general opposition” and are the focus of this Master Response.

Response
As also discussed in Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, above, comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and the adequacy of measures designed to avoid or mitigate those impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments” and provide data, references, or other evidence to support their comments (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)).

CEQA requires that the Final PEIR address comments submitted during the public comment period that raise significant environmental issues on the adequacy of the Recirculated Draft PEIR (PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). CEQA considerations are limited to significant issues as these relate to potential adverse physical impacts of the proposed project on the environment.

The purpose of the public review and comment process on a Draft EIR and the related responses is intended to share expertise, disclose the basis for and methodologies used to complete the Draft EIR’s analyses, check for accuracy, detect and correct omissions, discover public concerns, and solicit counter proposals for mitigation and/or alternatives. General comments and comments that consist merely of speculation or unsupported criticism may be rejected or answered with only a general response.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204, in part states:
• “In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and the ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. . . . [R]eviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of [specified] factors. . . . CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). • “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)). • “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(e)).

Accordingly, the Lead Agency has discretion to “reject comments” that are “not focused” as provided by in the CEQA Guidelines. (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(e)). Thus, CEQA does not require that the City respond to all comments on the Recirculated Draft PEIR but only to the significant environmental issues presented therein. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(c), 15132(d), 15204(a)). Moreover, the City is not required “to conduct every test or perform all research, stud[ies], and experimentation” at the commenters’ request. (PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). An EIR need “not provide all information” reviewers request, as long as the report, when looked at as a whole, reflects “a good faith effort at full disclosure.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a). As the court stated in City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 CA4th 889, 901, “[t]he level of detail required in a response to a comment depends on factors such as the significance of the issues raised, the level of detail of the proposed project, the level of detail of the comment, and the extent to which the matter is already addressed in the DEIR or responses to other comments.” Accordingly, a general response to a general comment is sufficient. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)).

Related thereto, responses to comments need not address a list of general suggestions for mitigating an environmental impact that are not concrete or specific to the project. A lead agency may respond to a comment that does not raise specific environmental issues or does not disclose specific analytical gaps in the Draft EIR’s analysis, by providing a general response and noting the parts of the Draft EIR in which the issues are discussed.

Pursuant to CEQA, personal opinions expressing general support for, or opposition to, the proposed project are noted and will be included within the administrative record for the proposed project for consideration by the City, but do not require a specific written response if they do not relate to a significant environmental issue that is addressed within the Recirculated Draft PEIR and/or otherwise within the purview of CEQA. Likewise, opinions about the general desirability, merits, and/or purely economic, social, or political considerations of the proposed project are not within the purview of CEQA and do not require a specific written response in this Final PEIR. See also Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, above.

In cases where the commenter provides an opinion and/or generalized concerns about the merits of the proposed project and/or the scope and nature of the environmental review but does not identify any particular issue concerning the sufficiency of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the City notes the City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx opinion in this Final PEIR for informational purposes and consideration by the decision-makers as part of the public hearing process on the merits of the proposed project.

Where a commenter offers unsubstantiated assertions about an environmental issue or the adequacy of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the City notes the assertion in this Final PEIR for informational purposes and consideration by the decision-makers but does not alter or augment the analysis in the Recirculated Draft PEIR, pursuant CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.

The general response reflected in this Master Response is appropriate when a comment falls into one of the above-referenced categories. While the City does not provide further responses to each of these general opposition comments in this Final EIR, as noted above, each comment will be included in the administrative record on the proposed project and will be provided to City decisionmakers for consideration as part of the public hearing process on the merits of the proposed project.

In this regard, the City will review, evaluate, and consider, as determined appropriate, all comments received as part of the decision-making process.

Further, it should be noted that certification of a Final PEIR by the Lead Agency as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA does not grant any approvals or entitlements for a project.

Accordingly, the various land use entitlements necessary to implement the proposed project will be considered by the City as a separate action(s) following certification of the Final PEIR. Thus, no changes are warranted, and no further response is required.

Master Response 3—Clarification Regarding Previous Comments Received Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters claimed that the City ignored or did not meaningfully review comment letters received during the previously circulated Draft PEIR and Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR public comment periods. Additionally, several comments incorporated comments received on the previously circulated Draft PEIR and Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR and/or requested responses to prior comments received.

Response
As discussed on Page ES-9 of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), previously circulated Draft PEIR, and Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR were considered in preparing the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Copies of these letters were provided in Appendix A of the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Furthermore, Page ES-10 states, “Many of the environmental issues and questions raised in comments on the previously circulated Draft PEIR and Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR are addressed herein, and accordingly, the entire Draft PEIR has been republished with revisions and additions.”
CEQA Guideline 15088.5(f)(1) provides that:

When an EIR is substantially revised and the entire document is recirculated, the lead agency may require reviewers to submit new comments and, in such cases, need not respond to those comments received during the earlier circulation period. The lead agency shall advise reviewers in the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, that although City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not require a written response in the final EIR, and that new comments must be submitted for the revised EIR.

The lead agency need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the recirculated revised EIR. (Emphasis added)
Page ES-11 of the Recirculated Draft PEIR provides formal notice that reviewers must submit new comments on the Recirculated Draft PEIR: “The previously circulated Draft PEIR and Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR were circulated for public review and comment period between July 14, 2023, and August 28, 2023, and between October 3, 2023, and November 17, 2023, respectively. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City, acting as the Lead Agency for the proposed project, formally advises reviewers of the Recirculated Draft PEIR that they must submit new comments on this Recirculated Draft PEIR. The Final PEIR, which will be prepared after the public review period for the Recirculated Draft PEIR, will only include responses to environmental comments received on the Recirculated Draft PEIR.”
Therefore, this Final PEIR will only provide individual responses to environmental comments received on the Recirculated Draft PEIR consistent with the provisions of CEQA.

Because the City elected to respond to the prior comments by revising the entire Draft PEIR and recirculating it for another round of public review and comment, CEQA allows the City to require that reviewers submit new comments. Comments on a prior draft of a document that was recirculated in its entirety do not require individual responses. Comments on the previously circulated Draft PEIR and Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR remain part of the administrative record but need not be included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(f)(1). Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) states that, in drafting comment letters, the public should “focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and the way in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (Emphasis added).

Comments “must be ‘fairly presented’ to the agency…Evidence must be presented in a manner that gives the agency the opportunity to respond with countervailing evidence…The City cannot be expected to pore through thousands of documents to find something that arguably supports CREED’s belief the project should not go forward.” (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (4th App. Dist, June 10, 2011, Case No. D057524) 196 Cal.4th 515. (See also Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (CA Supreme Court, July 14, 2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322 [Comments should not rely upon non project-specific “generic studies.”] The Recirculated Draft PEIR was substantially revised in response to prior comments. Because of these substantial revisions, previous comments are generally no longer applicable to the currently proposed Specific Plan and/or Recirculated Draft PEIR, which is why the City exercised its discretion under Section 15088.5(f)(3) to provide additional opportunities to comment. As discussed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(1) above, the City does not have the duty to provide individual responses to prior comments or to decipher what comments the commenter believes to still be applicable from their prior comment letters. Accordingly, the commenter’s request that prior comments be incorporated by reference is acknowledged, and the City notes that those comments are part of the administrative record; however, individual responses are not provided.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Master Response 4—Future Implications of Annexation
Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters expressed concerns about what would happen to their individual properties upon implementation of the proposed project, including any future annexation requirements related to land use designations, zoning, agricultural uses, and utility hook-ups.

Response
Adoption of the Specific Plan itself would not result in the annexation of any lands into the city limits. However, implementation of the Specific Plan includes annexation as a subsequent discretionary action to be considered by the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (Fresno LAFCo). While the City is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and has primary responsibility for implementation and approving the discretionary actions required for such implementation, the Fresno LAFCo has jurisdiction over the annexation process, which is a separate application and approval process from the City’s discretionary actions. As discussed in the Recirculated Draft PEIR, there is no specific development proposed as part of the proposed project.

When annexation of specific parcels is proposed and approved as part of future development under the Specific Plan, the Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-1606 provides for the Annexed Rural Residential Transitional (ANX) Overlay District. This district allows rural residential land uses upon annexation to the City to continue operating as rural residential land uses until such a time as the properties are further developed consistent with the Base District. Further, any use existing at the time the property was annexed to the City would be authorized to continue operating in accordance with its land use designation prior to annexation, so long as the use had been lawfully allowed by the County of Fresno at the time immediately preceding the annexation, subject to provisions of Article 4, Non-Conforming Uses, Structures, Site Features, and Lots.1 Additionally, future development in the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) would be required to comply with Section 17.04.100 of the Fresno County Municipal Code, the County’s Right-to-Farm Notice, which protects agricultural uses within AE (Exclusive Agriculture), AL (Limited Agriculture), TPZ (Timberland Preserve), or RC (Resource Conservation) zoning districts, if residential subdivisions are located within 300 feet of the use. The notice specifies that residents of property in or near agricultural districts should be prepared to accept the inconveniences and discomfort associated with normal farm activities.
2 This ordinance allows existing agricultural uses to
continue to operate without nuisance even as future residential uses are developed nearby.

Procedural comments regarding the annexation process, the timeline of annexation, and the financial, social, and legal implications of annexation that do not represent environmental concerns or physical impacts are outside of the scope of CEQA and no response is required. This includes comments that request further information about the logistics of annexation for a specific property, 1 City of Fresno. 2023. Code of Ordinances, Section 15-1606, Annexed Rural Residential Transitional (ANX) Overlay District. Website:
http://fresno-ca.elaws.us/code/coor_ch15_ptii_art16_sec15-1606. Accessed April 2, 2025. 2 County of Fresno, 2023. Code of Ordinances, Section 17.04.100, Right-to-farm notice. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17DILA_CH17.04SUENPR. Accessed April 2, 2025.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx questions of how annexation will impact existing uses on a specific property or its infrastructure and/or utilities, and general comments expressing disapproval of the annexation process. However, all comments will be shared with the decision-makers, included in the record and considered by the Lead Agency.

Master Response 5—Clarification of Programmatic Document Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters request clarification about the extent of environmental analysis required for a programmatic document and claim that the PEIR does not provide enough plan-level analysis and mitigation. Instead, the commenters claim that the Specific Plan does not provide sufficient information for environmental analysis at this time.

Response
As noted on page ES-1 of the Recirculated Draft PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan, it is a Program EIR. The Guidelines do not specify the level of analysis required in a Program EIR, but CEQA recognizes that the level of specificity is determined by the nature of the underlying activity covered by the EIR. CEQA Guidelines §15146; San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v City & County of San Francisco (2018) 26 CA5th 596, 608; North Coast Rivers Alliance v Kawamura (2015) 243 CA4th 647, 679; Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1051. A Program EIR that is prepared to support approval of an overall program, such as a specific plan, may appropriately focus on program-wide issues and leave to later EIRs detailed analysis of issues specific to particular development activities. CEQA Guidelines § 15168(d)(2), (3).

See e.g., City of Hayward v Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2015) 242 CA4th 833, 849; Town of Atherton v California High-Speed Rail Auth. (2014) 228 CA4th 314, 345.

Therefore, a Program EIR is not expected to analyze site-specific or project-specific environmental impacts nor provide the level of detail found in a Project EIR. Planning-level policies and mitigation measures should be consistent with the geographic scope of the project, population size and density, fiscal and administrative capabilities, and economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors (Government Code §§ 65300.9; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15143, 15146, 15151, and 15204). A Program EIR is appropriate to evaluate environmental effects “at a broad level,” so long as to the extent a subsequent project is not covered, additional environmental review occurs (See Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. Of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 45). A programmatic-level document is designed to provide a level of detail for the public to be informed and decision-makers to make decisions that intelligently take into account environmental consequences consistent with CEQA. Program EIRs “[a]llow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts” (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15168(a), 15168(b)(4)). Many site-specific details may be properly evaluated in a later environmental analysis (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1173).

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Unlike a Project EIR, which addresses the environmental impacts of a specific development project, a Program EIR addresses the potential impacts of a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the Recirculated Draft PEIR is a program-level environmental analysis that serves as a “first-tier” document to assess and document the broad environmental impacts of the Specific Plan with the understanding that more detailed site-specific environmental reviews may be required to assess future projects implemented under the program.

The Specific Plan and Recirculated Draft PEIR address plans and policies covering a planning area of nearly 9,000 acres. Although the general location and type of development can be anticipated based on the guidance in the Specific Plan, until the City receives a development application, the exact location, type of development, and potential impacts are too speculative to be determined.

Accordingly, within the context of Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines, analysis of development of specific individual parcels is neither feasible nor required in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Thus, development in the Plan Area is considered more broadly in the Specific Plan and the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Because there is no specific development project being proposed at this time, a projectlevel analysis cannot be prepared. Future discretionary projects would be further evaluated in light of the certified Final PEIR to determine whether or not an additional environmental document must be prepared. As appropriate, future construction and development plans would be subject to project-level CEQA analysis and potentially additional feasible mitigation, if necessary, to address project-specific or site-specific impacts that are not otherwise addressed in the PEIR.

Accordingly, as individual projects with specific site and architectural plans and facilities are submitted to the City for review, the City will evaluate each project in light of the information in the PEIR. (See PRC §§ 21083.3, 21093, and 21094 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15152, 15164, 15168, and 15183). If their impacts are within the scope of the information in the PEIR, additional environmental documentation may not be necessary. If new effects are identified that were not addressed, the City would prepare the appropriate additional environmental documentation. This Recirculated Draft PEIR provides the appropriate broad programmatic-level environmental analysis necessary to allow the decision-makers to evaluate the Specific Plan as a comprehensive guide for making future decisions about land use, community character, economic development, environmental preservation, open space, and public health and safety. Project-level analysis is not appropriate, feasible, or pragmatic at this stage.

Master Response 6—Infill Development Priorities
Summary of Relevant Comments
Several comments received during the public comment period for the Recirculated Draft PEIR requested further elaboration on whether infill development is being prioritized by the City.

Response
The City, as the Lead Agency, utilizes the criteria in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist as thresholds to determine whether land use and planning impacts are significant environmental effects. One of the significance criteria that is used to evaluate impacts to land use is whether the proposed project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, any discretionary project in the City, including the proposed project, must not conflict with the approved Fresno General Plan.

The General Plan identifies several objectives and policies that promote infill development, including Objective UF-12, Objective LU-2, Objective POSS-2 as well as Policy LU-1-a, Policy LU-2-a, Policy LU-2- b, Policy MT-2-c, and Policy RC-2-a. In accordance with the infill priorities and goals of the Fresno General Plan, the City has prioritized the preparation and completion of various Community and Specific Plans that focus on infill development within city limits prior to work on the SEDA Specific Plan. Completed plans include: the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, and Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, while plans currently underway include: the Tower District Specific Plan Update, West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, Central Southeast Specific Plan, and South Central Specific Plan. All of these plans have been prioritized in order to comply with the goals and provisions of the Fresno General Plan, which emphasize the preparation of infill plans prior to the development of a Specific Plan within the Plan Area.

As previously discussed in Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, and Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, comments that discuss the merits of the proposed project and the Specific Plan will not receive detailed responses in the Final PEIR but will be reviewed and considered by City staff and decision-makers.

Master Response 7—Clarifying Information on Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters note the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project disclosed within the Recirculated Draft PEIR and suggest that approval of a proposed project with significant and unavoidable impacts is unlawful because it would have a negative impact on the environment of the Plan Area.

Response
A number of impacts in the Recirculated Draft PEIR were found to be significant and unavoidable, meaning there is no feasible or available mitigation to address these impacts. Specifically, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to Aesthetics, Light, and Glare; Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources; Air Quality; and Noise. (See Recirculated Draft PEIR at page ES-3).

CEQA establishes the policy that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. . .” However, CEQA recognizes that not all impacts can be lessened in evaluating whether to approve a project, the Public Resources Code Section 21002 specifically states that, “The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”(Emphasis added). Nothing in CEQA prohibits a lead agency from approving a project with significant and unavoidable impacts. Pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, prior to a City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx lead agency approving a project that would result in significant, unavoidable impacts, the agency must state in writing its reasons for supporting the approved action. This Statement of Overriding Considerations must weigh a proposed project's benefits against its significant adverse unavoidable environmental impacts. The lead agency may approve a project if it finds the adverse impacts "acceptable" because the benefits outweigh those effects. (PRC § 21081(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15093(a). Accordingly, since the proposed project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts, the City would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the proposed project.

As discussed in Master Response 5, Clarification of a Programmatic Document, because the Recirculated Draft PEIR is a programmatic document, it evaluates impacts both during construction and at full buildout of the Specific Plan. It is not unusual for projects of this size to result in programlevel or cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts. As discussed above, CEQA allows for the Lead Agency to approve a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment if the Lead Agency determines that the project provides benefits and objectives that outweigh those impacts. Thus, a project does not have to be rejected solely because it would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

Master Response 8—Clarifying Information on Water Supply and Water Quality Summary of Relevant Comments
Several comments received during the public comment period for the Recirculated Draft PEIR requested further elaboration on the availability of the water supply and potential impacts to water quality in the Plan Area as a result of implementation of the proposed project.

Response
Impacts to water supply are discussed in Section 3.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR. According to the Recirculated Draft PEIR, 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 only differ by 1.7 percent and are considered less than significant for full implementation of the proposed Specific Plan with mitigation incorporated. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan and is included in Appendix I. Per the WSA, there will be sufficient water supply to compensate for the 1.7 percent increase in water demand as a result of the Specific Plan. Proposed water supply, treatment, and distribution infrastructure that would accommodate future development associated with the Specific Plan include new municipal groundwater wells, the expansion of the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF), new water storage tanks and booster pump stations, the extension of 48-inch Regional Transmission Main (RTM), new transmission grid mains of various sizes, and new recharge inter-ties to Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) basins.

As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It was determined that the estimated increase in water demand could be met with current water supplies City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx in normal year and dry year scenarios, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures (MM) HYD-2a, MM HYD-2b, MM HYD-2c, MM HYD-2d, and MM HYD-2e.

Additionally, no specific development is proposed at this time within the Plan Area. The proposed project would comply with MM UTIL-1b, which ensures that the City shall evaluate the water supply system at the time that discretionary projects are submitted for approval by the City. If a development would demand additional water supply, the City shall not approve the development until additional sources are secured and provided for future development. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to water supply would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to surface and groundwater quality would be less than significant. Development in the FMFCD Master Plan area is exempt from further water quality requirements as long as the FMFCD’s Stormwater Quality Management Plan is implemented. There are seven existing stormwater basins contributing to stormwater collection for the Plan Area and six proposed basins within the Plan Area, as shown on Exhibit 1-1. The proposed project would comply with the Phase 1 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, which requires water quality and watershed protection measures for all development projects. The Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit are consistent with the water quality standards and goals established in the Central Valley Regional Water Control Board’s (Central Valley RWQCB) Basin Plan. Participation in the Phase 1 MS4 Permit and implementation of the FMFCD Stormwater Quality Management Plan would reduce impacts to surface waters to acceptable levels and long-term project impacts to surface or groundwater quality would not exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, the General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan include policies designed to reduce impacts to water quality. Future development would be required to prepare, implement, and be consistent with the NPDES Permit as well as continued implementation of General Plan and Specific Plan policies, which would reduce project operational impacts associated with water quality standards and wastewater discharge requirements to less than significant.

Master Response 9—Clarifying Information on Population Projections Summary of Relevant Comments
Several comments received during the public comment period of the Recirculated Draft PEIR requested further elaboration on the methodology used to calculate the population projections for the Plan Area utilized throughout the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

Response
The population projections contained within the Recirculated Draft PEIR for the proposed project are consistent with the population projections and methodology found within the City’s General Plan and utilize the best data available at the time the analysis was prepared. This approach is consistent with requirements to maintain consistency with the General Plan. By evaluating SEDA within the context of the General Plan, that City is able to comprehensively assess future demand for resources such as water, and energy, as well as public services such as police, fire, and education. Utilizing projections for the proposed project that are consistent with the General Plan allows for the City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx development of Specific Plan Policies and Programs that are reflective of the City’s planned for and approved growth identified in the General Plan.

Additionally, the Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element, which was adopted by the Fresno City Council in December 2024, included a Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the City based on a pre-approved data package provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The data package includes several data sources including the 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment found that countywide average annual growth was 1.2 percent between 2000 and 2022, compared to -0.01 percent statewide, which is consistent with the Fresno General Plan population growth projections.

Fresno County’s share of California’s population is expected to steadily increase, and more than half the countywide population resides in the City of Fresno.

It is important to note that the proposed project does not approve or entitle any specific development and future development is anticipated to occur over an extended time period. Nor does the plan advocate for any specific development or mandate any specific level of development.

Buildout of the proposed project is anticipated to occur through multiple phases over approximately 25 years or more. Buildout would consist of multiple smaller projects, each having its own timeline.

The City ultimately has discretion to approve or deny future projects and has discretion over the phasing of the buildout of proposed projects. Accordingly, future development proposals will be subject to the City’s review and approval process, including CEQA review where appropriate.

Although the Housing Choice and Affordability Chapter of the Specific Plan accommodates a variety of household demographics with a diverse range of housing types, from medium- and higher-density multi-family types, to small and medium-lot single-family options, the proposed project does not obligate the City to approve any future development. The proposed project is a planning-level document.

The proposed project represents an opportunity to meet emerging market demands, provide policies and standards to address much-needed diversity in housing stock, and enrich communities by establishing standards for safe and walkable urban environments consistent with the General Plan. It utilizes a regulatory and market-based approach to create the opportunity for future housing at all income levels. Based on this approach, future applicants and the City will have the discretion to review individual projects for necessity and market viability prior to approval and the start of construction.

Master Response 10—Clarifying Information on Agricultural Resources Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters request further clarification of how the impacts to agriculture resources are determined and the analysis used to determine the impacts. This Master Response provides an expanded explanation of the methodology used in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Response
Impact AG-1 evaluated impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) data. This analysis conservatively found that impacts related to conversion of these important farmlands would be significant and unavoidable, even with the implementation of mitigation that would preserve farmland elsewhere at a 1:1 ratio, because the conversion of the farmland within the Plan Area would still occur. Regardless, the proposed project would still require future development within the Plan Area to apply feasible mitigation outlined in Mitigation Measure (MM) AG-1 in the interim while the City’s completes its preparation of a Farmland Preservation Program, which if established, will provide regulations for conversion and preservation. Similarly, a significant and unavoidable impact related to conflicts with existing agricultural zoning and Williamson Act Contract parcels was found in Impact AG-2, and the same mitigation was also applied. The full analysis of these impacts is included in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR describes the existing agricultural and forestry resources in the Plan Area and the relevant regulatory framework and evaluates the possible impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.2.4, Methodology, the proposed project was evaluated for potential impacts on agricultural resources resulting from implementation of the proposed project through a review of applicable plans and policies. FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) personnel reviewed resources from the California Department of Conservation (DOC), specifically the FMMP, which is managed and updated by the DOC. The FMMP provides geospatial information systems (GIS) data that was utilized by FCS to map the location and classifications of farmland within the Plan Area. The result of GIS data analysis is illustrated in Exhibit 3.2-1, Important Farmland Map, and its associated table (Table 3.2-1) in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. FCS staff also reviewed aerial photographs, topographical maps, and street maps to identify surrounding land uses and evaluate potential impacts from future development that may occur pursuant to the Specific Plan. The General Plan was reviewed to confirm applicable land use, zoning, and policies related to agricultural land uses.

As discussed in Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, and Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, the Recirculated Draft PEIR utilized the significance thresholds suggested in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, which is the City’s standard process for evaluating environmental impacts in EIRs. Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines is a sample Initial Study Checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts to resources are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Land Use, Climate Innovation and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. Two of the four significance thresholds suggested in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines and evaluated in the Recirculated Draft PEIR under Impact AG-1 and Impact AG-2 directly address agricultural resources.

These significance criteria are as follows:

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx The proposed project would have a significant effect on agriculture or forestry resources if the project would:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.

As such, impacts to agricultural resources were evaluated in the context of these significance levels.

Comments regarding the process and logistics of annexing farmland within the Plan Area and concern regarding specific properties’ legal nonconformance with the proposed zoning in the proposed project are fully discussed in Master Response 4, Future Implications of Annexation.

Additionally, comments regarding concern for approval of the proposed project with significant and unavoidable impacts are fully discussed in Master Response 7, Clarifying Information on Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. No further response is required.

Master Response 11—Clarifying Information on VMT Projections Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters express disagreement with the VMT projections contained within the Recirculated Draft PEIR, claiming that it is not likely that the VMT for the proposed project at buildout would be as low as the Recirculated Draft PEIR details.

Response
As detailed in Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the VMT analysis in the PEIR utilized the Fresno County Council of Government’s (Fresno COG) Activity Based Travel Demand Model (FresnoABM) loaded vehicle assignment network. Total VMT for the proposed project was calculated by multiplying daily volumes on the model’s loaded network by distance traveled. In addition, VMT per Service Population (which is the sum of population and employees) was calculated using the FresnoABM’s land use database. The City’s CEQA Guide for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds identifies the significance thresholds different types of projects, including land use plans such as the proposed project. The significance threshold for land use plans is any net increase in per capita VMT when comparing horizon year to base year. In other words, if VMT is found to be greater at the buildout of the specific plan when compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would have a significant impact related to VMT.

As discussed in Section 3.17, the proposed project’s VMT would be reduced at buildout, so no significant impact would occur based on the City’s thereshold. The section explains that the transition from the existing mostly rural area 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 City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx land uses, the proposed project minimizes the need 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.

In addition, with the incorporation of multimodal strategies, the proposed project incorporates a comprehensive transportation network designed to reduce vehicle dependence. Key components include:
• Expansive pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
• Integration with regional transit systems, including planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes. • TDM strategies, such as shared parking, transit subsidies, and local shuttle services.

These features encourage active and shared transportation modes, further mitigating potential VMT impacts. Therefore, while the commenters express disagreement with the VMT projections and findings, the commenters do not provide evidence or conflicting data to support this claim.

Furthermore, it is reasonable for the City to rely on the expert conclusions of Fresno COG and the FresnoABM as reflected in their published data reporting.

Additionally, disagreement among experts is not a sufficient reason to set aside an EIR or require subsequent environmental review of a previously-adopted EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15151. Under established CEQA precedent, the Lead Agency may properly accept the determinations and conclusions reached by the experts that prepared the EIR, even though other conclusions could also be reached. See Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka, (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 371-72 (accepting findings on noise impacts despite experts’ disagreement over methodology); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1179-80 (2014) reversed on other grounds, 62 Cal. 4th 204 (2015) (one scientist’s disagreement with a conservation plan is “not pertinent to the issue of whether the environmental impact report’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence” (citations omitted)). Stated differently, since the function of review of the EIR is limited to determining whether the EIR is supported by substantial evidence, it is not an “abuse of discretion” for a public agency “to give more weight to one set of ‘experts’ than to another.” Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 391, 412. The analysis and/or opinions provided within these comments do not demonstrate that City’s analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. Expert opinion that differs from the expert opinion expressed in the Recirculated Draft PEIR does not undermine the fact that there is substantial evidence to support the Recirculated Draft PEIR’s conclusions.

Master Response 12—Clarifying Information on Wildfire Analysis Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters request further clarification of how the impacts related to wildfire are determined and the analysis used to determine the impacts. This Master Response provides an expanded explanation of the methodology used in Section 3.19, Wildfire, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Master Responses Final Program EIR
2-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Response
Section 3.19, Wildfire, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR describes the existing wildfire conditions in the Plan Area, as well as the relevant regulatory framework, and evaluates the possible impacts related to wildfire that could result from implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in Section

3.19.4, Methodology, this evaluation focuses on whether the proposed project would result in changes to the physical environment that would cause or exacerbate adverse effects related to wildfires or whether the proposed project would be placed in a location susceptible to wildfire or post-wildfire conditions. The evaluation also includes a determination of whether changes to the physical environment caused by the proposed project would impair or interfere with emergency response plans, expose people to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, expose people/structures to downslope flooding or landslides, or include installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. The analysis is based, in part, on information provided by the General Plan, the SEDA Specific Plan, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) website, specifically the Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) Maps, which are managed and updated by CAL FIRE. The FHSZ maps illustrate fire hazard within State Responsibility Areas (SRA) based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been identified by CAL FIRE as a major cause of wildfire.

The FHSZ classify a wildland zone as Moderate, High, or Very High fire hazard based on the average hazard across the area included in the zone.

As discussed in Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, and Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in the Final PEIR, the Recirculated Draft PEIR utilized the significance thresholds suggested in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, which is the City’s standard process for evaluating environmental impacts in EIRs. Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines is a sample Initial Study Checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts to resources are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. The significance thresholds suggested in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines and evaluated in the Recirculated Draft PEIR under Impacts WILD-1 through WILD-4 relate specifically to project sites located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ. These significance criteria are as follows:

The proposed project would have a significant effect related to wildfire if the project would:
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
• Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Final Program EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680037/EIR/2 - Final EIR/31680037 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx • Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

As such, impacts related to wildfire were evaluated in the context of these significance levels.

As discussed in Section 3.19, Wildfire, the Plan Area does not contain any lands within the SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). The nearest Very High FHSZ to the Plan Area is located 25 miles northeast of the Plan Area near Pine Flat Lake. Therefore, as identified by the significance thresholds, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to wildfire because the Plan Area is not located in the wildfire risk areas according to the CAL FIRE FHSZ. The Sierra Nevada foothills to the north and east of the City provide the nearest areas where large expanses of undeveloped properties occur. Because of the flat topography of the Plan Area and the distance between developed portions of the City and undeveloped areas, the primary fire hazard concern within the City consists of the potential for structure fires in developed areas, not wildfires. Additionally, State Route (SR) 168 separates this area from the Plan Area, serving as a fire break. However, the City chose to evaluate the proposed project against all of the significance thresholds identified above for informational purposes.

The analysis contained in Impacts WILD-1 through WILD-4 and the cumulative impacts analysis found impacts related to wildfires would be less than significant. Because the Plan Area is relatively flat and is not located adjacent to or a near a Very High FHSZ, the potential for wildland fire hazard would not substantially change with adoption of the proposed project, and current hazards would not be exacerbated or significantly increased. Development of the Plan Area would increase the development of residential, mixed-use, research and development, institutional, and office land uses, creating a higher intensity of development within the Plan Area. These types of land uses are not expected to impair implementation of or physically interfere with adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans in the City. In the event of an evacuation, major freeways including SR-180, SR-168, or SR-99 can be used. Major roadway access corridors such as Temperance, Clovis, and Jensen Avenues can also be used for emergency access. Each of these major roadway access corridors accommodates four lanes of traffic with a central turning lane. The risk of the proposed project exacerbating post-fire slope instability and drainage changes resulting in landslides or flooding is low.

However, consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan policies, individual development projects would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review, which may require additional site-specific or project-specific measures to reduce any potential impacts and would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. The full analysis of these impacts is included in Section 3.19, Wildfire, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

1.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft PEIR is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

Author Author Code
State Agencies
California Air Resources Board ........................................................................................................ CARB California Department of Transportation.................................................................................CALTRANS California Department of Fish and Wildlife.................................................................................... CDFW Local Agencies
County of Fresno’s Department of Public Works ....................................................................... COUNTY Fresno Irrigation District......................................................................................................................FID Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District ..................................................................................FMFCD Sanger Unified School District............................................................................................. SANGER USD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District........................................................................ SJVAPCD Organizations
Center for Biology Diversity............................................................................................................... CBD Fresno Madera Tulare and Kings Counties Central Labor Council and Regenerate California Innovation ................................................................................................................................... CLC/RCI Flower Packing............................................................................................................. FLOWER PACKING Greenfield Coalition..............................................................................................................GREENFIELD Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ................................................................................. GSEJA Invest Fresno (First Letter)..........................................................................................................INVEST 1 Invest Fresno (Second Letter).....................................................................................................INVEST 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (First Letter)............................................................................PG&E 1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Second Letter) .......................................................................PG&E 2 Sierra Club, Central Valley Partnership, and League of Women Voters ............................... SC-CVP-LWV Southeast Property Owners .............................................................................................................SEPO Wilson Island Neighborhood Group................................................................................................WING Individuals
Anonymous.....................................................................................................................................ANON Teresa Pineda Avila..........................................................................................................................AVILA Heather Balcom..........................................................................................................................BALCOM City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-2 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 William Beekman......................................................................................................................BEEKMAN Richard and Kay Berkten............................................................................................................ BERKTEN Patti Bibb ...........................................................................................................................................BIBB Gerald Bill ...........................................................................................................................................BILL Carol Bloesser (First Letter) ................................................................................................... BLOESSER 1 Carol Bloesser (Second Letter) .............................................................................................. BLOESSER 2 Carol Bloesser (Third Letter).................................................................................................. BLOESSER 3 Carol Bloesser (Fourth Letter) ............................................................................................... BLOESSER 4 Whitney Bortz................................................................................................................................ BORTZ Daniel Brannick........................................................................................................................ BRANNICK Stephanie Brimmer...................................................................................................................BRIMMER Steven Bruce.................................................................................................................................. BRUCE Cheryl Smith ............................................................................................................................... C.SMITH Albert Casares.............................................................................................................................CASARES Alan Cederquist ....................................................................................................................CEDERQUIST Deborah Bigham (First Letter) .............................................................................................D. BIGHAM 1 Deborah Bigham (Second Letter) ........................................................................................D. BIGHAM 2 Deborah Bigham (Third Letter)............................................................................................D. BIGHAM 3 Deborah Bigham (Fourth Letter) .........................................................................................D. BIGHAM 4 Deborah Bigham (Fifth Letter)............................................................................................ D. BIGHAM 5 Deborah Bigham (Sixth Letter) ............................................................................................D. BIGHAM 6 David Ramming (First Letter)............................................................................................D. RAMMING 1 David Ramming (Second Letter).......................................................................................D. RAMMING 2 David Ramming (Third Letter) ..........................................................................................D. RAMMING 3 Beatrice De Leon ........................................................................................................................DE LEON Juliet Doty........................................................................................................................................ DOTY Erika Leonard.........................................................................................................................E. LEONARD Erik Rodriquez.................................................................................................................... E. RODRIGUEZ Connie Enns-Rempel..........................................................................................................ENNS-REMPEL Linda Foster..................................................................................................................................FOSTER Bette Francis............................................................................................................................... FRANCIS Joe Gamradt ............................................................................................................................GAMRADT Rebecca Gottselig ................................................................................................................... GOTTSELIG Elizabeth Grossmayer.........................................................................................................GROSSMAYER Jeff Grunau .................................................................................................................................GRUNAU Helen Ramming (First Letter) .......................................................................................... H. RAMMING 1 Helen Ramming (Second Letter)...................................................................................... H. RAMMING 2 Dr. and Mrs. Douglas Hampson ...............................................................................................HAMPSON Andy Hansen-Smith (First Letter) .................................................................................HANSEN-SMITH 1 Andy Hansen-Smith (Second Letter) ............................................................................HANSEN-SMITH 2 Paulette Hiraoka ........................................................................................................................ HIRAOKA Cheyenne Jenvey .......................................................................................................................... JENVEY Bruce Jewell..................................................................................................................................JEWELL Valerie Johnson......................................................................................................................... JOHNSON City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-3
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 Kevin Dueck ............................................................................................................................... K. DUECK Nancy Klassen.............................................................................................................................KLASSEN Tim Kutzmark..........................................................................................................................KUTZMARK Lynda Leonard .......................................................................................................................L. LEONARD Paul Lake........................................................................................................................................... LAKE Kathy LeMon.................................................................................................................................LEMON Kyle Lyman.....................................................................................................................................LYMAN Art Maldonado ...................................................................................................................MALDONADO John Minkler.............................................................................................................................. MINKLER Kathy Moua ................................................................................................................................... MOUA Larry Muzny..................................................................................................................................MUZNY Ruben Nieves.................................................................................................................................NIEVES David, Natalie, and Elijah Ortiz (First Letter) ................................................................................ORTIZ 1 David, Natalie, and Elijah Ortiz (Second Letter)............................................................................ORTIZ 2 David, Natalie, and Elijah Ortiz (Third Letter)...............................................................................ORTIZ 3 Sheila Otteson ...........................................................................................................................OTTESON Paola Rodriguez................................................................................................................. P. RODRIGUEZ Peter Smith.................................................................................................................................P. SMITH Annette Paxton............................................................................................................................PAXTON Ross and Marie Potter..................................................................................................................POTTER Jerry Prieto (First Letter).............................................................................................................PRIETO 1 Jerry Prieto (Second Letter)........................................................................................................PRIETO 2 Tim Pritchard ..........................................................................................................................PRITCHARD Mary Ann Quann ..........................................................................................................................QUANN Rhonda Dueck............................................................................................................................R. DUECK Cindy Ramsey ..............................................................................................................................RAMSEY Mark and Dale Reitz ........................................................................................................................ REITZ Gregory and Abbe Renna ..............................................................................................................RENNA Maricela Reyes................................................................................................................................ REYES Christopher Rocha ........................................................................................................................ ROCHA Martha Rodriguez Torres......................................................................................... RODRIGUEZ-TORRES Brian and Candice Ruck ................................................................................................................... RUCK Susie Rodriguez (First Letter).......................................................................................... S. RODRIGUEZ 1 Susie Rodriguez (Second Letter)..................................................................................... S. RODRIGUEZ 2 Susie Rodriguez (Third Letter) ........................................................................................ S. RODRIGUEZ 3 Stephen Sacks................................................................................................................................. SACKS Elizabeth Sandberg ................................................................................................................. SANDBERG Eric Schmidt...............................................................................................................................SCHMIDT Andrew Sensenig......................................................................................................................SENSENIG Shelly Spencer ............................................................................................................................SPENCER David and Sharon Bell Stevens...................................................................................................STEVENS Laurie Tidyman-Jones.................................................................................................... TIDYMAN-JONES Sara Valentine......................................................................................................................... VALENTINE Daniel Vartan ............................................................................................................................... VARTAN City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-4 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 Wes Bigham........................................................................................................................... W. BIGHAM Randall and Tina White ................................................................................................................. WHITE Victoria Yokoyama ..................................................................................................................YOKOYAMA Connie Young................................................................................................................................ YOUNG

1.2 - Responses to Comments

1.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, evaluated the comments received on the Recirculated Draft Program EIR (Recirculated Draft PEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022020486) for the Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final PEIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

1.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.
arb.ca.gov 1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815 • Sacramento, California 95812 [email protected] March 25, 2025
Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, California 93721
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

I am writing to provide comments on the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (draft PEIR) for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project (Project) under consideration by the City of Fresno (City). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) works to support the State’s long-term climate goals by engaging with local jurisdictions and lead agencies as they evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG), air quality, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts of new development during the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Specifically, CARB has an interest in encouraging new residential and mixed-use development to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan).1 As noted in
Appendix D, Local Actions, of the 2022 Scoping Plan (Appendix D), “[l]ocal government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within their jurisdiction are critical to achieving the State’s long-term climate goals.”
Appendix D of the Scoping Plan provides guidance to local lead agencies on how to analyze residential and mixed-use projects for consistency with the State’s climate goals. One of the recommendations in Appendix D is for projects to incorporate “Key Residential and MixedUse Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs,” included in Table 3. The measures recommended in this table reduce a project’s operational GHG emissions, as supported by the academic literature. For projects that do not wish to use the recommendations in Table 3, Appendix D provides other recommendations for how to align residential projects with the State’s climate goals.

The draft PEIR for the Project determines that it is aligned with the State’s climate goals.

However, CARB observes that while some features of the Project partially align with Table 3 of Appendix D, which will assist with minimizing some of the overall GHG emission impacts associated with the Project’s long-term operation, numerous other features of the project do not align with Table 3 or with other recommended approaches to reduce GHG emissions.

Consequently, CARB finds that the analysis of alignment with the Scoping Plan is not sufficient, and additional opportunities exist to bring the project more in line with the 1 CARB

Page 1 of 7 ends

1 CALIFORNIA

AIR RESOURCES BOARD
2022 Scoping Plan/ California Air Resource Board
Gavin Newsom, Governor
Yana Garcia, Cal EPA Secretary
Liane M. Randolph, Chair
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

Scoping Plan’s recommendations and further reduce GHG and VMT. This is further discussed below.

EV charging infrastructure meeting the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code will not be provided for multi-family and commercial uses
The Project should consider providing EV charging infrastructure meeting the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code for single-family, multi-family and commercial uses
California has established a goal for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to make up 100% of new car and light truck sales by 2035. To accommodate this change to the vehicle fleet, California will need robust charging infrastructure. Table 3 of Appendix D recommends that electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure be provided that meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green (CalGreen) Building Standards Code at the time of project approval, which is Tier 2. According to the draft PEIR’s energy impact analysis, the Project would comply with the California Building Standards Code requirement to provide wiring branch circuits and receptacles that would allow for EV charging in private singlefamily garages or carports. However, it is unclear what type of EV infrastructure will be provided for new commercial and multi-family uses. Table 3.8-4 of the draft PEIR states that the proposed Project will include a commitment to preference EV parking spaces and that development pursuant to the proposed Project will comply with the requirements of the California Energy Code as it relates to EV charging and parking spaces. For the project to be fully consistent with the EV charging infrastructure project attribute from Table 3 of Appendix D, the Project could commit to achieving Tier 2 CalGreen standards for commercial uses and new multi-family dwellings. This would assist project residents and those employed within the Project as they transition from conventional vehicles.

The Project should consider implementing significant measures to mitigate VMT and GHG emissions resulting from its location outside of an infill site surrounded by existing urban uses and is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services
Appendix D of the Scoping Plan explains that residential and mixed-use projects that occur on “infill” sites that are surrounded by existing urban development are consistent with the State’s climate goals. As noted above, the Project site is County of Fresno land that would be annexed into the City of Fresno. The site is located east of the current city boundary and is not surrounded by urban uses. The Project site is almost exclusively agricultural and rural residential, with utilities and public services consistent with those uses. Therefore, the Project is not located on an “infill” site and should consider the GHG and VMT impacts of developing in a greenfield location. The draft PEIR states that it is consistent because it aligns with the General Plan’s policy of balancing growth with infill development; integrates small farms and community gardens into neighborhoods and a buffer with rural homes, CARB

Page 2 of 7 ends

1 CONT
2 3
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

organic farming, and open spaces; integrates Mitigation Measures related to agricultural resources in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources; and because the General Plan includes a number of policies to support agriculture and preserve natural and working lands. Despite the merit of these efforts, they are fundamentally different from a project in which growth occurs on infill sites, and the Mitigation Measures in Section 3.2 (primarily Mitigation Measure AG-1, a requirement for 1:1 conservation easements, or similar, to address the loss of quality farmland) do not address potential GHG impacts of the plan. The draft PEIR should analyze and consider how these impacts can be mitigated to the extent feasible.

The Project should consider implementing significant measures to mitigate the resulting loss in natural and working lands
The Project site is currently used predominantly for agricultural purposes, primarily vineyards, orchards, and vegetable farms. Table 3 of Appendix D of the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan lists as a key project attribute that a project “does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands.” Since the Project would be located on land where existing uses are mostly agricultural, the Project would not meet this recommended project attribute. The Project identifies this as a significant and unavoidable impact even after the implementation of MM AG-1.

The project does not consist of transit supportive densities and is not in proximity to existing transit stops
The project should consider shuttle and micro-transit service since densities are not transit-supportive and the project is not in proximity to existing transit stops Appendix D of the Scoping Plan specifies that a project with transit-supportive densities will have a minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre. This allows new development to be supportive of any transit that is provided to the project site in the future. Alternatively, Appendix D recommends that new development be within ½ mile of existing transit. The Project site is currently part of unincorporated Fresno County with no convenient transit options for future residents of the project. Mitigation measure TRANS 1-d specifies that the city will collaborate with the Fresno Area Express (FAX) to provide new transit services to the proposed Project and within the proposed Project area in the future.

The Project includes various residential land-use categories, including Mixed Residential, Neighborhood Residential, Rural Residential, and Rural Cluster Residential. however, dwelling units per acre. While the Mixed-Residential and Neighborhood Residential uses would allow up to 30 units per acre and 20 units per acre, respectively, the Rural Residential use would consist of very low-density rural homes and ranchettes, and the Rural Cluster Residential use would have an average gross density of 0.1 – 0.5 units per acre. Moreover, Rural Residential and Rural Cluster Residential uses would make up 33.7% of the total project area. Consequently, while parts of the project would feature transit-supportive densities, the project overall would have a lower average residential density. Devoting more CARB

Page 3 of 7 ends

3 CONT
4 5
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

of the project site to the Mixed-Residential and Neighborhood Residential uses would better allow the project to achieve densities that will increase the likelihood of effective transit service in the future. In addition, if FAX transit service is not available upon occupation of new residential uses, both shuttle service and micro-transit service could be options for the Project in the near term that would allow residents to travel within the project site and access the rest of the city without relying on automobiles.2 The project should incorporate reduced parking requirements Another recommendation in Appendix D of the Scoping Plan for achieving reductions in VMT is reduced parking availability in residential development. As identified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association,3 lower parking ratios can encourage residents to utilize non-motorized modes of travel. As described in Table 3.8-4 of the draft PEIR, the draft Southeast Development Area Specific Plan will include Objective UF-7 to support a variety of transportation options with parking requirements that encourage nonautomotive travel modes. Table 3.8-4 also shows that the proposed Project commits to the completion of a parking study that will establish and adopt parking reduction standards.

These standards will be applied to Transit, Mixed-Use Districts, land uses with Transportation Demand Management policies, and on-street parking. CARB encourages the city to expand this parking study to include residential uses. Reducing residential parking ratios can be an effective way to further reduce VMT by encouraging non-motorized travel.

As emphasized in Appendix D, for multi-family units, the cost of parking can be unbundled from other unit rental costs, providing cost savings for those who do not use parking to fund their use of alternative modes of transportation. As noted above, providing transit options such as bus service, shuttle service, and micro-transit or replacing automobile parking with bike parking or secure bike storage options could also reduce the need for parking within the project site.

The Project will provide for affordable housing that will support the city’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment targets
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) provides targets for housing within the city. It appears that the Project will provide affordable housing supportive of the city’s RHNA targets. While some rural residential uses will be removed, the amount of affordable housing created as a result of the Project will be net positive. 2 Table 3 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan notes that a project may also demonstrate consistency in this area by satisfying more detailed criteria as specified in the applicable SCS, if the criteria is more stringent than the recommendations included in Table 3. Since the Project does not meet the criteria listed in Table 3, CARB did not assess whether it complies with any SCS criteria that may be more stringent. 3 https://caleemod.com/handbook/index.html
CARB

Page 4 of 7 ends

5 CONT
6 7
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 25, 2025

Page 5 ends

The Project should consider a commitment to install all-electric appliances and curb natural gas connections for space heating, water heating, and indoor cooking Building Decarbonization is addressed in Appendix D of the Scoping Plan as a priority area for GHG reductions in California. Table 3 of Appendix D recommends electric appliances for new residential and mixed-use development, without the use of natural gas or other fossil fuels to provide for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. Table 3.8-4 of the draft PEIR shows that the proposed Project will consider adopting an incentive program for new buildings that exceed California Energy Code requirements by 15 percent and will encourage participation in various voluntary energy conservation programs. However, the impact analysis in the Energy section of the draft PEIR states that both electricity and natural gas will be used during Project operations, with natural gas use estimated at 1,200,642,400 kilo-British Thermal Units (BTUs) of natural gas used by the Project each year. Consequently, the Project is not consistent with Appendix D’s Building Decarbonization recommended project attribute.

Project attribute comparison table
The table below summarizes the comments above and compares the project to the recommended project attributes in Table 3 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan:

Table 1. Appendix D Project Attributes Comparison Table Project Attributes from Scoping Plan
Appendix D, Table 3
Southeast Development Area Specific
Plan Project
Includes Electric Vehicle (EV) charging
meeting most ambitious voluntary CA Green
Building Code standard
Infrastructure meeting Tier 2 CalGreen
standards will be available in single-family
residential units, but no commitment to
meeting Tier 2 standards for commercial or
multi-family uses.

Is located on infill sites that are surrounded
by existing urban uses and reuses or
redevelops previously undeveloped or
underutilized land that is presently served
by existing utilities and essential public
services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer)
The Project will develop land that is
currently outside the city limits and that is
not surrounded by existing development.

Does not result in loss or conversion of
natural or working lands
The Project will develop a site currently used
primarily for agricultural purposes, resulting
in the loss of working agricultural lands.

CARB

Page 5 of 7 ends

8 9
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 25, 2025

Page 6 ends

Includes transit-supportive densities for new
mixed-use or residential development, or;
Is in proximity to existing transit stops for
new mixed-use or residential development;
or;
More stringent criteria as specified in
applicable SCS
Includes reduced parking requirements
The project includes a variety of residential
land uses, but Rural Residential and Rural
Cluster Residential uses would make up

33.7% of the total project area, resulting in
densities that are not transit supportive. No
transit options currently exist within
proximity of the Project site.

The Specific Plan does not provide for
reduced parking ratios at residential uses.

Provides units affordable to lower-income
residents with no net loss of existing
affordable units
Affordable housing will be provided,
supportive of the city’s RHNA targets.

Uses all electric appliances without any
natural gas connections and does not use
propane or other fossil fuels for space
heating, water heating, or indoor cooking
The Project will utilize both electricity and
natural gas for space heating, water heating,
and cooking uses, with natural gas use
estimated at 1,200,642,400 kilo-British
Thermal Units (BTUs) of natural gas used by
the Project each year.

Conclusion
CARB appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft PEIR for the City of Fresno’s Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project. The draft PEIR finds that the Project is aligned with the State’s climate goals. It makes this determination by comparing the Project to various Scoping Plan policies, as listed in Table 3.8-4 of the draft PEIR, and as included in the discussion above. However, CARB’s review of the draft PEIR and comparison of the project’s components with the recommended project attributes in Appendix D of the Scoping Plan shows almost no areas in which the project’s characteristics align with these attributes, with the exception that the Project will not result in the loss of any affordable housing units.

As noted above, there are additional opportunities for the project to align itself with the State’s climate goals. The recommendations in Table 3 of Appendix D provide one approach to minimize the Project’s GHG impacts. The Project is not located on an infill site, is not near existing transit, and will occur on natural and working lands. Increasing residential densities and reducing residential parking would help to support future transit and other non-motorized travel modes, reducing both GHG and VMT associated with the long-term operations of the Project. To further reduce the Project’s operational GHG impact, a robust ZEV infrastructure can be provided throughout the Project to encourage residents and employees to transition to ZEVs. Installing electric appliances with no natural gas connections for heating or cooking can also help to minimize long-term operational GHG CARB

Page 6 of 7 ends

9 CONT
10 Sophia Pagoulatos
March 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

emissions. Finally, CARB encourages the city to work with the Project proponents to build housing that will serve all income groups.

Even though the Project is not an infill project and will remove working agricultural land, CARB commends the Project for including some attributes characteristic of mixed-use development. CARB notes that portions of the project will feature commercial uses that will be accessible to residents and will include connectivity features that can promote walking and biking within the project.

CARB looks forward to partnering with the City of Fresno and working towards achieving healthy and sustainable growth while realizing California’s climate goals. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Pedro Peterson at (279) 208-7367 or by email at . Sincerely,
Jennifer Gress Ph.D., Division Chief, Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division cc: Chanell Fletcher, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board Annalisa Schilla, Assistant Chief, Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division
CARB

Page 7 of 7 ends

10 CONT
[email protected]
!:::>incerely,
~t:::

Jennifer. [email protected]
Chane/[email protected]
Anna/isa.Schi/[email protected]

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 1-13
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 State Agencies
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Response to CARB-1
The comment is noted. Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR evaluated consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan policies in Table 3.8-4, Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan contains three tables, which contain various measures that would reduce impacts related to GHG emissions pursuant to the State’s GHG reduction goals. Table 1, Priority GHG Reduction Strategies, provides programmatic priority areas and measures that local governments can use to address the largest sources of GHGs within their jurisdiction. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan states, “When developing local climate plans, measures, policies, and actions, local jurisdictions should incorporate the recommendations described in Table 1 to the extent appropriate to ensure alignment with State climate goals.” While the proposed project is not a local climate plan, it is a policy-level document that aims to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with State climate goals. Therefore, the Recirculated Draft PEIR evaluated against each of the “Priority GHG Reduction Strategies” contained within Table 1.

Table 3, Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs, of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan provides more project-level measures than Table 1. These project-level attributes include, but are not limited to, providing EV charging infrastructure, consisting of transit-supportive densities, being located in proximity to existing transit stops, providing at least 20 percent affordable housing to lower-income residents, and using all-electric appliances. Since the proposed project is a policy-level document, it is not possible to determine consistency with all of the measures required at an individual project-level. 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.

Furthermore, this table specifically only applies to residential and mixed-use projects, with a mixeduse project being defined as “development including both residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.” As shown in Table 2-1, Proposed Specific Plan Acreages, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the proposed project would include approximately 63.4 percent of residential land uses, 12.7 percent of mixed-use land uses, 20.7 percent of employment land uses, and 3.2 percent of other land uses. Therefore, the proposed project does not consist of two-thirds residential land uses, and while some portion of the mixed-use land uses may include residential uses, it is not possible to quantify what percentage of residential would be included in the mixed-use land uses at this time. Therefore, Table 3 is not applicable to the proposed project at the programmatic level.

Clarifying edits have been made in Section 4, Errata, to clarify that future individual development projects would be required to comply with all applicable requirements and policies, such as the 2022 Scoping Plan, including demonstrating consistency with Table 3 of Appendix D. No further response is required.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-14 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 CARB-2
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CARB-1. Future development projects associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be required to demonstrate consistency with Table 3 of Appendix D of the Scoping Plan, as applicable, including providing EV charging infrastructure meeting the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

Additionally, clarifying edits have been made in Section 4, Errata, to revise MM AIR-1c such that future individual development projects would be required to implement EV charging infrastructure in single-family, multi-family, commercial and non-residential uses that meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the CALGreen Code. No further response is required.

Response to CARB-3
The comment is noted. The approach taken to analyze the proposed project’s potential impacts from GHG emissions is explained and substantiated in Response to CARB-1. As stated by the comment, “Appendix D of the Scoping Plan provides guidance to lead agencies on how to analyze residential and mixed-use projects for consistency with the State’s climate goals. One of the recommendations in Appendix D is for projects to incorporate “Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHG’s”, included in Table 3.” As stated by the comment, Table 3 is one of the recommended methods for analyzing a project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan. The comment does not substantiate why Table 3 of Appendix D is the most appropriate method for analyzing consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, or why it is a more appropriate method than analyzing the proposed project against Table 1 of Appendix D.

Disagreement amongst experts is not a sufficient reason to set aside an EIR or require subsequent environmental review of a previously adopted EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15151. Under established CEQA precedent, the Lead Agency may properly accept the determinations and conclusions reached by the experts that prepared the EIR, even though other conclusions could also be reached. See Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka, (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 371-72 (accepting findings on noise impacts despite experts’ disagreement over methodology); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1179-80 (2014) reversed on other grounds, 62 Cal. 4th 204 (2015) (one scientist’s disagreement with a conservation plan is “not pertinent to the issue of whether the environmental impact report’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence” (citations omitted)). Stated differently, since the function of review of the EIR is limited to determining whether the EIR is supported by substantial evidence, it is not an “abuse of discretion” for a public agency “to give more weight to one set of ‘experts’ than to another.” Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 391, 412. The analysis and/or opinions provided within these comments do not demonstrate that the City’s analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. Expert opinion that differs from the expert opinion expressed in the Recirculated Draft PEIR does not undermine the fact that there is substantial evidence to support the Recirculated Draft PEIR’s conclusions.

The comment states that proposed project should consider implementing significant measures to mitigate VMT and GHG emissions resulting from its location outside of an infill site. As discussed in the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the proposed project is one of several growth areas identified in the City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-15
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 City’s General Plan and aligns with the General Plan’s policy of balancing growth with infill development. Small farms and community gardens would be integrated into neighborhoods, schools, and town centers, and a buffer that includes rural homes, organic farming, and open spaces serves to transition the proposed project and commercial agriculture to the east. In addition, the General Plan includes a number of policies to support agriculture and preserve natural and working lands within the Resource Conservation and Resilience chapter. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures related to agricultural resources, as identified in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources of this document. Furthermore, the proposed project proposes a higher-density mixed-use walkable plan adjacent to city limits and would be served by the City’s utilities and public service providers.

The comment stated that the proposed project should consider implementing significant measures to mitigate VMT. As discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, average VMT per capita under existing conditions for the City of Fresno is 13.1 miles compared to 16.2 miles for the County of Fresno (approximately 19 percent less than the county average). Through the implementation of the General Plan, in 2035, the City VMT per capita (16.5 miles) is forecast to be 17 percent less than the County VMT per capita (19.9 miles). Corresponding numbers for VMT per employee indicate that the City average is forecast to be 13 percent lower than the 2035 County average. This is a greater reduction in VMT than forecast by the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a 12 percent reduction in VMT for the RTP project. The buildout of the proposed project would serve to further reduce VMT per capita in the region by locating high-density housing near service amenities and jobs. 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. Furthermore, the Recirculated Draft PEIR mandates numerous mitigation measures in Section 3.17, Transportation, which will reduce VMT and traffic, and transportationrelated impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

In summary, the comment does not provide substantiation on why use of Table 3, Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, is the most appropriate method for evaluating the proposed project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. The comment does not provide substantiation on why the proposed project is not infill, according to the citation referenced in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The comment does not provide justification on why the proposed project should implement additional VMT mitigation measures in light of the analysis presented in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. No further response is required.

Response to CARB-4
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CARB-1. The comment states that the project should consider implementing significant measures to mitigate the resulting loss of natural and working lands. As discussed in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the proposed project would incorporate MM AG-1, which would compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland within the 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. In the alternative, if the City adopts a Farmland Preservation Program pursuant to Fresno General Plan Policy RC-9-c, project City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-16 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 proponents may compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland by complying with the adopted Farmland Preservation Program.

Furthermore, as stated in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the proposed project would integrate small farms and community gardens, as well as a buffer that includes rural homes, organic farming and open space. No further response is required.

Response to CARB-5
The comment is noted. Clarifying edits have been made in Section 4, Errata, to revise MM TRANS-1d to consider shuttle and micro-transit service throughout the proposed project. Additionally, the City is planning to continue the bus rapid transit (BRT) into the Plan Area, and the highest density use (Regional Town Center), which provides for up to 70 dwelling units per acre, is planned along that corridor. No further response is required.

Response to CARB-6
The comment is noted. The comment notes that the proposed project commits to the completion of a parking study that would establish and adopt parking reduction standards to be applied to Transit, Mixed-Use Districts, land uses with TDM policies, and on-street parking; the comment encourages the City to expand this parking study to include residential uses, and the City will commit to including residential uses within the study.

The comment also states that the cost of parking can be unbundled in multi-family units. Clarifying edits have been made in Section 4, Errata, to revise MM TRANS-1e to unbundle the cost of parking in multi-family residential land uses. No further response is required.

Response to CARB-7
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 CARB-8
The comment is noted. Clarifying edits have been included in Section 4, Errata, of this document, which reflect that the proposed project would not incorporate natural gas, and therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the all-electric recommendation of Appendix B of the Scoping Plan. This edit is a clarifying edit to reflect an updated policy within the proposed SEDA Specific Plan that does not constitute substantial new information or a change to the significance findings in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. No further response is required.

Response to CARB-9
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CARB-1 through Response to CARB-8. No further response is required.

Response to CARB-10
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CARB-1 through Response to CARB-8. No further response is required.

CALTRANS

Page 1 of 18 ends

1 2

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE I P.O. BOX 12616 I FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7284 I FAX (559) 488-4195 I TTY711
www.dot.ca.gov
March 21, 2025

GAVIN NEWSOM , GOVERNOR
• •
tidtrans·
FRE-l 80-R64. l 04
Southeast Development Area Specific Plan
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2022020486
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov /district/6/report/25659

SENT VIA EMAIL
Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos
c/o Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street Ste. 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Dear Mx. Asadoorian:

Caltrans District 6 has reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) dated January 30, 2025, for the Fresno Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan and offers the following technical comments and recommendations. The TIA is part of the SEDA recirculated draft environmental impact report (DEIR). The proposed development area covers nearly 9,000 acres. It is bounded on the north by the Gould Canal, on the east by McCall and Highland A venues, on the south by Jensen and North A venues, and on the West by Locan, Temperance, and Minnewawa Avenues.

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

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

1.:, Queuing and Mitigation Measures (these comments supersede our previous comments):

The TIA conducted a peak hour ramp queuing analysis at project buildout for the following State Route (SR) 180 interchange ramp intersections and SR 180 intersections to assess potential impacts:
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment."

CALTRANS

Page 2 of 18 ends

2 CONT
3 4
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian-Southeast Development Area Specific Plan - Recirculated DEIR March 21, 2025
Page2
1 . SR 180 EB Ramp at Clovis A venue

2. SR 180 WB Ramp at Clovis Avenue

3. SR 180 EB Ramp at Fowler A venue

4. SR 180 WB Ramp at Fowler A venue

5. SR 180 EB Ramp at Temperance Avenue

6. SR 180 WB Ramp at Temperance Avenue

7. SR 180 / De Wolf Avenue Intersection

8. SR 180 / Highland A venue Intersection

9. SR 180 / McCall A venue Intersection
The TIA references Caltrans' letter dated August 16, 2024, which states that auxiliary lanes can be used for additional vehicle storage. However, Caltrans does not recommend this practice. According to Index 62.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), an auxiliary lane is defined as:
"The portion of the roadway for weaving, truck climbing, speed change, or for other purposes supplementary to through movement."
The planned use of auxiliary lanes for vehicle storage is inconsistent with their intended function and may result in operational inefficiencies or safety concerns.

Additionally, the TIA identifies locations with potential safety impacts due to vehicle queuing that are not currently recommended for mitigation. Based on Table 12: 2035 Project and No Project Queue Analyses Results, these locations include:
• SR 180 Eastbound Ramp at Clovis A venue
• SR 180 Eastbound Ramp at Temperance Avenue
Recommendation: Caltrans recommends that the City of Fresno consider mitigation strategies outlined in Appendix B of the Caltrans Local Development Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance at these locations to address potential safety hazards caused by vehicle queues.

2. Roadway Impact and Complete Streets Considerations
The SEDA project is anticipated to increase traffic volumes on De Wolf Avenue and McCall A venue, both of which are projected to experience reduced traffic performance by 2035. To accommodate the forecasted growth and enhance northsouth connectivity, the proposed widening of these roadways from one lane per direction to two lanes is deemed appropriate.

In alignment with the Fresno Complete Streets Policy (2019), the TIA also recommends upgrading these roadways to Complete Streets standards. Doing so would improve accessibility and safety for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit passengers.

Recommendation: To maximize the benefits of the Complete Streets upgrades, Caltrans encourages the City of Fresno to:
• Ensure compliance with Caltrans HDM standards: All Complete Streets improvements should adhere to Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HOM) "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment."

CALTRANS

Page 3 of 18 ends

4 CONT
5 7
6 Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian-Southeast Development Area Specific Plan - Recirculated DEIR March 21, 2025
Page3
standards, including specifications for bike lanes, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths, to promote consistency, safety, and accessibility. • Enhance future transit stop amenities: When planning for future transit stop locations, consider incorporating appropriate amenities such as shelters, seating, and ADA-compliant infrastructure to improve multimodal access and passenger comfort.

3. Multimodal and Active Transportation Considerations
The SEDA project proposes new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and plans for transit connectivity to central Fresno via Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes. These features aim to reduce vehicle dependency and support multimodal transportation.

Recommendation: To strengthen the project's multimodal connectivity, Caltrans recommends that the City of Fresno consider:
• Incorporating Class IV bikeways (separated cycle tracks) where feasible to enhance cyclist safety.
• Implementing transit signal priority {TSP) at key intersections to improve BRT travel times and reliability.
• Planning for future transit station expansions, including park-and-ride facilities, to accommodate anticipated ridership growth.

4. Safety and Collision Considerations
The Preliminary Safety Assessment identifies 629 reported collisions within the project area between 2019 and 2023.

The report also highlights pedestrian and bicycle incidents, with seven pedestrianinvolved collisions and six bicycle-involved collisions.

Recommendation: To enhance safety for all road users, Caltrans encourages the City of Fresno to consider the following strategies:
• Enhancing pedestrian visibility through the installation of high-visibility crosswalks and flashing beacons at locations with higher pedestrian activity or collision history.
• Reducing vehicle speeds in areas with frequent conflicts by implementing traffic calming measures and targeted enforcement.
• Improving roadway design by incorporating features such as curb extensions and pedestrian refuge islands, which can reduce crossing distances and enhance safety.
• Strengthening bicycle infrastructure by incorporating protective elements, such as separated bike lanes, to enhance safety and comfort for cyclists.

5. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Trip Generation Considerations The SEDA project is projected to generate:
• 94,477 PM peak hour trips
• 866,452 total daily trips
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment."

CALTRANS

Page 4 of 18 ends

7 CONT
8 Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian- Southeast Development Area Specific Plan - Recirculated DEIR March 21, 2025
Page4
The project's mixed-use design is expected to reduce VMT impacts by shortening travel distances for residents' daily needs.

Recommendation: To further mitigate VMT impacts, Caltrans suggests that the City of Fresno consider:
• Implementing Transportation Demand Management {TDM) strategies, including transit subsidies, carpool incentives, and shared parking facilities. • Conducting a sensitivity analysis on VMT impacts with and without the planned BRT routes to evaluate the project's reliance on transit infrastructure.

6. Conclusion
Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to review the Fresno Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan - Transportation Impact Analysis. The comments and recommendations provided are intended to assist the City of Fresno in its evaluation of the project by identifying potential transportation impacts and offering considerations for mitigation and design enhancements.

Please note that the comments provided in this letter are in addition to Caltrans' previous correspondence, including the following:
• Caltrans Comment Letter dated August 16, 2024
• Caltrans Comment Letter dated November 17, 2023
• Caltrans Comment Letter dated August 25, 2023
• Caltrans Comment Letter dated March 18, 2022
For your reference, copies of these previous letters are attached herein. All comments from the previous letters remain applicable in whole or in part unless explicitly superseded by this letter.

Caltrans remains available to collaborate with the city and provide additional technical support as needed. Should you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact Keyomi Jones at (559) 981-7284 or via email at [email protected]
Sincerely,
David Padilla, Branch Chief,
Local Development Review Branch
Attachments: Caltrans Comment Letter dated August 16, 2024 Caltrans Comment Letter dated November 17, 2023
Caltrans Comment Letter dated August 25, 2023
Caltrans Comment Letter dated March 18, 2022
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment."

CALTRANS

Page 5 of 18 ends

9 CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE I P.O. BOX 12616 I FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7284 I FAX (559) 488-4195 I TTY711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 16, 2024

GAVIN NEWSOM , GOVERNOR
• •
tidtrans·
FRE-180-R64. l 04
Southeast Development Area Specific Plan
Queuing Analysis
SCH #2022020486
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov /district/6/report/25659

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

Caltrans has completed the review of queuing analysis for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan.

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

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

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

1. Caltrans recommended that any additional right-turn capacity be achieved through widening rather than reducing left-turn capacity. As a result, the document "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment."

CALTRANS

Page 6 of 18 ends

9 CONT
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian - Southeast Development Area Specific Plan, Queuing Analysis August 16, 2024
Page2
now states the queuing analysis spreadsheet has been revised to use auxiliary lanes for additional storage, instead of the originally proposed restriping of the eastbound State Route (SR) 180 off-ramp lanes at Clovis Avenue and Temperance Avenue.

As stated, we request that the city coordinate with Caltrans to determine if and when extending turn lanes at De Wolf and McCall A venues on SR-180 are necessary to ensure mitigation is in place before approving related development projects.

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

Sincerely,
Mr. Dave Padilla, Branch Chief,
Transportation Planning - North
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment."

CALTRANS

Page 7 of 18 ends

10 CALIFORN IA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE I P.O. BOX 12616 I FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559)981-7284 I FAX(559)488-41951 TTY7ll
www.dot.ca.gov
November 17, 2023

GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
• •
Oz/trans•
FRE-180-64.104
Southeast Development Area
Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH #2022020486
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/28801

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

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

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

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

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

SR 180 Interchange Queuing Analysis
1 . This document provided a peak hour ramp queue analysis at the following State Route 180 interchanges: Clovis Avenue, Fowler Avenue, and Temperance Avenue. It also provided a peak hour queue analysis at the De Wolf Avenue, Highland Avenue, and McCall Avenue intersections along State Route (SR) 180. "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 8 of 18 ends

10 CONT
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian - SEDA Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) November 17, 2023
Page2
The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-8: 2035 Project and No Project Queue Analyses Results within the document. A substantial amount of the data in Table 3-8 needs to be more accurate. The following irregularities were observed:

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

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

C. Heavy reductions in queue lengths from "No Project Conditions" to "Proposed Project Conditions" at the Clovis A venue interchange off-ramps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding for Developer-Driven Impacts to State Facilities

1. The Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan does not designate SR 180 as a High Emphasis Focus Route, so the State's portion of the State Transportation Improvement Program cannot be used to fund improvements to the SR 180 interchanges. Possible funding sources include Measure C, the Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact Fee (TSMIF) of the City of Fresno, the Regional Transportation "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 9 of 18 ends

10 CONT
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian - SEDA Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) November 17, 2023
Page3
Mitigation Fee (RTMF) of Fresno County, the Regional Improvement Program, developer mitigation, etc. To deliver "needed" projects, infrastructure improvements in today's funding environment frequently require a variety of funding sources. The City of Fresno should mitigate since the SEDA creates the need for improvements.

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

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

Sincerely,
Mr. Dave Padilla, Branch Chief,
Transportation Planning - North
C: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager, City of Fresno
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 10 of 18 ends

11 CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE A VENUE IP .0. BOX 12616 I FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7284 I FAX (559) 488-4195 I TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 25, 2023

GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
• •
lb/trans•
FRE-180-64.104
Southeast Development Area
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH #2022020486
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot .ca.gov /district /6/report /28801

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

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

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

DEIR-Traffic Impact Analvsis {TIA) Comments:

The concerns below should have been adequately addressed in the DEIR or TIA. While the DEIR is a comprehensive planning document, it is recommended that the DEIR endorse procedures that address traffic safety on the State Highway System. Caltrans did provide a comment letter dated March 18, 2022, during the Notice of Preparation with a public comment period from February 22, 2022, to March 25, 2022, which is included in Appendix A of the DEIR. Comments one through eight presented herein are included in the attached letter dated March 18, 2022, and are as follows:
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 11 of 18 ends

11 CONT
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian - Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

The Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R 1 : Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance provides direction on analyzing the safety impacts on the State Highway System by proposed land use projects. Subsequent projects included in this development area should incorporate this guidance.

VMT Analysis Comments:

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

The move from a primarily rural location (as the SEDA project area is now) to a developed urbanized mixed-use site results in a significant drop in VMT. Additionally, the VMT Analysis preparer claims that this is attributable to residents and employees "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 12 of 18 ends

11 CONT
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian - Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

Page 3 ends

being better connected to jobs and services within the SEDA project area, reducing travel times on both the production (residential) and attraction ( commercial) sides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SEDA area may aim to establish more sustainable and efficient transportation systems while addressing environmental and social concerns related to increasing vehicle use by implementing these and other VMT mitigation strategies. "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 13 of 18 ends

11 CONT
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian - Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

Page 4 ends

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

Sincerely,
David Padilla, Branch Chief,
Transportation Planning - North
Attachment: Caltrans comment letter March 18, 2022
C: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager, City of Fresno
State Clearinghouse
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 14 of 18 ends

11 CONT
Mx. Adrienne Asadoorian - Southeast Development Area Draft EIR August 25, 2023

Page 5 ends

ATTACHMENT
Caltrans comment letter March 18, 2022
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 15 of 18 ends

11 CONT

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
• · DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE I P.O. BOX 12616 I FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559)981-1041 I FAX(559)488-41951 TTY7ll
lizltrans•
www.dot.ca.gov
March 18, 2022

SENT VIA EMAIL
Shawn Monk, Planner
City of Fresno
Long Range Planning Division
Office: 559-621-8031
[email protected]
Dear Mx. Monk,
FRE-180-R65. l

NOTICE OF PREPARATION, EIR
https://ld-igr-gts.dot .ca .gov/ district/ 6/report /25659 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan. The proposed Southeast Development Area covers nearly 9,000 acres and has the potential to accommodate approximately 45,000 homes by the year 2050. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the Gould Canal, on the east by McCall and Highland Avenues, on the south by Jensen and North Avenues, and on the West by Locan, Temperance, and Minnewawa Avenues.

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

1. Caltrans anticipates this development area would add substantial traffic to the State Route 180 interchanges at Clovis Avenue, Fowler Avenue, and Temperance Avenue. The result could be significant speed differentials between the off-ramp queues and the mainline of the freeway. It is highly recommended that a peak hour ramp queue analysis is completed at each of these interchanges to determine potential impacts.

2. This development area would also be expected to add traffic to the State Route 180 intersections at De Wolf Avenue, Highland Avenue, and McCall Avenue. The result could be significant speed differentials between the turn lane queues and the through lane traffic caused by insufficient left turn lanes or intersection control. Therefore, it is also recommended that a peak hour queue analysis is completed at each of these intersections to determine potential impacts.

3. Future development(s) should also consider traffic safety impacts on the State Highway System due to new pedestrian and bicyclist needs based on new origins or destinations that intersect a State Route. Additionally, multimodal conflict points and change in traffic composition (such as an increase in bicyclists or pedestrians, where features such as shoulders or sidewalks may not exist or are inconsistent with facility design) should be included. The State Route 180 interchanges at Fowler Avenue and Temperance Avenue; and the State Route 180 intersections at De Wolf A venue, Highland A venue, and McCall "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 16 of 18 ends

11 CONT
Shawn Monk, Planner- NOTICE OF PREPARATION, EIR
March 18, 2022
Page2
Avenue should be included in this analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any other questions, please call or email Edgar Hernandez at (559) 981-7436 or [email protected] .gov.

David Padilla, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning - North
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"

CALTRANS

Page 17 of 18 ends

12 CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
• · DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE I P.O. BOX 12616 I FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559)981-1041 I FAX(559)488-41951 TTY7ll
lizltrans•
www.dot.ca.gov
March 18, 2022

SENT VIA EMAIL
Shawn Monk, Planner
City of Fresno
Long Range Planning Division
Office: 559-621-8031
[email protected]
Dear Mx. Monk,
FRE-180-R65. l

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

CALTRANS

Page 18 of 18 ends

12 CONT
Shawn Monk, Planner- NOTICE OF PREPARATION, EIR
March 18, 2022
Page2
Avenue should be included in this analysis.

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

If you have any other questions, please call or email Edgar Hernandez at (559) 981-7436 or [email protected] .gov.

David Padilla, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning - North
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-35
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 California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
Response to CALTRANS-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 CALTRANS-2
In response to comments from Caltrans on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project and the Draft PEIR, the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR and the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project included peak hour ramp queuing analysis at project buildout for State Route (SR) 180 interchange ramps and intersections. The analysis found that at full build out of the Specific Plan, queuing impacts would occur at the SR-180 eastbound ramp at Clovis Avenue and the SR-180 eastbound ramp at Temperance Avenue. Therefore, the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR included mitigation measures to restripe the lanes on both of the identified ramps to reduce impacts to a less than significant impact as modeling for project buildout determined that restriping was feasible given projected trip generations. As directed by Caltrans during coordination meeting following the public circulation of the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR, the Recirculated Draft PEIR transportation analysis modeled the use of auxiliary lanes for additional storage for the two eastbound ramps rather than restriping.1 The analysis found that, with the use of auxiliary lanes, no impact would result at these intersections. As such, no mitigation was required.

As indicated by this comment, Caltrans no longer supports the use of auxiliary lanes to provide additional storage for the identified eastbound off ramps at Temperance Avenue and Clovis Avenues in addition to prohibiting restriping at these locations. In response to this comment, a coordination meeting with Caltrans was held on April 9, 2025, and the City and Caltrans discussed the best approach for addressing potential queuing impacts associated with build-out. During this coordination meeting, Caltrans recommended that the City and Caltrans closely monitor the queueing at these identified interchange off-ramps as individual development projects are considered within the Plan Area. Based on the specifics of the individual proposals, and, if needed as development proceeds, the City shall implement Caltrans approved mitigation at these locations.

The mitigation shall be consistent with the mitigation strategies outlined in Appendix B of the Caltrans Local Development Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, to address potential safety hazards associated with vehicle queues.

Portions of Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR have been revised and clarified in Section 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR to remove the use of the auxiliary lanes at these offramps and include mitigation recommended by Caltrans. The revisions to Section 3.17, Transportation, do not constitute new or more severe impacts and the finding for Impact TRANS-3, which evaluates traffic safety hazards, and the significance finding for TRANS-3 would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further response is necessary. 1 This direction was also provided in an August 16, 2024 comment letter provided by Caltrans.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-36 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 CALTRANS-3
This comment is noted. Please refer to Response to CALTRANS-2. The applicable mitigation strategies outlined in Appendix B of the Caltrans Local Development Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance to the proposed project are as follows:
• Transportation demand management program(s) to reduce the project’s trip generation, which may include increased transit access, commute trip reductions such as rideshare programs, shared mobility facilities (bicycle or vehicular), increased bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure;
• Investments to existing active transportation infrastructure, or transit system amenities (or expansion) to reduce the project’s trip generation; and/or • Potential change(s) to the ramp terminal operations including, but not limited to lane reassignment, traffic signalization, signal phasing or timing modifications, turn lane extensions to accommodate the additional project traffic.

As further discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, both the Fresno General Plan and the SEDA Specific Plan include policies that support the preparation of the transportation demand management programs as specified in the first bullet above. General Plan Policy MT-2-g directs the City to pursue implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System strategies to reduce peak-hour vehicle traffic and supplement the capacity of the transportation system. SEDA Specific Plan Policy UF-8.1 directs the City to develop a SEDA Transportation Demand Management Program consistent with the City’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) policy. Policy UF-8.1 specified that this program should include physical design credits (i.e., bicycle storage, on-site showers, shared parking), lifestyle credits (i.e., on-site child care, telecommuting, flex hour programs), and credits for auto-alternative programs (i.e., shuttle service, subsidized transit, guaranteed ride home programs).

Similarly, both the General Plan and the SEDA Specific Plan contain policies related to active transportation and investments and improvements to the City’s and Plan Area’s transit trail systems as specified in the second bullet above. General Plan Policies MT-1-j, MT-4-b, MT-4-c, MT-4-h, MT-4-l, MT-5-a through MT-5-d, and MT-8-a through MT-8c all direct the City to implement improvements and investments to bikeways, pedestrian walkways, existing and proposed transit systems and other related features that support active transportation. The Urban Form Chapter of the SEDA Specific Plan contains multiple policies that address active transportation and transit service improvements within the Plan Area in order to create a balanced transportation network accessible to all users.

Similarly, the Open Space Chapter of the SEDA Specific Plan contains multiple policies that address trails within the Plan Area and promotes the development of a SEDA Trails Master Plan as well as improvements to curb, gutter, and sidewalk infrastructure.

Additionally, as discussed in Response to CALTRANS-2, mitigation included in Impact TRANS-3 as revised in Section 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR, directs the City to coordinate closely with Caltrans to identify when queuing storage on the eastbound ramp intersections at SR-180/Clovis Avenue and SR-180/Temperance Avenue may require changes to the ramp terminal operations. As such, the proposed project includes General Plan policies, SEDA Specific Plan policies, and mitigation measures City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-37
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 address all of the suggested mitigation strategies outlined in the Caltrans Local Development Review Safety Review Practitioner Guidance as directed by Caltrans. No further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-4
This comment is noted. No environmental issue is raised; however, the recommendations included in this comment will be considered when implementing General Plan and SEDA Specific Plan Policies that address complete street improvements and transit stop enhancements. No further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-5
This comment is noted. No environmental issue is raised; however, the recommendations included in this comment will be considered when implementing General Plan and SEDA Specific Plan Policies that address bikeway improvements, transit signal priority (TSP) improvements, and transit stop enhancements as well as during review of future development when proposed. No further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-6
This comment is noted. No environmental issue is raised; however, the recommendations included in this comment will be considered when implementing General Plan and SEDA Specific Plan Policies that address safety improvements in Plan Area, such as increased pedestrian visibility, reducing vehicle speeds, and improve bicycle infrastructure as well as during review of future development when proposed. No further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-7
This comment is noted. Please refer to Responses to CALTRANS-2 and CALTRANS-3. No environmental issue is raised; however, the recommendations included in this comment will be considered when implementing General Plan and SEDA Specific Plan policies in the Plan Area as well as during review of future development when proposed. No further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-8
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 CALTRANS-9
This comment is noted. Please refer to Responses to CALTRANS-2 and CALTRANS-3. Portions of Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR have been revised and clarified in Section 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR to reflect the agreed upon, coordinated approach between Caltrans and the City. The revisions to Section 3.17, Transportation, do not constitute new or more severe impacts and the finding for Impact TRANS-3, which evaluates traffic safety hazards, and the significance finding for TRANS-3 would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further response is necessary.

Response to CALTRANS-10
This comment is noted. Please refer to Responses to CALTRANS-2 and CALTRANS-3. Portions of Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR have been revised and clarified in Section City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-38 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 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR to reflect the agreed upon, coordinated approach between Caltrans and the City. Part of this approach includes the collection developer impact fees as specific development is approved and constructed in the Plan Area, which combined with other funding sources, will be utilized to make the necessary improvements to the impacted Caltrans facilities. The revisions to Section 3.17, Transportation, do not constitute new or more severe impacts and the finding for Impact TRANS-3, which evaluates traffic safety hazards, and the significance finding for TRANS-3 would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further response is necessary.

Response to CALTRANS-11
This comment is noted. Please refer to Responses to CALTRANS-2 and CALTRANS-3. Portions of Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR have been revised and clarified in Section 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR to reflect the agreed upon, coordinated approach between Caltrans and the City. The revisions to Section 3.17, Transportation, do not constitute new or more severe impacts and the finding for Impact TRANS-3, which evaluates traffic safety hazards, and the significance finding for TRANS-3 would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Additionally, other comments outside of the queuing analysis have been previously addressed in the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR and the Recirculated Draft PEIR. No further response is necessary.

Response to CALTRANS-12
This comment is noted. Please refer to Responses to CALTRANS-2 and CALTRANS-3. Portions of Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR have been revised and clarified in Section 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR to reflect the agreed upon, coordinated approach between Caltrans and the City. The revisions to Section 3.17, Transportation, do not constitute new or more severe impacts and the finding for Impact TRANS-3, which evaluates traffic safety hazards, and the significance finding for TRANS-3 would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Additionally, other comments outside of the queuing analysis have been previously addressed in the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR and the Recirculated Draft PEIR. No further response is necessary.

CDFW

Page 1 of 4 ends

1 Docusign Envelope ID: 2748C526-481 B-4CE5-83BC-AD9D263BA7D1 State of California - Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
March 24, 2025
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, California 93721
(559) 621-8062
[email protected]
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Subject: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RPEIR) for the Proposed Southeast Development Area (SEDA) Specific Plan Project (Project)
State Clearinghouse No.: 2022020486
Dear Sophia Pagoulatos:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a RPEIR from City of Fresno, as Lead Agency, for the above-referenced Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW previously commented on the Notice of Preparation on March 25, 2022, the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on August 30, 2023, and on the Partial Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on November 22, 2023, for this Project. Based on the information provided in the RPEIR, CDFW recommends referring to these comment letters for biological resource surveys and mitigation measures and recommends incorporating these comments to adequately identify and/or mitigate the Project's potential impacts on biological resources. In addition to the 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Conserving Ca[ifornia's WiU[ife Since 1870
CDFW

Page 2 of 4 ends

2 Docusign Envelope ID: 2748C526-481 B-4CE5-83BC-AD9D263BA7D1 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

Page 2 ends

recommendations from these comment letters, CDFW offers the following editorial comments and suggestions in order to improve the document.

Nesting Birds: CDFW recommends that Project construction be timed to avoid the bird nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the breeding season (February 1 through September 15), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes.

To evaluate Project-related impacts on nesting birds, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment and analysis of impacts to nesting birds as part of the biological technical studies prior to approval of subsequent projects resulting from this DPEIR. Prior to ground-disturbance activities, surveys for active nests should be conducted, regardless of the initial results, no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests, that could potentially be impacted, are detected. Surveys should cover a sufficient area around the Project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

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

CDFW

Page 3 of 4 ends

3 5
4 Docusign Envelope ID: 2748C526-481 B-4CE5-83BC-AD9D263BA7D1 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025

Page 3 ends

Lake and Streambed Alteration: The DPEIR acknowledges that there are a number of existing Fresno Irrigation District facilities, most or all of which are modified streams that cross the Project. Project activities that substantially change the bed, bank, and channel of any river, stream, or lake are subject to CDFW's regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., even when heavily modified. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation): (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. "Any river, stream, or lake" includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial and may include those that are highly modified such as canals and retention basins.

CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA); therefore, if the CEQA document approved for the Project does not adequately describe the Project and its impacts to lakes or streams, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be necessary for LSAA issuance. For information on notification requirements, please refer to CDFW's website (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA) or contact CDFW staff in the Central Region Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593.

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

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

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

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

CDFW

Page 4 of 4 ends

6 Docusign Envelope ID: 2748C526-481 B-4CE5-83BC-AD9D263BA7D1 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
March 24, 2025
Page4

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DPEIR to assist the City of Fresno in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

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

Sincerely,
!t DocuSigned by:

L~ F=::

Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-43
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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Response to CDFW-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 CDFW-2
The comment is noted. 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. However, future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply MM BIO-1d, which requires proposed projects that cannot avoid construction during nesting season to conduct a pre-construction clearance survey to determine whether any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500 feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a Biological Monitor shall be on-site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. This mitigation measure also indicates that specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation. This mitigation measure and the associated analysis is fully discussed in Impact BIO-1 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

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 CDFW-3
The comment is noted. 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. However, future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with MM BIO-2b, which requires proposed projects that would result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This mitigation measure requires future project applicant/developer for to consult with partner agencies such as CDFW and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway. This mitigation measure and the associated analysis is fully discussed in Impact BIO-3 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-44 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 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 CDFW-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 CDFW-5
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 CDFW-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 CEQA are raised, and no response is required.

COUNTY

Page 1 of 21 ends

1 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Jeffrey M. Reid
Partner
(Admitted in California, Virginia
and District of Columbia)
(559) 433-2310
[email protected]

FRESNO, CA OFFICE
7647 North Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93720
P.O. Box 28912
Fresno, CA 93729-8912
Telephone (559) 433-1300
Fax (559) 433-2300
Other offices of
McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
www.mccormickbarstow.com

BAKERSFIELD, CA OFFICE
5060 California Ave., Suite 1090
Bakersfield, California 93309
Telephone (661) 616-1594
Fax (661) 616-1595

CINCINNATI, OH OFFICE
Scripps Center, Suite 1050
312 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Telephone (513) 762-7520
Fax (513) 762-7521

LAS VEGAS, NV OFFICE
8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Telephone (702) 949-1100
Fax (702) 949-1101

MODESTO, CA OFFICE
1125 I Stree~ Suite 1
Modesto, California 95354
Telephone (209) 524-1100
Fax (209) 524-1188

RENO, NV OFFICE
201 W. Liberty Street, Suite 320
Reno, Nevada 89501
Telephone (775) 333-0400
Fax (775) 333-0412

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA OFFICE
1041 Mill Street, Suite 105
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Telephone (805) 541-2800
Fax (805) 541-2802
March 20, 2025
Via Email:

City of Fresno
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Planning and Development Department
Adrienne Asadoorian, Planner ill
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93 721
With a copy to
Jennifer Clark, Director
Planning and Development Department
c/o Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, California 93 721
SUBJECT: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2022020486)
In accordance with the instructions set forth in the Executive Summary of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report ("RDEIR") for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project, the below comments are being submitted anew based upon the election of the City of Fresno (the "City") to decline to provide responses to the previous comments solicited and provided to it with respect to the relevant Project described below.

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

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

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

Page 2 of 21 ends

1 CONT
2 4
3 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025
Page2
areas and rural residential neighborhoods. These items were highlighted in Resolution USOI-144 because they involve significant environmental impacts of the intended development of SEDA. However, those requirements have not been adequately addressed in the Specific Plan. As a result, its companion RDEIR fails to adequately evaluate how the Specific Plan's implementation will mitigate the environmental impacts that would be addressed by the intended requirements of Resolution USOI144.

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 21 ends

4 CONT
5 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORN EYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

Page 4 of 21 ends

5 CONT
5 CONT
6 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025
Page4
required for specific plans under Government Code section 65451.1 The RDEIR therefore fails to satisfy CEQA's requirements because the Project, which it evaluates, is too vague to permit sufficient environmental impact evaluation. ( County of Inyo v.

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

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

Standard provisions of a specific plan should include details for the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (Government Code section 6545 l(a)(2)). In addition, a specific plan generally includes a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the development of the land uses intended by the plan. (Government Code section 6545 l(a)(4)). However, the Specific Plan lacks sufficient detail concerning such matters. As noted above and below, the Specific Plan defers preparation of both its intended infrastructure financing plan, and its zoning standards, which will subsequently establish the intended development densities and other regulations for its land use designations.

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

For example, the Specific Plan attempts to address the qualities of the size, density, composition and building character of its extensive complement of new Mixed-Use Districts, by requiring that they be consistent with new zone district standards to be adopted in the future, as part of a SEDA Development Code update. (Specific Plan, at Policy UF-2.2 Development Code Update, p. 27). Some density 1 Because the City is a Charter City, the requirements of Government Code Section 65451 do not apply to it unless it has otherwise confirmed, by ordinance or resolution, an intention to comply with such provisions. (Government Code sections 65700 and 65803). However, in this instance the requirement of preparing the Specific Plan is an element ofLAFCO Resolution USOI-144. By accepting the benefits of that Resolution, the City has committed to be bound by its requirements. Whether Resolution USOI-144 intended that the Specific Plan satisfy the minimum thresholds established in Government Code Section 65151 is a matter of interpretation for LAFCO to address. However, in addition to not satisfying the minimum statutory requirements of a specific plan, as noted in Section A, the Specific Plan also does not satisfy the express requirements of Resolution USOI-144, resulting in its failure to address important environmental consequences of the Specific Plan.

COUNTY

Page 5 of 21 ends

6 CONT
7 8
McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

Section 1.1.2 (page 1-1) of the RDEIR states that the document provides a "project-level analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project." However, other provisions of the RDEIR, including at Section 2.5 .1, describe the EIR as providing a "program-level analysis". It further states that subsequent project-level environmental review will be conducted if required by CEQA.

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

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

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

The Specific Plan intends to assure its consistency with the General Plan by the City later adopting amendments to the General Plan to incorporate its new land use COUNTY

Page 6 of 21 ends

8 CONT
9 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025
Page6
designations. While that is not unusual, what is unusual is that the zoning standards applicable to the implementation of the new land use designations are also being deferred until sometime into the future. As a result, the environmental impacts of the new Specific Plan's land use designations cannot be meaningfully evaluated unless and until those zoning standards are available for public review and comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

COUNTY

Page 7 of 21 ends

9 CONT
10 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025
Page?
The RDEIR takes the limited information included in the Specific Plan and makes the conclusion that the Project will be consistent with the General Plan policy that calls for planning and design of roadway systems to meet LOS D on major roadways. The sole assurance of this is the statement that "Roadway improvements to increase capacity and maintain LOS standards would be planned and programmed based on the total overall needs of the roadway system, recognizing the priority of maintenance, rehabilitation, and operation of the existing road system." (RDEIR at p. 3 .17-32). However, the actual impact on existing roadways is nowhere detailed in either the Specific Plan or its RDEIR. This is presumably because, without any understanding of the density of developments in the land use designations, the projected traffic demands on specific roadways cannot be fairly estimated.

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

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

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

Further, at page 3 .17-24 the analysis includes Policy UF-5. 7, which states that for arterials, collectors and local streets (both intersections and segments) at peak traffic hours, LOS E applies, but that LOS F would apply in areas with transit, including in an around mixed use districts. This standard is driven by a stated goal of not having more than four through lanes on the roadway facilities ( other than portions of Jensen and Temperance).

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

COUNTY

Page 8 of 21 ends

10 CONT
11 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COUNTY

Page 9 of 21 ends

12 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORN EYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025
Page9
F. The Specific Plan Abolishes the "Permanent Buffer" Along Its Eastern Border Intended to Separate and Preserve Long-Term Agricultural Uses Outside Its Borders - the Consequences of Which Are Nowhere Disclosed in the RDEIR.

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

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

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

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

The RDEIR asserts that no feasible mitigation measures to address this impact are available. However, the proposed Specific Plan's change in the General Plan's Buffer zone exacerbates the impact. One feasible mitigation measure would therefore be the retention of the General Plan's established Buffer zone. Where, as here, the RDEIR is intending to amend a prior mitigation measure of the existing General Plan, the RDEIR must discuss the reasons that justify any change to the Buffer zone, and the 2 As noted above, the Specific Plan provides that the densities stated in the Plan can be overridden by whatever standards are set forth in the yet to be developed SEDA Development Code.

COUNTY

Page 10 of 21 ends

12 CONT
13 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Page 10 ends

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

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

The RDEIR, at p. 3.2-17, details the intention of the General Plan Policy RC9-b to implement a Farmland Preservation Program. It seeks to assure that such a program, when adopted, will ensure mitigation of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Until the program is adopted, the RDEIR intends to implement, through MM AG-1 .1 and MM AG-2, an ad hoc mitigation program whose standards are not fully defined.

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

Rather than adopting MM AG-1.1 and MM AG-2 as a new mitigation measure, the City must defer finalizing this Specific Plan until after the program intended by General Plan Policy RC-9-b is fully adopted. Only then can both the agricultural community and the development community understand the requirements for development within the Plan where relevant farmland is being impacted. MM AG-1 .1 and AG-2, standing alone, have insufficient performance standards to satisfy appropriate standards for deferred mitigation. It does not address potentially appropriate exemptions and exclusions, or the locations of lands covered by conservation easements or mitigation banks. It thereby leaves too many aspects of the arrangement too ill defined to fully assess its efficacy.

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

COUNTY

Page 11 of 21 ends

14 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Page 11 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COUNTY

Page 12 of 21 ends

15 McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Page 12 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

COUNTY

Page 13 of 21 ends

16 17
McCORMlCK

BARSTOW LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20, 2025

Page 13 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RDEIR includes, as an appendix, a Water Technical Study prepared by Blair, Church, and Flynn Consulting Engineers in 2023 (the "Water Study"). The Water Study identifies surface water supplied from both the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) through existing agreements for groundwater recharge and potable use after treatment. According to the Water Study, the most recent FID agreement signed in 2016 provided for a maximum of 29% ofFID's Kings River water supply to be available to the City. It is unclear per the FID agreement whether the water supply was intended for use within the Specific Plan boundary. The FID agreement, specifically Section 13.(c), states that "City and District mutually agree that the increase in percentages reflected in this Section 13 include allowances for moderate growth in Growth Area 1 of City's Sphere of Influence as shown in Exhibit C (as depicted as Figure IM-2 of the Fresno General Plan)." The RDEIR must be revised to clarify this issue.

COUNTY

Page 14 of 21 ends

18 19
20 McCORMICK

BARSTOW LLP
ATTORNEYS A1" tAW
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
March 20,:2025

Page 14 ends

Mitigation Measure HYD-2b requires that the City must, prior to approving a development for the Plan Area_. detennine whether the proposed development would exceed existing water supply capacity; .and shall if it does; the City shall provide additional capacity through water system improvements in accordance with the City Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan. We rea>mmend that some threshold be adopted to confirm that there is a trigger, prior to the actual point of exceeding existing wa~r supply capacity, when the evaluations will be performed, and when the improvements will·be required.

The RDEIR. at page 3.18-36,. advises that the City is in the process of updating its Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan (the "Metro Plan"). Mitigation Measure HYD-2d provides that new and expanded groundwater r.echarge facilities will be in accorda,nce with that plan, and that those me~ure$ will be completed prior to new applications for future development in the Specific Plan .. However, because the Metro Plan has not yet been updated, it is unclear how HYD-2d can be an effective mitigation measure when the standards that may be included in that Metro Plan update have not yet been determined. It is also unclear whether full construetio.n ofall intended recharge facilities within the Specific Plan, as identified by the Metro Plan, will be completed as part of the requirement that new and expanded recharge facilities will be completed prior to new applications for future developrne1:1t. This element of the Mitigation Measure shcntld be· clarified. These· requirements could also be better assured if the Specific Plan incorporated a phasittg program that focused development of necessary public facilities on the areadntended foJ: priority developmetlt, K. Conclusion.

Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the. City not consider the ProJect RDEIR until after there have been appropriate updates to the Specific Plan and the RDEIR. to address the matters detailed above.

Sincerely,
McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WA'YTE& CARRUTII LLP
(/ffrey
r) ./l
M. Reid
~
cc: 8errtard Jim~:z~ Planning& Resi:>urce ManJtgement Officer Fresno County Department of Public Works and Plannin3
Bnc. LAFCO Resolution USOl-144
COUNTY

Page 15 of 21 ends

21 RESOLUTION NO. USOl-144

FRESNO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

REQUEST FOR REVISION TO THE )

CITY OF FRESNO SPHERE OF )

INFLUENCE )

ADOPTED FINDINGS AND APPROVED

WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, in order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities, this Commission has the authority under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the "Act") to develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the County and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere (California Government Code Section 56425(a); and
WHEREAS, this Commission has the authority to establish spheres of influence, or to revise or amend adopted spheres of influence of local governmental agencies after a noticed public hearing called and held for that purpose (California Government Code Section 56427); and WHEREAS, a proposal for a revision to a local government's adopted sphere of influence may be made by the adoption of a resolution of application by the legislative body of an affected local agency (California Government Code Section 56654(a); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the CiTh' of Fresno, California, adopted a resolution of application (Resolution No. 2005-507) on the 6 day of December 2005, applying to the Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for consideration of an amendment (hereafter referred to as the "Proposal" or "proposed SOI revision") to the City's Sphere of Influence to include the "Southeast Growth Area", consisting of approximately 8,863 acres, as identified in the Fresno 2025 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno filed a certified copy of said resolution of application with the Executive Officer pursuant to California Government Code Section 56756; ,and WHEREAS, the affected territory is generally described as an area bounded on the north by the Gould Canal, to the east by McCall, Highland and Temperance Avenues, on the south by Jensen, and North Avenues, and on the west by the existing Fresno Sphere of Influence boundary along Minnewawa, Temperance, and Locan Avenues, as depicted in "Exhibit A" attached to this resolution and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, said resolution of application (Resolution No. 2005-507) stated that Article VI of the City / County Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding (hereafter referred to as the "MOU" or "tax sharing agreement") requires the City to meet various conditions before proceeding with development within the Southeast Growth Area; and 1 COUNTY

Page 16 of 21 ends

21 CONT
WHEREAS, said resolution of application states that the City has met all the conditions ·• identified in Article VI of the MOU with the exception of the preparation and approval of the Southeast Industrial Growth Area Business Park Specific Plan and attainment of the 60% residential development build-out in selected Community Plan Areas, and that provided the SOI amendment is approved, the City will move forward with the preparation and adoption of various Community and Specific Plans; and
WHEREAS, at its March 16, 2005 hearing the Local Agency Formation Commission requested more detailed environmental analysis, especially with respect to issues related to the preservation of agricultural lands; and
WHEREAS, in response to the request for more detailed environmental information, the City caused to be prepared a more detailed initial study to support a new Environmental Assessment (No. SOl-05-01, Finding of Conformity to the 2025 Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 10130) dated September 29, 2005); and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the more detailed environmental information and found that the information supports and reaffirms the original finding and made a new finding based on the new information that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the "Southeast Growth Area SOI Amendment" may have an adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, as commended by Section 56425 (b) of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, the City of Fresno presented the proposal to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and requested them to support and concur with the City's request; and
WHEREAS, at its January 31, 2006 hearing, by a vote of three to two, the Board of Supervisors approved its support of a resolution of reapplication to LAFCo for an amendment to the City's SOI to include the Southeast Growth Area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 56425 (b ), when there is an agreement between the County and a city seeking an SOI amendment the Commission shall give great weight to the agreement in its final determination of the city's SOI; and WHEREAS, said application for an SOI revision was deemed complete and accepted for filing by the Interim Executive Officer and a Certificate of Filing was issued pursuant to California Government Code Sections 56651 and 56658(9), and accordingly Commission proceedings were deemed initiated; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Officer set this matter for hearing on April, 12, 2006, at the hour of 1 :30 p.m., and caused notice of said hearing to be published in accordance with California Government Code Section 56153 in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated within the territory affected by the sphere of influence proposed to be amended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 56665 the Executive Officer reviewed said application and all supporting materials and prepared a report to this Commission, including a recommendation for approval with specified conditions, said report having been mailed to the Commission, the officers or persons designated in the application, each local agency whose boundaries or sphere of influence would be changed by the Proposal, and each affected local 2 COUNTY

Page 17 of 21 ends

21 CONT
agency that has filed a request for a report with the executive officer, at least five days before said . hearing; and
WHEREAS, this Commission reviewed the Executive Officer's report and recommendation and all supporting materials, including Initial Study No. SOl-05-01, Finding of Conformity to the 2025 Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 10130) dated September 29, 2005, the Master Environmental Impact Report, and all other documents that were incorporated by reference into said report, pursuant to Government Code Section 56665(d), which report was duly considered by this Commission pursuant to State law; and WHEREAS, said Proposal was considered by this Commission at said hearing on the 12th day of April, 2006, at which the Executive Officer presented staffs report and recommended approval of the Proposal with specified conditions, and testimony was presented in favor and against the Proposal; and
WHEREAS, this Commission considered all relevant factors and evidence and heard all affected agencies and interested parties wishing to speak on said application; and WHEREAS, as Responsible Agency, this Commission independently reviewed and considered the information in the Draft and Final MEIR for the Fresno 2025 General Plan and the City's subsequent "Environmental Assessment/ Initial Study" and the City's "Finding of Conformity'' issued pursuant to Section 21157.1 of the California Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA") prior to taking its action, and determined that the City's finding is appropriate, pursuant to State law, ahd that the Proposal is consistent with these documents and that these documents are sufficient on which to make a determination on the proposed sphere of influence revision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission does HEREBY STATE, FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER as follows:

SECTION #1 - This Commission hereby adopts the findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) listed below:

1. Acting as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines, the Final Master Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2025 Fresno General Plan by the Lead Agency, the City of Fresno, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines - California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).

2. This Commission considered the information in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report and the Initial Study upon which the Lead Agency determined said project to be within the scope of the "Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) No. 10130" prepared and certified for the 2025 Fresno General Plan, prior to making a determination about the Proposal, together with any and all comments received during the public review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and finds on the basis of the whole public record before the Commission, including the Final Master Environmental Impact Report and the Initial Study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Lead Agency's determination pursuant to Section 21151.1 of the California Public Resources 3 COUNTY

Page 18 of 21 ends

21 CONT
Code (California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA") reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis pursuant to CEQA Section 1507 4, et seq. (Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087).

3. Acting as Responsible Agency pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Commission hereby finds that the Lead Agency's determination is appropriate, pursuant to Section 21151.1 of the California Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA"), and .finds that that Final Master • Environmental Impact Report and the subsequent Initial Study are sufficient on which to make a determination on the proposed change of organization.

SECTION #2 - This Commission hereby finds that the proposed change of organization is consistent with LAFCo Policies, Standards and Procedures Section 330, "Sphere of Influence Updates and Revisions," and the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.

SECTION #3 - This Commission hereby finds that the April 12, 2006 public hearing and consideration of the proposed SOI revision were legally noticed pursuant to California Government Code sections 56427 and 56153, and that all notices related to this matter were duly given in accordance with State law, including, but not limited to, the Act and CEQA Guidelines and governing laws.

SECTION #4 - This Commission finds that, pursuant to California Government Code section 56426.5(b)(1)(2) the proposed SOI revision will facilitate planned, orderly, and efficient patterns of land use and provision of services. The public interest in the change of organization substantially outweighs the public interest in the continuation of existing Williamson Act Contracts in the affected territory beyond the current expiration date of said Contracts.

Additionally, the change of organization is not likely to adversely affect the continuation of said Contracts beyond their current expiration date. In making this determination, the Commission considered all relevant factors pursuant to California Government Code section 56426.5(b )(2)(A-C).

SECTION #5 - This Commission Determines that the MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SERVICES PLAN dated December 2005 prepared by the City of Fresno conforms to the requirements of Section 56430 of the California Government Code, and hereby adopts the proposed Written Determinations contained therein with the following addition:

Government Structure Options (Page 61) - Add: 4. As the provider of a full range of urban services the City is the logical agency to provide these services in the subject area.

SECTION #6 - This Commission hereby makes the following determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(e):

1. The proposed Sphere of Influence expansion will accommodate anticipated growth needs of the City of Fresno in the affected area, and, with certain recommended conditions for future annexations therein, will provide for all existing and planned uses.

2. The present and probable needs for public facilities and services in the area will be provided for as identified in the MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SERVICES PLAN 4 COUNTY

Page 19 of 21 ends

21 CONT
prepared by the City of Fresno. The need for additional facilities will be identified and addressed during the preparation and adoption of the Community or Specific plan for the Southeast Growth Area as required in conditions 1 and 2 of Section 8, below.

3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the City provides or is authorized to provide have been adequately identified in the MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SERVICES PLAN prepared by the City of Fresno, and additional facilities needs will be identified and addressed during the preparation and adoption of the Community or Specific Plan for the Southeast Growth Area as required in conditions 1 and 2 of Section 8, below.

4. No social or economic communities of interest have been identified in the subject area that are deemed relevant to the Commission.

SECTION #7 - This Commission hereby approves the proposed revision to the City of Fresno Sphere of Influence to include the "Southeast Growth Area" (approximately 8,863 acres) within the City's adopted sphere of influence (LAFCo File No. USOI -144), as depicted in Exhibit "A"~
SECTION #8 - If and when the City submits an application for annexation for any affected parcels within the amended SOI, the City shall complete the following plans and programs prior to the Commission's approval of such an application:

1. Prepare and adopt a Community or Specific Plan for the Southeast Growth Area, including the preparation, public review, and certification of environmental documents and findings pursuant to CEQA. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, policies to address the requirements of Section 56426.5 of the California Government Code for lands subject to Williamson Act contracts.

2. Prepare and adopt a Master Service Delivery Plan for the Southeast Growth Area.

3. Prepare, adopt and begin to implement a program for annexing the designated open space areas in the approach corridor of the Fresno Air Terminal (areas designated with an "R" on the 2025 General Plan map), and for rural residential neighborhoods within-the City's existing Sphere of Influence in the vicinity of the Southeast Growth Area. This program shall provide for logical and reasonable development, discourage urban sprawl, preserve open-space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently provide for government services, and encourage orderly development.

The rural residential neighborhood annexation program should emphasize the retention of characteristics that make the neighborhoods desirable places to live, while making provisions for appropriate improvements needed to incorporate such characteristics into the urban landscape. The program should include an outreach effort demonstrating to residents that annexation into the City would provide for an enhanced living environment preferable to staying in an unincorporated enclave, surrounded or substantially surrounded by the City. This program shall also be applicable within the Southeast Growth Area, and shall be reflected in the Specific Plan prepared by the City as required by condition 1, above.
5 COUNTY

Page 20 of 21 ends

21 CONT
The annexation program for the designated Open Space areas in the Fresno Air Terminal approach corridor should be undertaken as a means to preserving open space lands that would otherwise not be proposed for annexation; thereby providing for the efficient extension of government services to areas beyond the approach corridor, and providing for orderly boundaries that will facilitate annexation of other properties proposed for urban development.

SECTION #9 - The Exee:utive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution as provided in Government Code Section 56882 and to file, as appropriate, in the office of the Fresno County Clerk all environmental documents, if any, pertaining to the approval of this Proposal, as required by state law. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2006, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Commissioners Lopez, Rodriguez, Fortune, Alternate County Commissioner Larson, and Waterston.

NOES: None
ABSENT: Anderson

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF FRESNO )

CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN
I, Bob Waterston, Chairman of the Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission, Fresno County, State of California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Commission at a regular meeting held on the 1ih day of April, 2006. ~ cJ4___
Bob Waterston, Chairman
Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
G:\LAFCO WORKING FILES\APRIL 12, 2006\RESOLUTION - FRESNO SOI.doc 6 COUNTY

Page 21 of 21 ends

21 CONT
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. USOI-144
Alluvial
Slcrro
Ashlan
Oakoh1
LEGEND
D Existing Sphere of Influence
r···---.
: : Revision Area
'------.P
"O
~
'e
E
CJ
!lhlcld,"----~,--i----t--it---j-i-i=
Clinton
McKinJ.gy __
Ollvo --l----t-'--"-----7=-j
t--i--t--i·1 Belmont __ ·-¼-----~---:--t--t::::l:-"T'~t--- 1--l i o Niel&en
I : ,--,-----,--,..co cy-m
--t~.,...~;----;---i-- Coll
-Chu
.L...-------j.J
----------t--~--,.-No h:··-~1-..-~--;---,,--
Mu _,_ 1 ll -,;
t_Lc.1
~ E i i ____ ':L __ .1
t
i5 8
Perrin
C
.
0 0.
]
...
;; CJ Gettysburg
:E
C ,,
•
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
I Clinton
•
11"--;:j=,:-'1 ~.~•••=McKlnley
Ollvc
Belmont.

Tulare
Kings Canyon
a Bullat
• I
I
• ...... ] • n Area ! - I .J I •
C
0 California
Church
Jensen
Annodalc
North ·r1· r·rT=r-~ i=~ j,c,• ~-,-~.c
~ 0---l--&·---!--!-:9---2:---!-I l ;;
\l
:E

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 1-67
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 Local Agencies
County of Fresno Department of Public Works and Planning (COUNTY) Response to COUNTY-1
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. The City is aware of the requirements of LAFCo Resolution No. USOI-144 and is committed to compliance with all requirements and recognizes that, as the agency with jurisdiction over annexations, Fresno LAFCo requires that the conditions of the resolution be met prior to their approval of any annexation into the City. While the City is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and has primary responsibility for implementation and approving the discretionary actions required for such implementation, the Fresno LAFCo has jurisdiction over the annexation process, which is a separate application and approval process from the City’s discretionary actions.

Adoption of the Specific Plan in and of itself does not automatically effectuate annexation of parcels within the plan boundary into the City. Prior to the initiation of annexation proceedings, the City anticipates completing the remaining provisions set forth in Resolution No. USOI-144. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-2
This comment regarding the Specific Plan is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1. As noted aboved, at the time annexation is proposed as part of the Specific Plan, the City is aware of the requirements in the LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, which explicitly sates these requirements are triggered by annexation into the City. Compliance with these requirements is underway and will be completed prior to the City seeking annexation of any parcels into City limits.

Additionally, as discussed in Master Response 4, Future Implications of Annexation, when annexation of specific parcels is proposed and considered for approval as part of future development under the Specific Plan, the Fresno Municipal Code provides for the Annexed Rural Residential Transitional (ANX) Overlay District, which allows rural residential use of properties upon annexation to the City continuing until such a time as the properties are further developed consistent with the Base District. It also discusses the County’s Right-to-Farm ordinance which would apply to existing agricultural uses in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-3
This comment is noted and is part of the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1. The comment does not suggest any relevant mitigation measures related to Williamson Act properties nor does it question the Recirculated Draft PEIR’s conclusion of a potential significant and unvoidable impact. The City will comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 51243.5 and 51246 as applicable to Williamson Act Contracts and will evaluate each contract on an individual basis.

Specific Plan Policy CF-1.4 directly addresses the City’s commitment to parcels with Williamson Act contracts in that it will not facilitate early termination of such contracts. Furthermore, the Specific Plan contains various policies related to agricultural resources, such as Policy UF-1.6, which establishes right-to-farm practices in accordance with the Fresno County Right-to Farm Ordinance, City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-68 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 Policy CF-1.1 through 1.3, which aim to reduce development pressure on farmland outside of the City’s SOI and discourage the conversion of strategic farmland outside of the SOI; and Policy CF-3.2 through CF-3.4, which support small farms and community farming to expand viable farming in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-4
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1. A Public Facilities Financing Options Report will be made available to the public and will be presented to the City Council for review when the City Council considers the Specific Plan.

The City is aware of the requirements in the LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, which explicitly sates these requirements are triggered by annexation into the City. Compliance with these requirements is underway and will be completed prior to the City seeking annexation of any parcels into City limits.

It is well established in CEQA that the scope of an EIR’s analysis of potential future environmental impacts is limited by the extent of detail provided in the project description and is guided by priciples of reasonableness and practicallity. A more general analysis is appropriate when the EIR evauates a general policy or planning proposal. (See State CEQA Guidelines § 15146). Please also 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 COUNTY-5
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1. 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 require 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.

California Government Code Sections related to local planning activities generally do not apply to a charter city unless they are specifically identified as applicable to charter cities or are independently adopted by local ordinance. While certain sections of the Government Code relating to plan consistency are identified as applicable to charter cities, Section 65451, which lists the required contents of a specific plan, is not (California Government Code § 65700). Because the City is a charter city and has not independently adopted an ordinance incorporating the provisions of Section 65451, they do not apply to the City and do not govern the contents of specific plans within the City.

Nevertheless, in addition to setting forth planned land uses, implementing policies, and anticipated revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project also incorporates several technical studies by reference that provide details regarding the provision of infrastructure for the facilities in City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-69
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 Plan Area, including water, wastewater, recycled water, storm drainage, as well as a WSA. In this way, the proposed project provides sufficient detail to inform the public and decision-makers of the potential consequences of the proposed project, thus facilitating informed decision-making.

The Recirculated Draft PEIR evaluates the project-specific transportation impacts of the buildout of the proposed project in Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic, the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR, Transportation and Traffic chapter, and the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the proposed project included in Appendix H of the Recirculated Draft PEIR. It also evaluates project-specific utilities and service system impacts of the buildout of the proposed project in Section 3.18, Utilties and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, as well as the WSA, Water Technical Study, Recycled Water Technical Study, Wastewater Technical Study, and Storm Drain Technical Study prepared for the proposed project included in Appendix I of the Recirculated Draft 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. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-6
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1. 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 require 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.

California Government Code Sections related to local planning activities generally do not apply to a charter city unless they specifically are identified as applicable to charter cities or are independently adopted by local ordinance. While certain sections of the Government Code relating to plan consistency are identified as applicable to charter cities, Section 65451, which lists the required contents of a specific plan, is not (California Government Code § 65700). Because the City is a charter city and has not independently adopted an ordinance incorporating the provisions of Section 65451, they do not apply to the City and do not govern the contents of specific plans within the City.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-70 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 Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR details the land uses and land use patterns intended for the Plan Area. Table 2-1 of the Recirculated Draft PEIR identified proposed acreages of each of the uses proposed under the Specific Plan and describes each of the uses included the allowed uses and the density limits in most cases. Pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code section 15-104, adoption and amendments of plans require corresponding amendments to the Fresno General Plan and any other applicable plans to ensure consistency between all land use plans affecting a parcel, which is in compliance with the California Government Code. Future development under the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the SEDA Development Code prior to approval. Therefore, no specific development under the proposed project would be approved until the SEDA Development Code is adopted by the City. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-7
The comment is noted. The statement on Page 1-1 referenced in the comment has been edited in Section 4, Errata, of this Final PEIR. The PEIR provides a program-level analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project and incorporates project-level mitigation measures for future discretionary projects that would occur under the implementation of the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-8
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-6. The SEDA Development Code would be adopted prior to the approval of future development under the Specific Plan. As previously stated, 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 require 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. Please refer to the Recirculated Draft PEIR technical studies incorporated by reference in the Specific Plan. These studies contain details regarding proposed infrastructure in the Plan Area.

As discussed in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, the General Plan Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research define consistency as follows: “An action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.” Therefore, the standard for analysis used in the Recirculated Draft PEIR is based on general agreement with the policy language and furtherance of the policy intent (as determined by a review of the policy context). The Recirculated Draft PEIR includes a comparison of the proposed Specific Plan’s characteristics with all applicable objectives outlined in the General Plan as they relate to land use. This comparison is presented in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, Table 3.11-1.

Because Section 1.3 of the Fresno General Plan is not a formal policy, it is not included in the comparison table noted above; Instead, the proposed project demonstrates compliance with the narrative included in Section 1.3 of the General Plan through reference of the Technical Studies and through the accompanying Public Facilities Financing Options Report.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-71
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 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 COUNTY-9
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-6 and Response to COUNTY-8. As previously stated, the proposed project is a policy-level document and does not propose any site-specific development at this time. Future development associated with the proposed project would require 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.

As part of the standard development review process, the City will require all future proposed development of parcels to go through a review of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the area surrounding the individual development project to ensure that future developments do not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting those travel modes. All pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities proposed would be designed in accordance with the appropriate design standards.

Additionally, Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR, Transportation and Traffic section, includes several mitigation measures that address the need for expanded transportation facilities.

As discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic, of the Recirculated Draft PEIR and the Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR, Transportation and Traffic section, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing roadways within the project area. Certain roadways within the Plan Area would be upgraded into a network of Complete Streets as defined by the Fresno Complete Streets Policy adopted in 2019. The analysis evaluates the proposed maximum densities for each land use within the Plan Area at buildout and demonstrates that the proposed project would result in Level of Service (LOS) D or better on modeled roadways, which would be consistent with proposed Specific Plan Policy UF-5.7 and General Plan Policies MT-1-k and MT-2-i. Further, buildout of the proposed project is expected to result in a reduction in VMT from 45.72 to 5.07 because the transition from a mostly rural area to a developed, urbanized mixed-use area results in a corresponding reduction in VMT.

Further, a Partial Recirculated Draft PEIR, which was circulated to the public for review and comment between October 3, 2023, and November 17, 2023, included a revised Traffic and Transportation section that included a queueing analysis of the SR-180 intersections and interchanges requested by Caltrans, and the Recirculated Draft PEIR further revised this queuing analysis to address comments requested by Caltrans. Please refer to Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic, of the Recirculated City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-72 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 Draft PEIR for more information related to the potential queueing impacts at the SR-180 intersections and interchanges requested by Caltrans. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-10
The comment is noted. As discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic, the SEDA Specific Plan Policy UF-5.7 identifies the Level of Service (LOS) standards that apply to roadways within the Plan Area to promote Complete Streets and safety. The LOS standards for the Plan Area are as follows:
• LOS E for Arterials, Collectors, and Local (both intersection and segment operations) during peak traffic hours.
• LOS F Exception. LOS F in areas with ample transit, pedestrian, and/or bicycle options, including in and around the Mixed-Use Districts of the SEDA, particularly if achieving a LOS with less delay would violate the four-lane maximum as described above.

Since the proposed project is located in Traffic Impact Zone III (TIZ-III), the General Plan standards require that the project maintain a LOS standard of D or better for all roadway segments according to General Plan Policies MT-1-k and MT-2-I. This standard was discussed in the TIA and Recirculated Draft PEIR as a point of information; however, the SEDA Specific Plan calls for a standard of LOS E or better, which is the standard used in the traffic analysis and the analysis contained within the Recirculated Draft PEIR. As stated in the TIA and Recirculated Draft PEIR, the traffic analysis evaluated the maximum densities allowed for each land use within the Plan Area for the proposed project at buildout and demonstrates that all project study segments in the year 2035 under no project conditions and under project conditions are forecasted to perform at a LOS of D or better.

Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would meet the LOS standards determined by the SEDA Specific Plan Policy UF-5.7. For informational purposes, the Recirculated Draft PEIR also identifies that the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan LOS standards.

Response to COUNTY-11
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for their review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-6. 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 require 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. As previously stated, the proposed project does not approve any specific development at this time. Future development under the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the SEDA Development Code prior to approval. Therefore, no specific development under the proposed project would be approved until the SEDA Development Code is adopted by the City. 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 1-73
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 COUNTY-12
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for review and consideration. 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.

The function of Rural Cluster District is the same as the Buffer land use designation in the General Plan. The Rural Cluster District, located along the eastern edge of the SEDA, concentrates residential lots within a small, clustered area of a larger parcel or grouping of parcels. This clustering of homes serves to preserve the continuity and viability of the surrounding land for agricultural uses and open space conservation. The Rural Cluster District serves as a transitional buffer between more intense urban uses within the Plan Area and the commercial agricultural operations outside the Plan Area.

No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-13
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for review and consideration. The comment recommends that the City defer adopting the Specific Plan until the Farmland Preservation Program, as identified in General Plan Policy RC-9-c is adopted. This comment does not identify an environmental issue. Furthermore, the Recirculated Draft PEIR incorporates MM AG-1, which requires project proponents to compensate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland within the Plan area by preserving and equivalent type and quantity of land at 1 :1 ratio, determined by a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. MM AG-1 further provides that if the City does adopt a Farmland Preservation Program pursuant to Fresno General Plan Policy RC-9-c, project proponents may compensate for the loss of Farmland by complying with the adopted Farmland Preservation Program. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-14
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for review and consideration. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1.

Additionally, please refer to Master Response 4, Implications of Annexation, in Section 2, Master Responses. Master Response 4 discusses which aspects of annexation are discussed and analyzed in the Recirculated Draft PEIR, including any future annexation requirements and the timeline of annexation. It notes that adoption of the Specific Plan itself would not result in the annexation of any lands into the city limits. However, when annexation of specific parcels is proposed and approved as part of future development under the Specific Plan, the Fresno Municipal Code provides for the ANX Overlay District, which allows rural residential use of properties upon annexation to the City continuing until such a time as the properties are further developed consistent with the Base City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-74 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 District. It also discusses the County’s Right-to-Farm ordinance which would apply to existing agricultural uses in the Plan Area. The Specific Plan preserves the existing Rural Residential uses, as it will incorporate the Rural Residential land use designation into the City’s General Plan. Coupled with the ANX Overlay and the Fresno County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, Rural Residential neighborhoods are protected. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-15
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for review and consideration of the proposed project as a whole. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1. The City is aware of the requirements in the LAFCO Resolution USOI-144, which explicitly sates these requirements are triggered by annexation into the City. Compliance with these requirements is underway and will be completed prior to the City seeking annexation of any parcels into City limits.

Please refer to Master Response 4, Implications of Annexation, in Section 2, Master Responses.

Master Response 4 discusses which aspects of annexation are discussed and analyzed in the Recirculated Draft PEIR, including any future annexation requirements and the timeline of annexation. It notes that adoption of the Specific Plan itself would not result in the annexation of any lands into the city limits. However, when annexation of specific parcels is proposed and approved as part of future development under the Specific Plan, the Fresno Municipal Code provides for the ANX Overlay District, which allows rural residential use of properties upon annexation to the City continuing until such a time as the properties are further developed consistent with the Base District. It also discusses the County’s Right-to-Farm ordinance which would apply to existing agricultural uses in the Plan Area. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-16
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for review and consideration. 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.

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 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. 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. New municipal groundwater wells are proposed as master planned improvements that would serve the proposed project; therefore, 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.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Administrative Final Program EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-75
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 COUNTY-17
This comment is noted and is included in the record provided to the Lead Agency for review and consideration. 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 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 found for both the General Plan and the Specific Plan conditions. The total General Plan base water demand was 21,843 AFY, or 19.50 mgd, and the Specific Plan base water demand was found to be 19.83 mgd, resulting in an increase in water demand of approximately 0.33 mgd, or

1.7 percent. Since the estimated increase in water demand for the Specific Plan Area would be 1.7 percent above the General Plan condition, 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.

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 are 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 SGMA. 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 has implemented 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 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. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-18
This comment is noted. As previously stated, the proposed project is a policy-level document and does not propose any site-specific development at this time. Future development associated with the proposed project would require CEQA analysis on a project-by-project basis as necessary. When specific development is proposed, availability of water supply will be evaluated.

City of Fresno—Fresno Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Project Responses to Written Comments Administrative Final Program EIR 1-76 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 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 as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-19
This comment is noted. MM HYD-2d requires that new and expanded groundwater recharge facilities be developed in accordance with the City’s Metro Plan. This mitigation does not refer to the 2014 Meto Plan specifically. It objectively refers to the City’s Metro Plan, meaning the City’s current Metro Plan at the time a specific development application is received. If specific development is proposed before the updated Metro Plan is adopted, it will have to show compliance with the 2014 Metro Plan (i.e., the current Metro Plan). Similarly, specific projects proposed after the updated Metro Plan is adopted would be required to show compliance with that plan. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-20
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response to COUNTY-1 through Response to COUNTY-19. No further response is required.

Response to COUNTY-21
The comment is noted. The comment includes Fresno LAFCo Resolution USOI-144. No environmental issues are raised, and no response is required.

FID

Page 1 of 7 ends

Fresno City CouncilDecember 18, 2025

Fresno City Council
December 18, 2025