Fresno City Council
February 19, 2026

Example of a suburban housing tract Example of a cul-de-sac single-family neighborhood LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-16
Place Type - Suburban Housing Tract
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
Legend
C=I Central Southeast Plan Boundary
• open Space
Suburban Housing Tract
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-17
Suburban Apartment Project Place Type
Land Use and Intensities
These areas are characterized by multi-family apartment buildings, typically organized around internal private open spaces, streets or parking lots, with and without carports. Many of these projects are gated and turn their backs to the main avenues, and in some cases buildings face the main avenues but are cut off from them by security fences and walls. Existing land use designations for these areas include primarily Residential Medium-High Density and Residential High Density.

Block Pattern and Connectivity
Blocks are typically very large in these areas, with circulation provided by private streets and parking lots and private open spaces. Connections to the City street network are limited and sometimes gated, offering limited opportunities for pedestrian or bicycle access to adjoining neighborhoods or community amenities.

Building Form and Character
Apartment buildings range from one to two stories. Some are “house form” with pitched roofs and architecture related to houses, but many are larger boxy buildings with a scale very different from houses. Setbacks and frontage conditions vary, but property line walls and fences of some sort are typical.

Opportunities
Opportunities for improvement in these places probably focus on improved pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjoin single- or multi-family developments and neighborhoods, nearby public parks, schools, shops and other neighborhood amenities.

Example of a gated suburban apartment project along Winery Avenue
Example of multi-family residential
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-18
...... ~=--J
I
I
·------. ------:

I
I
I
I I •
_J ·-. ,., .•
- ~..:.... ... ..:!,.t: ............. . a-.,. . ....., .. ..... .,... .. -.•r ..__.1 .................... ,, ........ ,, gi.~=:=;;.~::~:; <(---r,• _........, f..,.. ............. ,u, GJ-•'-- ~ ....... -......_ ····"' ••• ,
~~::.==: ~=-=- :~~
Place Type - Suburban Apartment Project
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
Legend
C=I Central Southeast Plan Boundary
• open Space
- Suburban Apartment Project
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-19
Existing Non-Residential Uses
The map on the next page displays existing non-residential land uses in the Plan Area. Commercial uses are focused along Ventura/Kings Canyon Rd, Butler, and Orange Avenues. A limited number of industrial parcels are clustered near the southern boundary of the Plan Area between California and Church Avenues. There are a large number of public/institutional facilities and parks/open space scattered throughout central and southern portion of the Plan Area, including the Fairgrounds, Fresno Pacific University, an IRS facility, and several public schools.

LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-20
Be lmont Ave
Tulare St • ~ [J
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L1-■ - •• ---------- ·-----------------· I
' f [J it ■ l e: -
I
I
I
q
I -0
•o I "'I n I I ~
If I _;)
Jensen
Ase
I
I
I "' J ---~r········~ I = I 3 I
I
I
J4fl _J' 1
: I '-=1 : I I I
I
I
I 1"7 -,1 I I ------ -----c..,,,~-----------W_i ____ ;_ ---------~ Existing Land Use - Non Residential Legend
C'~C.,,tral Sovthea11 P1an Boundory - Open Space
- Bv, Rapid Transit - Park
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan - Public Facilities • Residential - High Density
Consolid_E Residential - Low Density
• Commercial - Corrmunity Residential - Medium Density
• Commercial• General • Residential - Medium High Density • Commercial - Neighborhood Residential - Medium Low Density Commercial - Office Residential - Mobfle Home Park
Commercial - Parking Residential - Rural
• Employment - Heavy Industrial Vacant
• Employment - Light Industrial rall
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-21
Highway Commercial Place Type
Land Use and Intensities
This place type is strip-commercial and semi-rural retail primarily along main east-west avenues, with low intensity activity despite the high traffic volume on these main avenues.

Block Pattern and Connectivity
Located on major arterials such as Kings Canyon Rd. and intersecting collectors such as Orange Ave., Highway Commercial typically lines these streets and intersections, and back up to existing neighborhoods and alleys.

Building Form and Character
Buildings are primarily one-story retail buildings with varying setbacks and are generally stripcommercial in character. Some front the street directly with on-street parallel parking in front, others retain the older rural “pull in parking”, from which customers back out directly into the street, and others have front parking lots with internal access drives. Front setbacks vary in depth but for the most part they are filled with pavement and parking.

Opportunities
Key opportunities to improve these commercial corridors include infilling the vacant and abandoned parcels, renovating facades, and focusing infill development around selected intersections in the form of more complete, more walkable neighborhood centers that are better connected to adjoining neighborhoods. Such centers would include an expanded range of commercial and civic amenities, and over time could expand to include mixed-use, multistory buildings and infill multi-family and attached single-family housing. By providing more attractive on-street parking and parking lots beside or behind buildings, these corridors can become more attractive, useful and walkable. Pedestrian-friendly amenities such as complete and shaded sidewalks, better street lighting, planted medians and frequent crosswalks can help revitalize existing centers and provide public transit nodes along the corridors.

Example of a high-volume arterial street with semi-rural and suburban commercial activity
Example of varying and inconsistent setbacks that break up cohesion along the corridor
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-22
Place Type - Highway Commercial
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
Legend
C.J Central Southeast Pion Boundary
- Open Space
- Highway Commercial
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-23
Suburban Commercial Place Type
Land Use and Intensities
These larger suburban commercial centers – most are currently classified as Commercial Community – provide concentrations of larger retail and restaurant organized around large parking lots. Automobile access is prioritized with very limited access on foot or by bicycle, either from the main avenue or from adjoining neighborhoods.

Block Pattern and Connectivity
These centers are typically located in very large- blocks, most of which is devoted to surface parking. Access is typically provided by private Drive Lanes.

Building Form and Character
Buildings in this place type are typically large, one-story boxes with deep setbacks filled with parking lots that separate most of the buildings from the street. Pedestrian circulation is typically limited to walkways along the fronts of the buildings and around parking lot edges.

Opportunities
Many of these commercial destinations reach full use-capacity only a few times per year, meaning their large parking lots are underutilized most of the time. This provides an opportunity for new infill development -including reactivation of streets by adding new street-fronting commercial infill along major streets. In some cases there are opportunities to provide new secondary connections from these centers into adjoining properties or neighborhoods to facilitate multimodal access.

Example of a suburban shopping center drive lane, serving as a limited point of access into and within the center
Example of a typical suburban shopping center parking lot LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-24
Place Type - Suburban Commercial
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0,5 Miles
Legend
C:i Central Southeast Plan Boundary
Open Space
Suburban Commercial
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-25
Workplace Industrial Place Type
Land Use and Intensities
This place type is characterized by one-story, low intensity industrial and office buildings, frequently surrounded by parking lots and ranging in character from suburban to rural. Despite its use and designation for industrial activities, this place type is in many cases immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods or public use facilities, including open spaces and playing fields. Existing land use designations include Employment-Heavy and Employment-Light Industrial, and Public Facilities.

Block Pattern and Connectivity
These parcels are typically situated within large, irregular blocks with limited safe pedestrian connectivity, and in some cases constrained access by all modes. Some parcels in the southwest portion of the Plan Area are still served by heavy rail.

Building Form and Character
Buildings are standalone warehouses and service buildings with large footprints, deep setbacks, and industrial in character and are surrounded by outdoor storage, parking or other uses.

Opportunities
While some of these properties are heavily utilized by thriving businesses, many very low intensity and outdated facilities that might likely be replaced by newer light industrial, R&D and office facilities. As this occurs – and particularly when new uses are less noxious than older, heavier industrial uses – there are opportunities to connect new employment centers to existing and future neighborhoods and centers, to enable better multi-modal access to jobs, and access from the employment centers to shops, restaurants and services.

Example of an industrial area in proximity to a residential neighborhood along California Avenue
Example of a typical industrial area street and railroad LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-26
·•--Jl ..• ,1;.
.... ~ ....... ,,, ........ , ........ . W'UV;\'Y'¥l"
........ ,,.,,,. ~ fJ.~ '. ~=.: I~• •~ Q> r.l
,.,_.,; ~:.~ =.;,:: r?t• .iu~ II~
-W""'" '"'-"11\-.Y,' ,.... ... '"1"'11 • r:· ,,,.r,,., •-.11,.,.,., \I.A.llffrol _,... • ~ ~:;:::: =:::::: :::: 1.ff\i'!:;;;, 1.....;::.. .... i...- ""1··•• ,-.-~ .~;&VI IN -­ ........ .,.. .. ,_ ~••Ii _h,_I
·-•-.!-9-
Place Type - Workplace Industrial
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0,5 Miles
Legend
C:i Central Southeast Plan Boundary
Open Space
- Workplace Industrial
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-27
Public Facilities
The map on the next page focuses specifically on public facilities in the Plan Area. Approximately one quarter of the Plan Area consists of public facilities and parks/open space, as described below:
 Notable community facilities and services in the Plan Area include the Fairgrounds, the Mosqueda and Calwa Community Centers, Fresno Pacific University, and several public elementary, middle, and high schools. Additional public and institutional facilities in the area include an IRS facility, one fire station, and three churches.  Parks are distributed throughout the Plan Area in the form of several community center parks (CALWA and Mosqueda), and smaller pocket parks nestled amongst low-density residential areas.
 Open spaces in Plan Area are limited to several ponding basins and the Fairgrounds (see Existing Open Spaces map), which is predominately hardscaped and inaccessible to the public for most of the year
 Additional recreational facilities can be found at many of the twelve schools located within the Plan Area (see Table 3). Currently two schools, Elizabeth Terronez Middle School and Vang Pao Elementary, have joint use agreements with the City to enable public use of their facilities.

Table 3: Schools in the Plan Area
Ezekiel Balderas Elementary Public school Elementary
Mario G. Olmos Elementary Public school Elementary
Cambridge Continuation High Public school High
Elizabeth Terronez Middle Public school Middle
David L. Greenberg Elementary Public school Elementary
Fresno Pacific University Private university University Lane Elementary Public school Elementary
El Encino Baptist Church (EOC) Head start Head start
Mosqueda (EOC) Head start Head start
Vang Pao Elementary Public school Elementary
Saint Helen's Catholic Private school Elementary
Sequoia Middle Public school Middle
Kings Canyon (EOC) Head start Head start
School Type Level
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-28
.J::
lj
&
r--1-;"-----------------+----.:...--s,-elmo- t'Ave,------- •••••s:,;;,; '!'-----+----------4--1 I
He/en'.s l
Catholict
I
I
!.-..r:. •
.... ,..,_ I
I
V)
r ~E,---------------.:...~1---------fulorj,,-:,1---...------= !_,,__~ 3 I o I ::; I ii:

I
I
I
I
I
I
I ______ !
r--,-_ ___.__--'" _________________ ~
~ --·-••••-•--C-,,tlf<l'rnio Ave
e Vang
Pao
Elementary
Sequoia
Middle
I
Et Encino
Baptist
.----------, ~---J
Churc.!).Sf.OC/
I
I
I
I I I I I ·-----"' -------- ;
I
I
I
.i ===----
1-"------:-+-------i-----
Existing Public Facilities
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan

0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
Butler Ave
Mosqueda
(fOC)
lane
Elementary
I
I
~ orioG.

I Q/mos
4 ementary
I
Cambridge
Continuation
High
5 ~
..1!
u
Fresno Pacific
3 I
I
I
I Kings
Canyon
(fOC)
,__ -----.......
tane Ave
DovidL.

Greenberr;,
Elementary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
·-----------------· I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fre,no l'<Jcific t Universily
~
r··--····\ : := I
I
I
I
,_ I ______ _
ffizobeth
Terronez
Middle i fflff"Offllr<.,,.•------------ ____________ 4-__.:.-----M ~ legend
C.liCentral Southeast Plan Boundary
- Bus Rapid Transit
• Parks
Fairgrounds
Schools
Churches
- Fire Station
IRS
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-29
.r;
V 1J &~
r--t--:-----------~------+--------il·efm·,10 Av- -------•--------'!",-----+---------+--1 1--1"' _!!,-------------------+---------'1',ufo
~
<
" O>
C
0 0
~ ------------C""1tf<1rnia Ave I
,----------. J---J I I I I
·-----"'\ --------: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ______ J
1-.... ~---------if----------i·----------c+m
Existing Open Spaces
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan

0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
I
I
I
'~ =-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!..r. ..
.... '"\. I
I
t ~--+--1 ~ I 0 I := I
3 :

I
I
I
, __ - Willa,,,(Balch
i
I
I
I
I
I
l ------t
~
-----
i
0 "
l egend
C',lc..,tral Southeast Pion Boundoty
- Bu, Rapid Transit
- Porh
Ponding Benin
Fairgrounds
Open Space
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-30
Park Facilities
There are 50.79 acres of park land within the CSESP project area, with a ratio of 1.68 acres of park per 1,000 residents, above the current City average of 1.06 (pocket, neighborhood and community parks) but below the General Plan goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Table 4 lists all of the parks within the Plan Area. Most of the parks in the Plan Area are in “fair condition,” indicating some mechanical/equipment defects that require major repair and/or replacement.

Additional park issues include crime/safety, accessibility problems, and lack of shade structures and adult programming. Mosqueda Park has been identified as a priority park for improvement (Fresno Parks Master Plan, 2017)
A majority of the Plan Area is within a half-mile of a park or open space (see Park Facilities – Half Mile Radius map), with the exception of the neighborhoods around the southeastern boundary of the plan. Vacant parcels present opportunities to add new park space and the City could target vacant parcels outside of the quarter mile buffer. As seen in the Park Facilities & Vacant Parcels – Quarter Mile Radius map, there a fair number of vacant parcels located outside of the quarter mile buffer of an existing park, indicating the potential to add new parks so that a greater number of residents are within a quarter mile of a park.

Table 4: Parks in the Plan Area
Park
Name Acreage Park
Classification Agency Condition Amenities
Mosqueda 10.02 Community City of
Fresno
PARCS
Department
Fair 1-Parking lot, 1-
Baseball/softball field
(lighted), 2-Basketball
courts (lighted), 1-BBQ, 5-
Bench, 5-Bike rack, 4-
Bleachers, 1-Drinking
fountains, 6-Picnic tables,
1-playground (nonshaded), 5-Restroom
(mens/womens), 1-BMX
park (above-ground), 1-
Swimming pool, 2-tennis
courts (lighted), 1-
playground (non-shaded),
1-signage (rules & regs), 1-
Monument sign, 5-Trash
receptacles, and 1-
Recreation center
Pilibos 13.22 Community City of
Fresno
PARCS
Department
Fair 1-Parking lot, 8-BBQ, 1-
Bench, 1-Bike rack, 4-
Bleachers, 1-Drinking
fountains, 17-Picnic tables,
2-playground (non-
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-31
Park
Name Acreage Park
Classification Agency Condition Amenities
shaded), 2-Ramadas, 1-
Restroom (mens/womens),
4-Soccer fields (lighted), 1-
signage (rules & regs), 1-
Monument sign, 3-Trash
receptacles
Trolley Creek 3.07 Neighborhood City of
Fresno
PARCS
Department
Good 4-BBQ, 2-Ramadas, 6-
Bench, 1-Bike rack, 4-
Bleachers, 2-Drinking
fountains, 3-playground
(non-shaded), 1-Restroom
(mens/womens), 1-signage
(rules & regs), 1-
Monument sign, 5-Trash
receptacles, 1-Shade
structure, and 1-
Amphitheater/stage.

Willow/Balch 1.14 Pocket City of
Fresno
PARCS
Department
Fair 3-BBQ, 1-Bench, 1-Drinking
fountain, 2-Playground
(non-shaded), 1-Signage
(rules & regs), 1-
Monument sign, 1-Trash
receptacle
Ponding
Basin Park Y

4.98 Neighborhood FMFCD
Ponding
Basin Parks
Fair Accessible path
Calwa Park 18.35 Community Calwa
Recreation
Park District
Unknown 3-Soccer/baseball, 1-
Soccer, 2.5-Basketball, 1-
Community Center, 1-Pool,
3-Play structure, 5-picnic
shelters, 2-Restroom
(mens/womens)
Total: 50.79
Note: Sunnyside Park, a 4.27-acre neighborhood park is located just outside the CSESP area at Butler and Peach Ave.

LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-32
t----i--------------------1--------tlelmo tcAve,-----.,..---t t---'t"'- -----------------t--------f-vlori S,1----,---.,..-~ I'.' i[
>
I
" Cl
C
a
()
.,
u
< ••-•••-•---C-mff(1rnia Ave .--.----,
I I
L._J I ...-•••••••••· I I
I I I I I I ••••••"\ ________ J I I .i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
> <
.,
a.
0 ~
Butler Ave
Mos queda
Ca/1,a
Park
~------------c~-------------
Park Facilities- Half Mile Radius
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
f
<
5 E
i
u
J-i
O I = I
~ I
I
I
L ••• .,,,,,,.,,.-el Willow/ Balch Existing
Basin Y
Pilibos
Lone Ave
·----------------- I •
I
I
I
I
I
ii':
r--------t I ::;
I 3 I
I
I
._ I ______ _
l egend
> 1
C':'ICentral Southeast Plan Boundary
- Bus Rapid Transit
• Parks
Half Mile Radius
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-33
r--t--------------,-----1-------B·,etmo ·v·..-------_.., I
I
I
1-1£=,----------+----'f,.,. ~
I
I
I Q>
I
I
I Q>
I a,
; E
I o
■ I :'!" I •
------------C-i,ttfJ n~a Ave
,----------. 1 ---I I I
·------. --------; I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------~
I Calwa
I Park I
I
Butler Ave
Mosqueda
i----------+-------- -------------- ,c-tn,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
£
al ..c
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
!.---~-
'-•
'"\. I
I
t
~ ~-~ I O I =:: I
3 :

I
I
I
,__ - ,f,..jl,,y-C-n,ei,,,
Willa.,/..Balch Existing
Basin Y
·----------------- • I
I
~===-= :
l _____ f
..Q
~
0 "
Park Facilities & Vacant Parcels- Quarter Mile Radius Legend Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
C.:.central Southeast Plan Boundary
- Bus Rapid Transit
• Parks
Quar cer Mile Radius
• vac.a.nt Parcels
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-34
Public Amenity Place Type
Land Use and Intensities
This place type includes schools and universities, churches, community centers and other amenities found within the CSESP area. They are generally of low intensity and in most cases, are adjacent to open spaces and parks. Most are currently designated as Public Facilities.

Block Pattern and Connectivity
Public Amenities tend to be situated along collector streets, but can also be found integrated into existing neighborhood blocks. Some of these facilities occupy one or more large blocks in campus form– for example Fresno Pacific University and other schools – with connectivity provided mainly by an internal network of private streets and other open spaces. Other parks and community facilities fit within the block pattern of the neighborhood they serve, with access provided by the neighborhood street network. Despite their zoning and place type designation, some of these facilities have limited public access open due to safety concerns or intermittent use patterns.

Building Form and Character
Buildings vary in character and size depending on their use and location. Most are of moderate to large size with fairly deep setbacks and are occasionally surrounded by surface parking.

Buildings that are integrated into existing neighborhoods tend to be more reflective in size and character of their immediate context.

Opportunities
Key opportunities for enhancing Public Amenities include a focus on circulation and connectivity, frontage enhancements and stronger public realm integration. A number of schools have incomplete pedestrian and bike route connections within adjacent neighborhoods that would be better served with streetscape improvements including shaded sidewalks, lighting, landscaped medians and more frequent crosswalks.

Sequoia Middle School is one of seven public schools in the CSESP area
Maintained open spaces are a much-needed community
resource
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-35
Place Type - Public Amenities
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
Legend
C=I Central Southeast Plan Boundary
• open Space
- Public Amenities
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-36
Large Vacant Parcels for Infill Development
Vacant parcels are shown on the following page. Overall there are over 150 acres, or almost 10% of the total Plan Area, that are substantially vacant land. The large number of vacant sites in the study area provide opportunities for new residential and commercial development, which is anticipated to catalyze improvements to the Plan Area. Vacant sites could also be purchased for additional public facilities, including parks and open spaces.  Most of the larger vacant parcels (over 1-2 acres in size) are located in the southern, industrial portion of the Plan Area between California and Church Avenues.  In addition, land uses like the fairgrounds (approximately 70 acres) are used only for a short duration during the year, and are otherwise vacant or underutilized. This presents an opportunity to consider joint use of the Fairgrounds facility for temporary uses and/or recreational activities.

While not displayed on the map, there is an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) facility at the corner of Butler and Willow Avenue in the process of moving out. This 48-acre parcel is well-suited for redevelopment given its size and proximity to several parks and schools, as well as BRT and retail amenities along Ventura/Kings Canyon Rd.

Vacant parcels within the Plan Area will be developed over time and it is vital to set a strategic plan for their future potential. Appropriate future infill development can better connect existing neighborhoods, commercial centers, open spaces, schools and other public facilities. It can allow for a mix of housing types and enable strategically-located centers that offer amenities at walkable and bikeable distances within existing neighborhoods.

In addition to large infill sites, there are a number of smaller-scale opportunities for improving existing urban form and character. The northeast and northwest corners of the fairgrounds along Kings Canyon Rd. have the potential to transform this commercial corridor, reactivate the intersections and serve as anchor points for commercial and social activity.

Example of a large vacant parcel along Sierra Vista Ave. Vacant parcel along Kings Canyon Rd.

LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-37
-r:-71 1 _._ ____ ~
I - • ·------. I
I
I
- -----:

Infill Opportunity Sites
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
-5
0 &
Legend
C=I Central Southeast Plan Boundary
Open Space
- Infill Opportunity Sites
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-38
General Plan Land Use
The City updated their General Plan in December of 2014, including revisions to their land use designations and density/intensity regulations for each. The updated General Plan focuses on infill and reinvestment in existing neighborhoods and growth along key corridors such as Ventura/Kings Canyon Rd. The General Plan Land Use Designations map shows the General Plan land uses in the project area. A table of the acreages, percentages, and density/intensity ranges for each General Plan land use designation in the Plan Area can be found in Table 5 below.

Predominate General Plan land uses in the Plan Area are medium-density residential (26.4%), public facilities (22.7%), medium-high density residential (16.3%), and corridor/center mixed use (9.9%). Public facilities and parks/open spaces are generally consistent with what is currently on the ground today. For residential, office, industrial, and commercial uses, the General Plan envisions the following for the Plan Area:
 Horizontal and vertical mixed-use development with retail along the ground floor and residential or office uses above along Ventura/Kings Canyon  A limited amount of community commercial and office uses along Butler and Orange Avenues
 Re-designation of some of the existing multi-family housing around Butler and Chestnut Avenues from high density to medium-high density residential to match what is currently on the ground
 Medium-high density residential infill, generally along Cedar, Butler, and Chestnut Avenues
 Light and heavy industrial uses concentrated in the southern portion of the Plan Area, south of Church Avenue, filling in existing vacant parcels Table 5: General Plan Land Uses in the Plan Area
General Plan
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
Residential - Low
Density

1.8 0.1% 1 - 3.5
du/acre
Large lot residential development
Residential -
Medium Low
Density
145.7 8.1% 3.5 - 6
du/acre
Single-family detached housing
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-39
General Plan
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
Residential -
Medium Density
474.0 26.4% 5 - 12
du/acre
Intended for areas with predominantly singlefamily residential development, but permitted uses also accommodate a mix of
housing types, including small-lot starter
homes, zero-lotline developments, duplexes,
and townhouses.

Residential -
Medium High
Density
293.2 16.3% 12 - 16
du/acre
Mix of single-family residences and
townhomes, garden apartments, and multifamily units intended to support a fine-grain, pedestrian scale.

Commercial -
Community

38.9 2.2% FAR 1.0 Commercial development that primarily serves local needs such as convenience
shopping and small offices. Allowed uses
include medium-scale retail, office, civic and
entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug
stores and supporting uses.

Commercial -
General

4.3 0.2% FAR 2.0 Range of retail and service uses that are not appropriate in other areas because of higher
volumes of vehicle traffic and potential
adverse impacts on other uses. Strip malls fall
into this designation. Allowed uses include:
building materials, storage facilities with
active storefronts, equipment rental,
wholesale businesses, and specialized retail
not normally found in shopping centers.

Commercial -
Office

18.1 1.0% FAR 2.0 Administrative, financial, business,
professional, medical, and public offices.

Mainly intended to apply to existing office
uses on smaller lots, generally located on
arterial roadways. Retail uses limited to
business services, food services, and
convenience goods for those who work in the
area.

LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-40
General Plan
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
Corridor - Center
Mixed Use
177.4 9.9% 16 - 30
du/acre
FAR 1.5
Horizontal and vertical mixed-use
development in multiple story buildings along
key circulation corridors where height and
density can be easily accommodated. Primary
uses are ground-floor retail and upper-floor
residential or offices, with personal and
business services and public and institutional
space as supportive uses.

Neighborhood
Mixed-Use

2.6 0.1% 12 - 16
du/acre
FAR 1.5
Requires a minimum of 50 percent residential
uses and provides for mixed-use districts of
local-serving, pedestrian-oriented
commercial development, such as
convenience shopping and professional
offices in two- to three-story buildings.

Development is expected to include groundfloor neighborhood retails uses and upperlevel housing or offices, with a mix of
small lot single family houses, townhomes,
and multi-family dwelling units on side
streets, in a horizontal or vertical mixed-use
orientation. Built form is expected to be
small-scale, pedestrian-oriented and
walkable. Automobile-oriented uses are not
permitted.

Employment -
Heavy Industrial

16.5 0.9% FAR 1.5 Broad range of industrial uses including manufacturing, assembly, wholesaling,
distribution, and storage activities. Smallscale commercial services and ancillary office uses are also permitted.

Employment - Light
Industrial

98.4 5.5% FAR 1.5 Diverse range of light industrial uses, including limited manufacturing and
processing, research and development,
fabrication, utility equipment and service
yards, wholesaling, warehousing, and
distribution activities. Small-scale retail and
ancillary office uses are also permitted.

Open Space 53.3 3.0% NA Intended for undeveloped park lands and permanent open spaces in the community,
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-41
General Plan
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
including environmentally-sensitive lands,
waterways, and wetlands. may include trails
and other low-impact public recreational
uses, ponding basins, riverbottoms/riverbeds,
and airport approach/clear zones.

Park 50.7 2.8% NA Intended to maintain areas for active and passive public parks and multi-purpose trails,
including outdoor and indoor recreation such
as playing fields, trails, playgrounds,
community centers, and other appropriate
recreational uses. The PR district may include
ponding basins or airport approach/clear
zones if developed for, programmed, and
actively used as recreation fields.

Public Facility 406.8 22.7% NA Public or quasi-public facilities, including City facilities, utilities, schools, health services,
corporation yards, utility stations, and similar
uses. Accessory retail uses and services,
including food facilities and childcare, are
permitted.

Railroad 11.6 0.6% NA Railroad parcels
Total 1793.4 100%
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-42
Belmont Ave
Tu lare St
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ..:
-"
---~-------------------------------~
i'l
&
1ensen
Ase
General Plan Land Use Designations
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
A 0 125 0.25 0.5 Miles
l egend
C.JCentrol South.ott Pion Boundory
- aw Rapid Trana.I
Consolidat
• Commercial. Co1TWT1Jnity
• Commercial - General
Commercial• Office
• Comdor • Center Mtxed Use
• Empkiyment - Heavy lndustnal
- Empklyment • Light Industrial
- Neighborhood Mixed-Use
• Open Space
- Park
• Pubic Facility
• Radroad
Residential - Low Density
Residential • Medium Density
• Residential • Medium High DenSfty
Residential - Medium Low Density
Porln
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-43
Housing Element
The Fresno General Plan 2013-2023 Housing Element identifies vacant parcels and other opportunity sites for infill housing development. The map on the proceeding page highlights sites put forward in the Housing Element, both within and outside of the project area.

LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-44
ve•-...;;: _____ -1, ________ ,~,-----+--------...JI-I
V) 1--'.iE'"'""-----=-------------'-------- ulor. s;- -----------!' it
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I <:>...,
'-'~
000!'
------!
L
~ i t-"T" ___ °'_...,_r ____ _.. ______ T ---------!
>
I
" C>
C
0 0
<------------C"ttltfarnio Ave I
---------. ~---J I I I I
r QI
V
I
~ -· I
I
I
I
I
I
••••••~ I I
•••••••• I _J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Butler Ave
~ I
I
■
-
I
... t--.._-------+--------1----------€;+,,,,,~ ........ ------------- I'
- .,_ ___ ...., ,;;-----,~ tllsen
Ave """"11------,-,-f----
Housing Element Sites 2013-2023
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
A 0 125 0.25 0.5 Miles
I
I
I
I
I
!.--'•· ....
'"\.
.: I
-
I Lane Ave
.-
■
11111
·----------------- I •
I
I
•• I
l
~
r--------1
I ;;;
I
I
I
I
I
Legend
• Housing Element Sites in CSE Fresno
Housing Element Sites
C.lCentnl Southeast Plan Boundary
- BusR.apitTransit
Parks
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-45
Zoning
The City of Fresno adopted a new Development Code in December 2015, establishing new zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures to align with the updated General Plan. The zoning designations and map is consistent with the General Plan land use designations and map (see Zoning map). A table of the acreages, percentages, and density/ intensity ranges for each zoning district can be found in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Zoning Designations in the Plan Area
Zoning
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
Residential SingleFamily, Low Density1.8 0.1% 1 - 3.5
du/acre
Large lot residential development
Residential SingleFamily, Medium Low
Density
145.7 8.1% 3.5 - 6
du/acre
Single-family detached housing
Residential SingleFamily, Medium
Density
473.7 26.4% 5 - 12
du/acre
Intended for areas with predominantly
single-family residential development,
but permitted uses also accommodate a
mix of housing types, including small-lot
starter homes, zero-lotline developments,
duplexes, and townhouses.

Residential MultiFamily, Medium High
Density
265.8 14.8% 12 - 16
du/acre
Mix of single-family residences and
townhomes, garden apartments, and
multi-family units intended to support a
fine-grain, pedestrian scale.

Mobile Home Park 27.6 1.5% NA Manufactured homes within a mobile home park
Commercial
Community

38.9 2.2% FAR 1.0 Commercial development that primarily serves local needs such as convenience
shopping and small offices. Allowed uses
include medium-scale retail, office, civic
and entertainment uses, supermarkets,
drug stores and supporting uses.

LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-46
Zoning
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
Commercial General 4.3 0.2% FAR 2.0 Range of retail and service uses that are not appropriate in other areas because of
higher volumes of vehicle traffic and
potential adverse impacts on other uses.

Strip malls fall into this designation.

Allowed uses include: building materials,
storage facilities with active storefronts,
equipment rental, wholesale businesses,
and specialized retail not normally found
in shopping centers.

Corridor/Center
Mixed Use
177.4 9.9% 16 - 30
du/acre
FAR 1.5
Horizontal and vertical mixed-use
development in multiple story buildings
along key circulation corridors where
height and density can be easily
accommodated. Primary uses are groundfloor retail and upper-floor residential or offices, with personal and business
services and public and institutional space
as supportive uses.

Neighborhood Mixed
Use

2.6 0.1% 12 - 16
du/acre
FAR 1.5
Requires a minimum of 50 percent
residential uses and provides for mixeduse districts of local-serving, pedestrianoriented commercial development, such as convenience shopping and professional
offices in two- to three-story buildings.

Development is expected to include
ground-floor neighborhood retails uses
and upper level housing or offices, with a
mix of small lot single family houses,
townhomes, and multi-family dwelling
units on side streets, in a horizontal or
vertical mixed-use orientation. Built form
is expected to be small-scale, pedestrianoriented and walkable. Automobileoriented uses are not permitted.

Office 18.1 1.0% NA Administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices.

Mainly intended to apply to existing office
uses on smaller lots, generally located on
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-47
Zoning
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
arterial roadways. Retail uses limited to
business services, food services, and
convenience goods for those who work in
the area.

Heavy Industrial 18.4 1.0% FAR 1.5 Broad range of industrial uses including manufacturing, assembly, wholesaling,
distribution, and storage activities. Smallscale commercial services and ancillary office uses are also permitted.

Light Industrial 98.7 5.5% FAR 1.5 Diverse range of light industrial uses, including limited manufacturing and
processing, research and development,
fabrication, utility equipment and service
yards, wholesaling, warehousing, and
distribution activities. Small-scale retail
and ancillary office uses are also
permitted.

Open Space 53.3 3.0% NA Intended for undeveloped park lands and permanent open spaces in the
community, including environmentallysensitive lands, waterways, and wetlands.

May include trails and other low-impact
public recreational uses, ponding basins,
riverbottoms/riverbeds, and airport
approach/clear zones.

Park and Recreation 50.7 2.8% NA Intended to maintain areas for active and passive public parks and multi-purpose
trails, including outdoor and indoor
recreation such as playing fields, trails,
playgrounds, community centers, and
other appropriate recreational uses. The
PR district may include ponding basins or
airport approach/clear zones if developed
for, programmed, and actively used as
recreation fields.

LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-48
Zoning
Designation
Area
in
Acres
% of
Total
Density/
Intensity Description
Public and
Institutional
406.8 22.7% NA Public or quasi-public facilities, including City facilities, utilities, schools, health
services, corporation yards, utility
stations, and similar uses. Accessory retail
uses and services, including food facilities
and childcare, are permitted.

Railroad 10.9 0.6% NA
Railroad parcels
Total 1794.7 100%
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 2-49
.;;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·------·
r.i•-----------------
:,~ ~II ■ ■
I ;..: •
;g
:n
I
I ~ i i5 .. t ! !! ~ ' : ~
I
I
I
!
, •••••••••••~ nicAve
Lr··••·•··•• •••" I
L..... ! i 11.: ........ ,
I
I
I
r
I
Belrnoq Ave ----------. ■■•au I u I
Tulare St
i
I
I
I
.. J
j2
i
----·--• I
I
,.

I
I
I
I
I
------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
•••• I
I <II
I <
l .............. o
: ~
M • ••-••-••• ~
Zoning
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
A 0. 125 Q.25 0 5 Yi~
~ g ,r nd
~~~~.,_• h, ... ~_,, - ~atood M~d U!.e
CpeinSp,3oc
Zonl119 Pri ,md Ra:::m.-tioi
~ aJd bs'h.lli:Jrml
- &t:.irles:.P.Tk Regoo ixo-JU2
• Qmrne'ltia Connv..r1d)' fe:-idmf-J:': £$b!.c
- Conn1<1,wl Gmcrd - Re,idoo Mui'F~. t lig, °""1iy
c..
- Comne,wl ,.."}'•ndAu1o • Re-,WM F~.~lo:!ivn~h ,.,,;,y • Comnc~ l4ai'1 Sime'! ~si.dtltl M ram.-;,. Utb:m eiJtbah:>od - Comne • Reta! .on Re~<b1f.:i Sl'ldc..o-,f':mily, Ul'Ultdy lCM' Ocmi1)' • Canrnc~ Rcgcri RE!~ Si1g':e--l"..tm1y, Law Dt:!mi,y
0:11:ricbifCcnhr l4ixed U$e Re~ml Siig'e--f"anily. it!cf....-n Oermty lit!;:rvy (rd Re~i~ Si'lg'ttam , .Ued>..mlCNrOm~
U,;t,1kic!Jsrill Re,i<iooi Si'1!f<Hamly; V<syt.a.., o..,,;,y Motilctton-e P..t • ~-b

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 1
Economic and Market Indicators
Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Introduction
This chapter provides a broad overview of key socioeconomic and real estate market trends relevant to the Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan (CSESP or Plan Area). It is designed to serve as background information and to support a discussion of critical long-term planning and policy issues that will be investigated in more depth in subsequent phases of the study process.

The information is presented in a series of tables and figures supported with a brief description of key issues and implications. Initial findings regarding economic development and revitalization potential for the CSESP are presented in the next section, and more detailed analysis on targeted CSESP areas and conclusions will be developed as the Specific Plan process proceeds.

The primary purpose of the economic analysis in the context of the Specific Plan is to ensure that the goals, policies, and land use alternatives of the document are realistic and achievable over the long term. Specifically, the economic analysis will inform the following interrelated Specific Plan issues:
 Economic Development: What economic sectors should the City seek to target and how can those sectors improve economic outcomes in the CSESP area?  Land Use Development Feasibility: What are the economic or financial impediments affecting real estate investment in the CSESP? Are there key opportunity sites or neighborhoods well positioned to accommodate economic development objectives?  Implementation Considerations: What policy interventions and incentives will facilitate growth in targeted economic sectors? What policies or actions might the City take to facilitate development or redevelopment of key opportunity sites? Preliminary findings are offered below, with supporting technical analysis and data provided in the subsequent sections.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 2
Summary of Findings
Presented in detail in the sections to follow, the Project Team’s review of the CSESP area demographics, housing and employment trends, and commercial real estate indicators generate the following initial findings with implications for future study and planning efforts.

1. The CSESP struggles economically and is characterized by high rates of poverty and unemployment. The CSESP boundary was established specifically to capture this concentration of economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, and several higher performing neighborhoods abut the Plan Area. Within the Plan Area, median household incomes are well below City averages, as are educational attainment levels. The CSESP area populace is notably younger than the remainder of the City but is more likely to report health concerns and limited access to healthcare. Overall, economic opportunities and achievements in the Plan Area appear more limited than in the City as a whole, but the Plan Area may benefit from and leverage economic opportunities presented by proximate, higher performing neighborhoods.

2. Socioeconomic dynamics in the CSESP are mirrored in the Plan Area’s sluggish real estate market. Home and rental values in the CSESP are well below City averages, home ownership rates are low, and housing cost burdens are significant. Residential real estate transaction activity is light, affected by low population and household growth, particularly relative to rates observed on a citywide basis. Commercial real estate markets demonstrate low vacancies, but the absence of new deliveries and limited upward pressures on lease rates suggest that demand for new space is low to nonexistent. Overall, economic activity and growth in the CSESP area appears to be quite constrained – focused primarily around a few major retail nodes along the Kings Canyon Corridor. Moreover, the expected departure of the Plan Area’s single largest employer, the Internal Revenue Service tax processing center, will result in the loss of around 3,000 workers, roughly one-third of CSESP area jobs.

3. While employment opportunities in the CSESP do not appear to align with the labor force characteristics of a substantial proportion of Plan Area’s employed residents, industrial nodes in nearby neighborhoods bolster job opportunities for Plan Area’s residents.

Employment activity in the CSESP is focused primarily on the retail, health care and social assistance, retail trade, and accommodation and food services sector, and many of these jobs are held by non-CSESP area residents. Employed residents of the Plan Area show greater concentrations of employment in the manufacturing sector and many work in areas proximate to the CSESP area or elsewhere in the City. However, overall labor force participation rates are somewhat lower than the City as a whole, further contributing to lower household income levels for the Plan Area.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 3

4. Despite heavy concentrations of retail activity in the CSESP and expected continued strength in specialized retail markets, future revitalization efforts should target diversification of economic activity and employment opportunities. Kings Canyon Road is a major retail corridor and the locus of much of the newer construction and economic activity in the CSESP area. This area will likely continue to offer a strong retail presence, particularly for retail opportunities that provide specialized ethnic offerings not available in other areas of the City. However, nationwide trends relative to the decline of bricks and mortar retail coupled with indications that the CSESP real estate sector is weakening, highlight the need to diversify commercial offerings and economic opportunities in the Plan Area. Expanding job opportunities in the CSESP area could have carryover effects for the residential real estate market, offering the potential to bolster the housing market and potentially creating demand for new housing products.

5. Economic development and business attraction efforts should be focused on those uses and industry sectors gaining traction in the CSESP (and elsewhere) and that will contribute to labor force development. Industry employment data as well as local and national trends offer insight regarding potential industry sectors that may be well positioned to locate in the CSESP area and contribute to revitalization and economic diversification efforts. CSESP revitalization efforts should focus on bolstering and creating opportunities in health care and personal services; educational services; data processing and call centers; and manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses.
a. Health care and personal services are in significant demand throughout the nation as the Baby Boomer generation ages. While the future of the Affordable Care Act is uncertain, it and the associated Medicaid expansion have had the effect of further increasing demand for health services. Health care and personal services employment has demonstrated growth in the CSESP and these growth patterns are expected to continue. Location of medical clinics, skilled nursing facilities, adult daycare, and other healthcare and personal services proximate to aging and otherwise medically needy populations should be a focus of CSESP planning efforts. b. Educational services provide important institutional uses that can contribute to improvements in the built environment and offer critical opportunities for workforce development. While a site outside of the CSESP area has been identified for a future community college campus, attraction of other educational service providers to the Plan Area should be a cornerstone of future economic development efforts. Trade schools and smaller scale certificate programs focused on the medical, construction, energy, information technology, and other industries offer critical workforce development opportunities that will improve the Plan Area and the City’s ability to attract businesses reliant on those skills. The availability of bus rapid transit along the Kings Canyon corridor positions this area well to accommodate in-commuting students.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 4
c. Data Processing and Call Center activities are a primary focus of ongoing economic development efforts in the City. Reliant upon adequate fiber optic and broadband service as well as a seismically stable environment, these industries are a natural fit for the City of Fresno and its workforce. The CSESP may be able to attract some of these uses, and the IRS tax return processing site may be appropriately repositioned for these uses.
d. Manufacturing, processing, warehouse distribution and fulfillment centers are a primary source of employment for CSESP area residents. Sites appropriate for expansion of these uses are limited as they generally need to be in excess of 100 acres with easy access to major freeways and other modes of transportation. However, to the extent that sites suitable for a subset of industrial users are identified, the City should continue efforts to attract those users. The CSESP’s proximity to areas of the City designated and targeted for these uses will bolster employment opportunities for CSESP employment as they provide critical opportunities aligned with current workforce characteristics.

6. As part of the CSESP planning process, City and Project Team should identify opportunity sites appropriate to accommodate targeted industry sectors. Planning and revitalization efforts should focus on identifying and positioning sites appropriate to accommodate desired uses, paying particular attention to access, land use adjacencies, infrastructure needs, and site configuration. Among other efforts, City staff will need to work assertively to identify potential re-use opportunities for the IRS facility, overcoming challenges associated with the site’s location well away from major transportation corridors and within a predominantly residential neighborhood.

7. Infrastructure investments should be calibrated to attracting desired users and facilitating the provision of “shovel-ready” development sites. The opportunity site analysis should consider deficiencies in terms of access and infrastructure and identify critical improvements to ameliorate such deficiencies. Infrastructure improvements should be prioritized relative to the economic development opportunity presented.

8. Other economic incentives are available to attract private sector investment and should be considered as part of an overall policy and public-private partnership strategy. The City may consider implementation of a number of infrastructure financing mechanisms to effect needed infrastructure investments and defray costs of development to incentivize private sector investment. To the extent that the City controls any opportunity sites, property disposition strategies can help to mitigate risk and uncertainty to the degree needed to attract private investment. Overall, economic development policies should focus on cost and development risk reduction as a primary means to improve the private investment environment in the CSESP.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 5
Future CSESP planning efforts will build upon the findings and conclusions presented herein to develop specific economic development, land use policies and revitalization strategies based in part on the findings presented in this report. The sections to follow provide additional technical details and data regarding the basis for these findings. Key economic and real estate market indicators presented below are organized by the following categories:
 Demographic and Housing Trends
 Employment and Commute Trends
 Commercial Real Estate Market Indicator
 Retail Uses
 Office Uses
 Industrial Uses
Demographic and Housing Trends
This section offers a summary of demographic characteristics and an evaluation of housing trends intended to establish a baseline understanding of socioeconomic dynamics in the CSESP area relative to the City of Fresno as a whole. As documented by the trends presented below, socioeconomic trends in the Plan Area contribute to slow population and household growth, low household incomes and home values, low home ownership rates, and higher housing cost burdens relative to the City at large.

Demographic and Socioeconomic Indicators
The CSESP area represents an economically disadvantaged section of the City occasionally marked by areas of disinvestment and blight. It is important to note that the Plan Area boundary was established specifically to capture neighborhoods demonstrating these characteristics with the goal of improving economic outcomes for this population. With that in mind, this evaluation recognizes that the data and trends reported below exclude proximate, higher performing neighborhoods. As the planning process proceeds, the economic and demographic analysis should be understood within the context of the influence of and opportunities associated with these adjacent neighborhoods. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the CSESP are detailed in full elsewhere and summarized below to provide context for the real estate and economic analysis:
 More than 60 percent of CSESP area residents identify as Hispanic/Latino as compared to approximately 47 percent citywide. Residents identifying as White comprise 8 percent of CSESP population as compared to 30 percent citywide.
 Incomes in the CSESP area are well below that of the City as a whole. Of the approximately 7,600 households in the Plan Area, more than 60 percent earn less than $35,000 per year.

The median household income in the Plan Area is just under $26,000, as compared to more than $45,000 for the entire City. More than 50 percent of households in the CSESP fall below the poverty line. Citywide, approximately 30 percent of households are impoverished.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 6
 More than 47 percent of CSESP area residents did not finish high school, and fewer than 8 percent have attained a college degree. This is substantially lower than educational attainment levels observed citywide, where less than 15 percent of the population does not have a high school diploma and more than 12 percent have a college degree.  Nearly 34 percent of the Plan Area residents are under the age of 18 years, with roughly 9 percent over the age of 65 years. Citywide, residents under the age of 18 years comprise only 28 percent of the population, and those over the age of 65 years comprise nearly 12 percent of the citywide population.
 While the CSESP area generally is younger than the rest of the City, health outcomes are somewhat worse, with Plan Area residents more likely to report fair or poor health, obesity, and no health insurance coverage.

Population and Household Growth
Population and household growth estimates in the CSESP has lagged behind City growth levels over the last 7 years. Estimates shown in Table 1, in the CSESP, total population and households have grown at rates less than 1 percent, whereas citywide population growth over that same timeframe is nearly 6 percent, with households growing at a rate of just under 5 percent.

Persons per household in the CSESP are higher than that of the City as a whole – at 3.8 persons per household versus 3.1 for the City. Persons per household trends for both the Plan Area and the City have remained stable over time.

Table 1: Population and Household Trends
Item Population Households Persons/HH Population Households Persons/HH Year
2010 27,347 7,565 3.6 496,113 158,868 3.1
2011 27,376 7,572 3.6 500,221 159,942 3.1
2012 27,603 7,635 3.6 504,363 161,267 3.1
2013 27,832 7,698 3.6 508,540 162,602 3.1
2014 28,062 7,762 3.6 512,751 163,948 3.1
2015 28,294 7,826 3.6 516,996 165,306 3.1
2016 28,529 7,891 3.6 521,278 166,675 3.1
2017 27,553 7,614 3.6 525,594 166,542 3.2
Growth (2010 - 2017)
Number 206 49 29,481 7,674 -
% Change 0.8% 0.6% 5.9% 4.8%
Avg. Annual Change 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.7%
Sources: ACS, 2011-2015 retrieved in 2017; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2017; and EPS.

CSESP City of Fresno
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 7
Residential Tenure
Between 2010 and 2017, the share of owner-occupied homes in the CSESP area declined slightly and remained generally stable for the City – see Figure 1. Rates of home ownership are substantially lower in the CSESP– only 28 percent of homes are owner-occupied as compared to 48 percent citywide. Shown in Table 2, the percentage of single-family (detached and attached) housing units in the Plan Area comprises just 40 percent of the total housing inventory, whereas for the City of Fresno, single-family housing units comprise 65 percent of total housing inventory. Based on the housing tenure data presented in Figure 1, much of this existing singlefamily housing stock is available on the rental market.

Figure 1: Housing Tenure in the CSESP and City of Fresno (2010 and 2017) Sources: ACS, 2011-2015 retrieved in 2017; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2017; and EPS.
30%
70%
CSESP
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
49% 51%
City of Fresno
28%
72%
CSESP
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
48% 52%
City of Fresno
2010
2017
■ ■
■ ■
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 8
Home Values
Home values in the City have not quite reached pre-recession levels, but have demonstrated substantial recovery, increasing 64.3 percent from the 2012 nadir. While also demonstrating significant improvement over 2012 levels, home values in the CSESP are consistently lower than that of the City of the whole, with values in the Plan Area generally achieving only approximately 80 percent of the citywide average value. See Figure 2. It is important to note that there are several neighborhoods adjacent to the CSESP that demonstrate higher home values, and spillover from those areas could benefit revitalization efforts in the Plan Area.

Median Rents
Shown in Figure 3, median rents for all rental homes (single-family homes and apartments) have increased slightly over the last several years, demonstrating a 10 percent gain over 2012 levels similar to the City growth of 9 percent. CSESP area rents have generally ranged between 88 and 90 percent of City of Fresno levels. Note that this data, however, is available only at the zip code level, and the CSESP area data includes significant land area outside the Plan Area boundary, including aforementioned higher performing neighboring areas.

Table 2: Housing Inventory by Type (2011-2015)
Type No % No %
Single Family Detached 3,061 37% 100,986 63%
Single Family Attached 225 3% 4,711 3%
Multifamily 4,694 57% 51,958 32%
Mobile Home / Other 236 3% 3,817 2%
Total 8,216 100% 161,472 100%
CSESP City of Fresno
Sources: ACS, 2011-2015 retrieved in 2017; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2017; and EPS.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 9
Figure 2: Average Annual Home Sales Price
Sources: Zillow; Redfin; and EPS.
$0
$50,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average Annual Sales CSESP City of Fresno
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 10
Figure 3: Average Annual Median Rent (Single-family Homes and Apartments) Sources: Zillow; and EPS.
$0
$800
$600
$400
$200
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average Annual Median Rent CSESP Zip Codes City of Fresno
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 11
A specific evaluation of multifamily properties shown in Figure 4 offers additional information regarding the performance of the apartment rental market specifically within the confines of the CSESP area boundary. Apartment lease rates in the Plan Area are notably lower than that of the City as a whole (approximately 70 percent), but have demonstrated growth over the last several years as vacancies have declined. Vacancies are quite low citywide, indicating a tightening rental market, but remain within stable ranges in the Plan Area. While housing inventories appear to be declining citywide, housing supply constraints do not appear prevalent in the CSESP at this time.

Housing Cost Burden
Figure 5 compares the cost burden associated with housing costs experienced by households in the CSESP area versus the City as a whole. As defined by the American Community Survey, a cost burdened household expends 30 percent or more of household income on housing costs (including rent, utilities, mortgage payments, real estate taxes, condominium fees, and insurance). Severely cost-burdened households expend over 50 percent of household income on housing costs.

Roughly 22 percent of households in the City experience housing cost burdens greater than 30 percent of household income. In the Plan Area, however, the rate of severely cost-burdened households is significantly higher than that of the City, at 34 percent and 19 percent respectively.

Residential Turnover
After peaking in 2008, and likely attributable to high rates of foreclosure activity, average annual turnover rates have declined substantially, as seen in Figure 6. Standard turnover in residential properties generally averages between 6 and 10 percent – levels below 5.0 percent as seen in the CSESP and the City at large can indicate a tightening housing market. As noted earlier, however, vacancy and price escalation rates do not indicate major supply constraints, and this lack of turnover activity is likely more attributable to generally lower levels of economic activity and wealth creation that would allow renters to access the home ownership market and for home owners to “move-up” and purchase more expensive homes.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 12
Figure 4: Multifamily Performance Indicators
Sources: CoStar data retrieved October 5, 2017; and EPS.

10.0%

9.0%

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% $0
$900
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$1,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average Vacancy Average Asking Rent CSESP City of Fresno CSESP City of Fresno
Average Asking Rent Average Vacancy
I I
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 13
Figure 5: Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Costs
Sources: ACS, 2011-2015 retrieved in 2017; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2017; and EPS.

25.4%

33.9%

40.7%
CSESP
Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden Other Households

22.4%

18.6%

59.0%
City of Fresno
■ ■ ■
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 14
Figure 6: Average Annual Resales
Sources: Zillow; Redfin; and EPS.

5.0%

0.0%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average Annual Turnover CSESP City of Fresno
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 15
Age of Housing Stock
As an older neighborhood, most homes in the CSESP area were constructed before the 1980s, with very little new or replacement housing stock added in the last decade – see Table 3. The overall housing stock throughout the City reflects recent new home communities constructed in the northern portion of the City and elsewhere, resulting in a somewhat newer housing stock outside the Plan Area. Overall, however, the City’s housing stock is in many cases dated, which has resulted in certain communities, including portions of the Plan Area, falling into a state of disrepair and disinvestment.

Employment and Commute Trends
The following sections offer additional detail regarding the economic dynamics of the CSESP area, focusing specifically on employment trends – evaluating what jobs exist within the Plan Area and how those jobs align with the workforce living in the Plan Area. By establishing an understanding of the underlying fundamentals of the local economy, the background information provided in this section will help the Project team to establish economic development and diversification strategies as part of future phases of work. Again, it is critical to note that this analysis is calibrated to the confines of the CSESP area boundary, which was constructed specifically to capture economically disadvantaged areas. Future planning efforts, including identifying opportunity sites, also must consider the influence of and opportunities presented by adjacent neighborhoods.

Year Built Number % Number %
1939 or earlier 408 5.0% 11,869 6.8%
1940-1949 687 8.4% 9,985 5.7%
1950-1959 1,337 16.4% 21,696 12.4%
1960-1969 1,104 13.5% 18,291 10.5%
1970-1979 1,826 22.4% 33,567 19.3%
1980-1989 1,525 18.7% 26,668 15.3%
1990-1999 434 5.3% 24,919 14.3%
2000-2009 771 9.4% 24,052 13.8%
2010 + 72 0.9% 3,272 1.9%
Total 8,164 100.0% 174,319 100.0%
Median Year Built 1973 1978
hsg age
Sources: ESRI BAO, ACS 2011-2015; and EPS.

CSESP City of Fresno
Table 3: Age of Housing Stock
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 16
Employment Trends by Sector
CSESP area unemployment rates are somewhat higher and labor force participation rates are somewhat lower than the City as a whole. Average unemployment rates for the Plan Area are approximately 17.1 percent as compared to 14.3 percent for the City. Labor force participation rates are roughly 57 percent for the Plan Area, compared to 62 percent for the City.

Table 4 identifies workers in the Plan Area and the City by industry sector. Major industries in the City include Health Care and Social Assistance, Educational Services, Retail Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services. The CSESP demonstrates similar job concentrations, with a greater intensity of employment activity in the Retail Trade and Educational Services sector.

These concentrations are produced by the heavy retail presence in the Plan Area, particularly concentrated on the major retail corridor of Kings Canyon Road, and the presence of Fresno Pacific University within the CSESP.

Table 5 offers additional detail regarding employment trends by industry sector in the CSESP area. As shown, from 2005 to 2015, the CSESP added 1,760 net jobs. Within those jobs, 667 were added in the retail sector, and another 707 were added in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector.

A major Internal Revenue Service tax return processing center is located within the CSESP area, but the associated employees do not appear to be included in the US Census data used to derive the employment data cited herein. It is likely that the associated employees are not recognized by traditional data sources because they are reported based on headquarter or central office location or are not located at the local facility full time. Based on media reports, the tax processing center in Fresno employs approximately 3,000 workers, which represents approximately 30 percent of the Plan Area employment. The IRS has indicated that it plans to close the Fresno tax processing center in 2021, eliminating most of the associated jobs, although employees may be transitioned to other positions in the IRS or to other sites.

Major Employers
Table 6 identifies major employers located in the CSESP – this table identifies those establishments employing more than 100 workers. As expected based on the prior data presented, major employers include educational service providers such as Fresno Pacific University, major retailers such as Vallarta Supermarkets, Walmart, Home Depot, and Winco Foods, and Health Care Services provided by various skilled nursing facilities and other health providers.

The single largest employer in the Plan Area is the Internal Revenue Service, which reportedly employs over 3,000 workers at its tax return processing center located in the Plan Area. The IRS has reported that it intends to close this processing center following the 2021 tax season, which will have major impacts on the employment characteristics of the CSESP area and City.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 17
CSESP %
NAICS No. % No. % of Total
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 57 1% 2,561 1% 2% 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0 0% 4 0% 0% 22 Utilities 0 0% 1,368 1% 0%
23 Construction 6 0% 8,826 4% 0%
31-33 Manufacturing 55 1% 13,049 6% 0%
42 Wholesale Trade 391 6% 8,438 4% 5%
44-45 Retail Trade 1,625 26% 22,191 11% 7%
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 140 2% 5,876 3% 2% 51 Information 40 1% 3,636 2% 1%
52 Finance and Insurance 44 1% 7,322 3% 1%
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 72 1% 3,633 2% 2% 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 23 0% 9,060 4% 0% 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 52 1% 1,932 1% 3% 56 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 313 5% 14,417 7% 2% 61 Educational Services 1,453 23% 21,812 10% 7%
62 Health Care and Social Assistance 1,303 21% 43,193 20% 3% 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 112 2% 2,501 1% 4% 72 Accommodation and Food Services 509 8% 19,254 9% 3%
81 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 64 1% 8,148 4% 1% 92 Public Administration 0 0% 13,950 7% 0%
Total 6,259 100% 211,171 100% 3%
Table 4: Workers
Sources: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2015; and EPS.

CSESP City of Fresno
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 18
No. % No. % No. % Change
Average
Annual
Growth
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 16 0% 12 0% 57 1% 41 14% 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 NA 22 Utilities 19 0% 30 1% 0 0% (19) (100%)
23 Construction 57 1% 6 0% 6 0% (51) (20%)
31-33 Manufacturing 38 1% 98 2% 55 1% 17 4%
42 Wholesale Trade 369 8% 371 7% 391 6% 22 1%
44-45 Retail Trade 958 21% 1,262 23% 1,625 26% 667 5%
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 119 3% 63 1% 140 2% 21 2% 51 Information 1 0% 13 0% 40 1% 39 45%
52 Finance and Insurance 46 1% 33 1% 44 1% (2) (0%)
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 89 2% 83 1% 72 1% (17) (2%) 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 17 0% 49 1% 23 0% 6 3% 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 50 1% 52 1% 52 1% 2 0% 56 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 343 8% 367 7% 313 5% (30) (1%) 61 Educational Services 1,274 28% 1,590 28% 1,453 23% 179 1% 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 596 13% 531 9% 1,303 21% 707 8% 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 110 2% 103 2% 112 2% 2 0% 72 Accommodation and Food Services 196 4% 300 5% 509 8% 313 10% 81 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 201 4% 622 11% 64 1% (137) (11%) 92 Public Administration 0 0% 12 0% 0 0% 0 NA
Total 4,499 100% 5,597 100% 6,259 100% 1,760 3%
Table 5: CSESP Worker Trends
NAICS
Sources: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2015; and EPS.
2005 2010 2015 2005-2015
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 19
Number of
Employer Industry Employees
Internal Revenue Service [1] Government 3,000
Fresno Pacific University Schools-Universities & Colleges Academic 300 Vallarta Supermarkets Supermarkets and other grocery stores 300 Walmart Supercenter Department Stores 262
Foods Co. Supermarkets and other grocery stores 200
Home Depot Home centers 200
Winco Foods Supermarkets and other grocery stores 150
Donaghy Sales LLC Beer and ale merchant wholesalers 135 Greenberg Elementary School Elementary and secondary schools 125 Twilight Haven Services for the elderly and disabled 120 Valley Health Care Center Nursing care facilities, skilled nursing 100 Genesis Health Care LLC All other ambulatory health care services 100 Lane Elementary School Elementary and secondary schools 100 Table 6: CSESP Major Employers
Sources: InfoUSA; FresnoBee; and EPS.
[1] This facility is scheduled to cease operations following the 2021 tax season.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 20
Commute Trends
To provide more information related to workforce characteristics and employment commute trends, Table 7 evaluates the industries in which residents of the CSESP and the City work – actual jobs may be located outside the subject geography. Occupational concentrations mirror that of jobs with the City and the CSESP; however, higher concentrations of manufacturing employment emerge when looking at the occupations of the Plan Area residents. As will be discussed later in this section, a large amount of industrial uses are located proximate to the Plan Area, and this data suggests that a significant portion of CSESP area residents are working at those and other manufacturing facilities outside the Plan Area.

A more detailed analysis of commuting trends within and around the Plan Area reveals that there are more employed residents living in the CSESP area than jobs, which contributes to, but does not fully explain commuting trends. The Plan Area produces a net outflow of employees, with roughly 7,400 employees commuting to jobs outside the CSESP area. Only 3.4 percent of employed residents of the CSESP actually work within the CSESP area and 94.2 percent of jobs in the CSESP are filled by workers residing outside the Plan Area and commuting in daily.

To better understand how commute patterns relate to employment trends and to understand the role that neighborhoods proximate to the CSESP affect economic dynamics, Table 8 below expands this commute analysis to a 3-mile radius from the approximate center of the CSESP to capture adjacent industrial areas likely heavy in manufacturing and related jobs, as depicted in Map 1. Expanding the analysis geography demonstrates a higher proportion of employed residents working in jobs within the area (24.2 percent) but in-commuting still prevails with more than 84 percent of jobs filled by nonresidents.

Further expanding the analysis to the entire City demonstrates a roughly equal split between workers who live and work in the City and those who live in the City but work elsewhere. This data suggest that a much larger proportion of CSESP area residents work within the City, indicating that commute burdens are likely limited. However, the data also suggests that there is a substantial imbalance between the available jobs within the Plan Area and the characteristics of the labor force that lives there. This imbalance is somewhat, but not entirely, ameliorated by job opportunities in adjacent neighborhoods and elsewhere in the City.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 21
CSESP %
NAICS No. % No. % of Total
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 564 8% 7,797 5% 7% 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 4 0% 118 0% 3% 22 Utilities 31 0% 1,236 1% 3%
23 Construction 389 5% 7,622 5% 5%
31-33 Manufacturing 893 12% 12,755 8% 7%
42 Wholesale Trade 303 4% 6,889 4% 4%
44-45 Retail Trade 781 11% 17,964 11% 4%
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 234 3% 5,065 3% 5% 51 Information 78 1% 2,298 1% 3%
52 Finance and Insurance 126 2% 4,666 3% 3%
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 89 1% 2,570 2% 3% 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 205 3% 6,437 4% 3% 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 48 1% 1,490 1% 3% 56 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 467 6% 10,332 6% 5% 61 Educational Services 483 7% 16,787 10% 3%
62 Health Care and Social Assistance 1,214 17% 29,531 18% 4% 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 97 1% 2,644 2% 4% 72 Accommodation and Food Services 674 9% 14,925 9% 5%
81 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 264 4% 5,763 3% 5% 92 Public Administration 356 5% 10,476 6% 3%
Total 7,300 100% 167,365 100% 4%
Sources: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2015; and EPS.

CSESP
Table 7: Employed Residents
City of Fresno
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 22
Table 8: Commute Patterns
Item
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Employed Residents
Working In Area 263 3.4% 467 5.6% 9,873 24.3% 10,932 24.2% 101,122 61.9% 104,556 56.8% Working Outside Area 7,374 96.6% 7,863 94.4% 30,765 75.7% 34,203 75.8% 62,221 38.1% 79,535 43.2% Total 7,637 100.0% 8,330 100.0% 40,638 100.0% 45,135 100.0% 163,343 100.0% 184,091 100.0% Workers
Living In Area 263 5.8% 467 7.5% 9,873 16.4% 10,932 15.9% 101,122 53.2% 104,556 49.5% Living Outside Area 4,234 94.2% 5,792 92.5% 50,224 83.6% 58,005 84.1% 89,122 46.8% 106,615 50.5% Total 4,497 100.0% 6,259 100.0% 60,097 100.0% 68,937 100.0% 190,244 100.0% 211,171 100.0% journey
Sources: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2015; and EPS.

CSESP Three-Mile Radius from CSESP Center
2005 2015
City of Fresno
2005 2015 2005 2015
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 23
Map 1: CSESP 3-Mile Radius
• • oa•a <
ia::
< "Ii 0
UJ
• :> fl N
] ·e
M ·c ill
::;
0 N
g
• V 1!0d N
a, 0
"'
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 24
Commercial Real Estate Performance Indicators
This section provides an overview of commercial real estate indicators to provide a baseline understanding of real estate market performance in terms of inventory, absorption, vacancies, and lease rates. Specifically, this section evaluates market performance indicators for retail, office and industrial uses within the CSESP. By relating the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics to the performance of commercial real estate market, this information will provide additional context to support the development of viable land use, economic development and diversification strategies.

Retail Market
As shown in Table 9, the CSESP area offers slightly more than 1.3 million square feet of retail uses, roughly 4.0 percent of the citywide retail offerings. Inventory throughout the City has been flat over the last 10 years, with little to no new retail construction. Over the last 5 years, retail vacancies in the CSESP have increased substantially, rising to more than 7 percent in 2017 from less than 3 percent in 2012. See Figure 7. This level of vacancy falls within acceptable and expected ranges for the retail market, but the increase in vacancies may signal that the retail market is weakening in the CSESP area. A review of historical lease rates in the Plan Area lends support to this conclusion – average lease rates have recently softened substantially.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 25
Average
Annual
Difference % Change
Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (2008-2017) (2008-2017) Inventory (Sq. Ft.)
CSESP 1,227,910 1,230,358 1,313,358 1,313,358 1,313,358 1,312,354 1,312,354 1,312,354 1,312,354 1,312,354 84,444 0.7% City of Fresno 31,648,994 31,964,357 32,136,930 32,188,937 32,189,617 32,266,743 32,598,542 32,735,928 32,855,638 32,928,845 1,279,851 0.4% CSESP as a % of the City 3.9% 3.8% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% -- -- Inventory (Buildings)
CSESP 80 81 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 2 0.3%
City of Fresno 3,004 3,028 3,033 3,036 3,037 3,045 3,044 3,049 3,057 3,055 51 0.2% CSESP as a % of the City 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% -- -- Vacancy Rate (Percent)
CSESP 2.9% 4.5% 3.8% 3.5% 2.4% 3.5% 5.5% 5.2% 7.8% 7.5% 4.5% -- City of Fresno 4.5% 7.7% 8.9% 8.8% 8.5% 8.7% 8.2% 6.8% 6.9% 7.1% 2.6% -- Net Absorption [2]
CSESP 15,603 67,868 3,819 3,460 13,851 10,918 (51,708) (22,036) (6,912) (11) -- -- City of Fresno 18,221 (766,160) 54,508 (384,803) 251,038 (58,119) 519,832 471,772 567,801 (260,717) -- -- Lease Rate NNN/Sq. Ft./Yr.

CSESP $13.21 $10.76 $9.61 $15.37 $16.44 $13.75 $11.51 $15.42 $16.55 $13.64 $0.43 0.4% City of Fresno $15.99 $17.84 $14.61 $12.46 $12.20 $12.59 $12.73 $13.15 $12.94 $13.64 -$2.35 (1.8%) retail trends
Table 9: Retail Performance Indicators
Sources: CoStar data retrieved October 5, 2017; and EPS. [1] Unless otherwise noted, data reflects Q2 of each year. [2] Net absorption is for the entire calendar year; 2017 is through Q3.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 26
Figure 7: Summary of Retail Performance Indicators

10.0%

9.0%

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% 0
5,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Vacancy Rate Inventory (Sq. Ft.) CSESP City of Fresno Inventory CSESP Vacancy City of Fresno Vacancy I I
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 27
Retail Sales by Category
Table 10 below shows the distribution of retail sales by category for the CSESP area and the City.

Note that sales reported are limited to specific retail operations and exclude businesses operating in buildings and storefronts traditionally categorized as retail land uses such as banks and other personal or professional services whose primary business function is not retail sales.

Based on the subset of retail uses identified, Plan Area retail sales comprise approximately

4.0 percent of City totals, with estimated retail sales per square foot of retail inventory roughly equivalent to the City as a whole. Food and beverage stores appear disproportionately represented in the CSESP, comprising more than 47.1 percent of total retail sales. These findings are supported by employment figures, anecdotal evidence, and windshield surveys – several major food and beverage providers are present in the CSESP area and are major area employers (e.g., Vallarta Supermarkets, Winco Foods, etc.) in the Plan Area. The presence of Walmart and Home Depot in the Plan area contribute to a higher concentration of retail sales in the Building Materials and Garden Equipment and General Merchandise sectors, respectively.

While these concentrations suggest the potential underrepresentation of other retail sectors, it is not immediately clear that major retail needs of Plan Area residents are indeed unmet.

Current offerings such as Walmart meet a variety of retail needs, which when combined with the offerings of adjacent neighborhoods and other areas of the City, may be adequate to meet the CSESP area resident needs. Future outreach to CSESP area residents should seek to identify resident perceptions of major retail gaps and needs that are inadequately met by retail in the CSESP.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 28
Table 10: Retail in 2016: City of Fresno and CSESP
Item
Gasoline Stations 3 $10,326 2.1% 2.2% 2.0% 153 $472,207 4.1% Home Furnishings & Appliance Stores 4 $7,248 1.5% 1.2% 1.0% 390 $594,051 5.2% Building Materials & Garden Equipment 4 $73,894 15.4% 8.3% 1.6% 257 $895,500 7.9% Motor Vehicles and Parts Dealers 7 $8,685 1.8% 0.3% 1.5% 481 $2,902,639 25.5% General Merchandise 11 $89,948 18.7% 6.4% 7.8% 141 $1,412,715 12.4% Clothing & Clothing Accessories 13 $7,038 1.5% 1.3% 2.9% 445 $560,020 4.9% Other Retail 28 $34,624 7.2% 1.9% 2.9% 965 $1,796,015 15.8% Food & Beverage Stores 30 $226,620 47.1% 13.6% 5.4% 557 $1,665,993 14.6% Food Services & Drinking Places 37 $22,261 4.6% 2.0% 2.8% 1,315 $1,087,031 9.5% Total 137 $480,644 100.0% 4.2% 2.9% 4,704 $11,386,171 100.0% Sources: InfoUSA; and EPS.

CSESP Fresno
% of Total
Sales
No.

Establishments% of Total
Sales
No.

EstablishmentsSales
(in $000)
% of Total
City Sales
% of City
EstablishmentsSales
(in $000)
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 29
Office Market
With 830,000 square feet of office space, the CSESP area office uses comprise roughly 3.4 percent of all office space offered citywide. Inventories have remained stable over the last decade. Vacancy rates are extremely low in the CSESP – less than 1 percent compared to 11 percent citywide. See Table 11 and Figure 8. It is critical to note, however, that the IRS tax processing center occupies over 500,000 square feet in the CSESP – over 50 percent of the office space offered in the market. The IRS signed a 10 year lease in 2012, the end of which is coincident with the planned closure of the center after the 2021 tax season. This closure will have major implications for the CSESP office market – it will be difficult to identify a single major user with space requirements matching the current IRS campus. Attracting new uses will be hampered by constrained access to the site and incompatible land use adjacencies.

Industrial Market
As shown in Table 12 the CSESP offers approximately 766,000 square feet of industrial and flexible/research and development (R&D) uses. Representing only 1.2 percent of the overall citywide market, vacancy rates are extremely low, suggesting the potential to attract similar uses. See Figure 9. Expanding the market area to include proximate areas highlights the role industrial uses play in the local economy. Expanding the analysis to include proximate neighborhoods (a 3-mile radius from the center of the Plan Area) captures more than 22 million square feet of industrial uses, or close to 40 percent of all industrial uses in the City. Vacancy rates for this area as well as the City remain within stable ranges, with increasing absorption and lease rates over the last several years.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 30
Average
Annual
Difference % Change
Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (2008-2017) (2008-2017) Inventory (Sq. Ft.)
CSESP 831,436 831,436 831,436 831,436 831,436 831,436 831,436 831,436 831,436 831,436 0 0.0% City of Fresno 23,108,928 23,559,870 23,751,281 23,844,006 23,912,306 23,926,395 24,035,397 24,069,476 24,111,815 24,187,810 1,078,882 0.5% CSESP as a % of the City 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% -- -- Inventory (Buildings)
CSESP 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0 0.0%
City of Fresno 1,715 1,731 1,742 1,746 1,747 1,749 1,751 1,754 1,759 1,767 52 0.3% CSESP as a % of the City 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% -- -- Vacancy Rate (Percent)
CSESP 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% (0.3%) -- City of Fresno 11.1% 11.5% 13.4% 14.0% 13.4% 13.4% 12.5% 12.3% 11.5% 11.2% 0.1% -- Net Absorption [2]
CSESP 480 (600) 1,200 (100) 5,947 0 (1,200) 0 1,200 (2,500) -- -- City of Fresno 266,784 10,140 (356,941) (9,506) 196,513 183,443 239,136 108,398 169,667 133,906 -- -- Lease Base Rate/Sq. Ft./Mo.

CSESP [3] $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 - - - - - -- -- City of Fresno $18.48 $17.67 $17.72 $16.75 $16.18 $16.51 $16.27 $16.44 $16.47 $16.79 -$1.69 (1.1%) office trends
Table 11: Office Performance Indicators
Sources: CoStar data retrieved October 5, 2017; and EPS. [1] Unless otherwise noted, data reflects Q2 of each year. [2] Net absorption is for the entire calendar year; 2017 is through Q3. [3] Lease rate data for the CSESP are not available from CoStar for years 2013 through 2017.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 31
Figure 8: Office Performance Indicators

15.0%

13.0%

11.0%

9.0%

7.0%

5.0%

3.0%

1.0%
(1.0%) 0
5,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Vacancy Rate Inventory (Sq. Ft.) CSESP Inventory City of Fresno Inventory CSESP Vacancy City of Fresno Vacancy I
' , I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j I I
I
I I
\
I
1\
I I
ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 32
Average
Annual
Difference % Change
Item [1] 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (2008-2017) (2008-2017) Inventory (Sq. Ft.)
CSESP 766,244 766,244 766,244 766,244 766,244 766,244 766,244 766,244 766,244 766,244 0 0.0% CSESP + adjoining areas [2] 23,885,558 23,885,558 23,885,558 23,752,464 23,000,284 22,923,276 22,923,276 22,841,916 22,784,142 22,821,438 (1,064,120) (0.5%) City of Fresno 59,674,261 59,804,081 59,436,603 59,301,015 58,589,493 58,814,780 58,836,065 59,682,322 59,798,404 59,955,402 281,141 0.1% CSESP + adjoining as a % of the City 40.0% 39.9% 40.2% 40.1% 39.3% 39.0% 39.0% 38.3% 38.1% 38.1% -- -- Inventory (Buildings)
CSESP 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 0 0.0%
CSESP + adjoining areas [2] 880 880 880 878 878 877 877 881 880 881 1 0.0% City of Fresno 2,370 2,382 2,383 2,382 2,387 2,390 2,392 2,404 2,413 2,420 50 0.2% CSESP + adjoining as a % of the City 37.1% 36.9% 36.9% 36.9% 36.8% 36.7% 36.7% 36.6% 36.5% 36.4% -- -- Vacancy Rate (Percent)
CSESP 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% -- CSESP + adjoining areas [2] 8.3% 11.9% 11.2% 12.2% 8.4% 7.1% 6.4% 5.4% 4.2% 3.6% (4.6%) -- City of Fresno 7.3% 9.2% 10.1% 10.4% 8.6% 7.4% 5.9% 4.8% 4.3% 3.8% (3.5%) -- Net Absorption [3]
CSESP 0 (8,520) 8,520 0 0 0 0 0 0 (10,490) -- --
CSESP + adjoining areas [2] 173,770 (855,169) 164,022 (361,231) 169,329 235,868 147,003 169,068 212,684 161,292 -- -- City of Fresno 530,416 (1,024,605) (846,368) (347,615) 415,865 893,931 908,532 1,435,313 428,936 454,520 -- -- Lease Rate NNN/Sq. Ft./Yr. [4]
CSESP + adjoining areas [2] $3.74 $3.32 $3.33 $3.36 $3.47 $3.47 $3.25 $3.32 $4.42 $4.56 $0.82 2.2% City of Fresno $4.66 $3.85 $3.77 $3.89 $4.01 $4.14 $3.95 $4.33 $4.90 $5.07 $0.41 0.9% industrial trends
Table 12: Industrial Performance Indicators
Sources: CoStar data retrieved November 13, 2017; and EPS. [1] Unless otherwise noted, data reflects Q4 of each year. [2] Comprises a three-mile radius from the center of CSESP. [3] Net absorption is for the entire calendar year; 2017 is through Q3. [4] CoStar does not have any lease rate information for the CSESP area.

ECONOMIC & MARKET INDICATORS Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 3- 33
Figure 9: Industrial Performance Indicators
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0% 0
5,000,000
60,000,000
55,000,000
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Vacancy Rate Inventory (Sq. Ft.) CSESP CSESP + adjoining areas City of Fresno CSESP CSESP + adjoining areas City of Fresno Inventory Vacancy Rate
J
V
/ 1
\
I \
\ ' \ \. \
'
J
I I
I
I/
/1
IJl
j
r I
I
I
I
' I
\
I I I
I
\I
I I I

CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 1
Circulation Networks and Streetscape
Prepared by Sargent Town Planning and Stantec
Introduction
This section describes the existing transportation network within the Central Southeast Area of the City of Fresno. It identifies areas of deficiency within the existing network due to poor level of service (LOS), connectivity and safety and provides opportunities for improvements.

Circulation network and streetscape information was obtained from a variety of sources. The City of Fresno provided information on existing Level of Service and planned improvements.

Commuter mode share data was obtained from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2013). Transit routes and ridership were provided by Fresno Area Express (FAX). Collision data was obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS).

Existing Street Network
Southeast Fresno’s existing circulation has been laid out over historically agricultural land and is primarily delineated by major collectors and neighborhood streets. Existing roadways within the CSESP area range from local roads with a single lane in each direction to arterials with up to two through lanes in each direction. Street types include arterials, collectors, neighborhood streets, frontage roads, drive lanes and alleys. All roadways operate acceptably under the City of Fresno traffic impact thresholds. The City’s threshold for most of the project area is LOS E; however, the threshold for Kings Canyon is LOS F. The following streets are the closest to existing thresholds, operating at LOS D:

East-West Streets Peak Hour
 Butler Avenue – West of Maple Avenue and East of Chestnut Avenue AM/PM  Lane Avenue – Willow Ave to Peach Avenue AM
 Ventura Street/Kings Canyon Road PM
North-South Streets Peak Hour
 Cedar Avenue – North of Butler Avenue PM
 Chestnut Avenue – North of Kings Canyon Road AM/PM
 Peach Avenue – Butler Avenue to Huntington Avenue AM
 Maple Avenue PM
 Willow Avenue – North of Tulare Avenue; Between Lane Avenue and Kings Canyon Road PM  Winery Avenue – Between Lane Avenue and Butler Avenue AM/PM There are currently no plans for road widening capacity improvements within the CSESP area.

While a majority of the streets form a connective grid, there are a number of breaks in the network, notably on California Ave. between Cedar and Chestnut, and on Willow Ave. between CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 2
Butler and Lane Ave. Such breaks are noticeably more common within neighborhoods, particularly those with more suburban development patterns while older, more historic neighborhoods tend to have a fine-grain network that is better connected. Streetscapes vary amongst the street types and while all support auto traffic, there are many key routes lacking landscaping, lighting, appropriate crossings, sidewalks and bike lanes. Having such gaps in the network creates challenges for mobility throughout the Plan Area, particularly for those who are not able to drive including the young and the elderly.

According to the 2013 American Community Survey, the commute to and from work is accomplished for 76% by vehicle alone, 18% carpool, 2% use public transportation, 1% bike and 3% walk. Potential improvements include identifying and (re)connecting key centers of activity, infilling missing sidewalks and bike lanes, providing landscaping and shade, utilizing traffic calming strategies where necessary and setting guidelines ensuring that streets are designed and built to accommodate all residents of the City.

Existing Street Types
As illustrated in the Existing Street Network map on page 5, the Plan Area is interconnected by seven key street types. Arterials and Collectors depicted in dark and light blue, respectively, are the key routes traversing the southeast area and connecting the Neighborhood streets (thick white lines) and the Alleys, Lanes and Frontage Roads (thin white lines). Most existing streets are primarily designed to move a maximum number of vehicles and are often lacking character, connectivity and comfortable environments for pedestrians and cyclists. Despite the challenges, there are opportunities for creating a more interconnected street network between and for each street type and for designing more walkable, pedestrian-friendly streets that support appropriate multi-modal transportation options.

Arterials
Among the prominent arterial streets within the Plan
Area is the west-east Ventura St./Kings Canyon Rd. and
the north-south Chestnut Ave. These arterials are
high-volume streets with 2 travel lanes in each
direction, a center median or turning lane and an
intermittent Class II bike lane. Frontages range from
suburban shopping centers and highway commercial
to neighborhood edges.

Kings Canyon Rd. is an example of a high volume
Commercial Corridor within the Plan Area
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 3
Collectors
Primary collectors within the Plan Area include
medium to high volume streets such as Butler, Maple
and Orange Avenues. These serve as key connectors to
the Downtown area to the west, HWY 99 to the south,
HWY 180 to the north and neighboring communities to
the east. These streets have limited retail and are
typically two travel lanes in each direction at times with a center median or turning lane, occasional frontage
roads and limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Typical Neighborhood Streets
Neighborhood streets within the Plan Area tend to
either be part of a connected or a suburban ‘cul-de-sac’ development pattern. Most of these low to medium
volume streets have one travel lane in each direction
with parallel parking and planters on either side of the sidewalk where present. Older, interconnected
neighborhood streets tend to provide greater
character and a more comfortable environment.

Low-volume Neighborhood Streets
Found throughout the Plan Area and other parts of
Fresno, these low-volume neighborhood streets are
part of an older interconnected neighborhood fabric
that is more rural in nature. These streets typically do not have curbs, planters, sidewalks or marked travel
lanes. The traffic volume is typically low enough where explicit pedestrian or bicycle facilities may not be
necessary.

Frontage Roads
Adjacent to larger streets such as Chestnut Ave., these roads serve as low-volume neighborhood access roads.

While they provide a buffer from higher volume and
higher speed traffic, they expand the right-of-way
significantly with imperceptible change in character
and limited points of access to the neighborhoods.

E. Butler Avenue is a collector street type with an
adjacent frontage road
S. Whitney Ave – an example of a typical
neighborhood street
Grant Ave. is an example of a low-volume
neighborhood street
Example of a typical frontage road along Chestnut
Avenue
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 4
Drive Lanes
Drive Lanes are commonly found in the large suburban
shopping centers, often serving solely as vehicular
access roads between arterials or collectors and the
shopping center parking areas. These private lanes
typically do not provide pedestrian or bicycle facilities and have limited character and connectivity to the
surrounding area.

Alleys and Residential Lanes
Found mid-block throughout many of the connective
neighborhoods, these alleys have traditionally served
as access lanes to utilities, services and rear of lots.

Whiles some alleys are still functional, many of them
have been in disuse or neglected and due to safety
concerns, neighborhood blocks have restricted access
to the alleys.

Example of a Drive Lane in large suburban
shopping centers
Example of a residential alley
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 5
,----------. I
I ·-----
I
~---J
I
I
I
--------·
Existing Street Network
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
A
>
Legend
C:1 Central Southeast Plan Boundary
Open Space
- Arterials
- Collectors
Neighborhood Streets
Alleys, Frontage Roads and lanes
A Break in network
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 6
The Intersections map on the next page depicts the existing control for intersections within the CSESP area. The major signalized corridors include:
 Kings Canyon Road
 Lane Avenue – East of Chestnut Avenue
 Butler Avenue
 Cedar Avenue
 Chestnut Avenue
 Peach Avenue
The General Plan EIR did not analyze intersection level of service. However, it can be inferred that the intersections adjacent to street segments that currently operate at the City’s LOS D threshold also operate at LOS D or worse. The City maintains a priority list of intersections that qualify for installation of traffic signals and traffic signal phasing modifications – indications of intersections with operational deficiencies, with pedestrian safety issues, or are located near a school to provide for pedestrian crossing. These intersections include:
 Cedar Avenue and Woodward Avenue
 Butler Avenue and Eighth Street
 Butler Avenue and Willow Avenue
 Butler Avenue and Cedar Avenue
Hamilton Ave. and Sierra Vista Ave. is a low-volume,
uncontrolled residential neighborhood intersection
Example of a large, signalized intersection at Kings Canyon Rd. and Maple Ave.

CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 7
1--1---=:...._ __ :,_ __________ -t-~-------eeimo,nf-Aav ... -------. i-.!S;..-.....:. ___ ....;_--:--:---:----+--------;,,lor",,-!'i------~ I
I ·------.

Intersect ions
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
0 125 025 0.5 Mites
i
0 Legend
L=I Central Southeast Plan Boundary
Open Space
• Uncontrolled Intersection
• Minor Approach Stop Intersection
• Multi-Way Stop Intersection
• Singalized Intersection
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 8
Existing Bicycle Network
The City of Fresno has recently adopted an Active Transportation Plan (ATP, 2017) that envisions a complete, safe and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks and bikeways that serves all residents of Fresno. Current bicycling facilities are broken down into three classifications, which are identified below. There are 491 miles of bikeways in the City with approximately 1400 proposed miles.
 Class I: Bicycle or multi‐use (bicycle‐pedestrian) path that is completely separated from vehicle traffic and typically a 10‐ to 12‐foot wide concrete/asphalt‐concrete paved surface with two-foot wide shoulders.
 Class II: Designated on‐street bicycle lane that is identified with painted pavement striping and signing and is typically at least five feet in width.
 Class III: On‐street bicycle route that is designated by signs and markings and utilizes the paved surface shared with a low volume of motorized vehicles.

There are few streets within the study area that include separate bike facilities (see map on the next page). Most are Class II facilities. Class II bike lanes are present on: Kings Canyon Rd. (First St. to East of Chestnut Ave.), Church Ave., Cedar Ave. (Church to Woodward Ave. and Hamilton Ave. to south of Butler Ave.), Willow Ave. (Lane Ave. to Kings Canyon Rd.), Orange Ave. (south of Butler Ave.) and Chestnut Ave. with an ongoing project for Butler Ave. (Hazelwood Ave. to Peach Ave).

The CSESP area has some of the highest concentrated areas for bicycle and vehicle collisions in Fresno (e.g. along Kings Canyon Rd. between Cedar Ave. and Armstrong Ave.; ATP, 2017). The Plan Area has a number of opportunities for addressing safety concerns and expanding the network, including the addition of bike lanes along key streets such as Chestnut, Maple and Butler Avenues and improving connections to and around schools and parks. The challenges associated with adding bike lanes on streets in the CSESP area are the competing street uses, including onstreet parking and turn lanes. Streets should be examined on a case-by-case basis, with input from the public regarding priorities.

Additionally, the railroad right-of-way along California Avenue, east of Cedar Avenue presents an opportunity for a Class I bike path that should be investigated regarding its feasibility as a regional bike path. Some strategies for improving on-street bikeway travel include traffic calming strategies such as lane width reductions and bulb-outs, buffered or separated bike lanes and completing missing parts of the existing network.

Example of a Class I bike path adjacent to the Plan Area Example of a Class II bike lane along Chestnut Avenue CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 9
----------. I
l .....

I
~---J
I
I
I
••-••••• I
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N 0 0.125 0.25 A 0,5 Miles
Butler Ave
I
I
!..j't.
---
'"\.

Legend
I
I ! ___
-1--1 ~ I 0 I ;: I
3 :

I
I
I '--,,. ... _, ___ ,_
·----------------- ' I
I
I
I
I
(',:1 Central Southeast Plan Boundary
Open Space
- Class II Bike Lane
- Class Ill Bike Route
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 10
Existing Pedestrian Network
In addition to the bicycle network improvement goals as outlined in the ATP, the City of Fresno has also documented existing pedestrian network conditions and has envisioned a number of recommendations to better connect the residents of Fresno. There are currently 2016 miles of existing sidewalks throughout the City of Fresno and 1984 proposed miles to fill in the missing connections in underserved neighborhoods with a focus on pedestrian safety enhancements.

Not unlike the existing bicycle network, the pedestrian network is also lacking connectivity and safety in the Plan Area, ultimately affecting comfort and desire for pedestrian activity. Kings Canyon Rd (Cedar Ave to Peach Ave) is a high-activity commercial corridor that has been identified for having one of the greatest concentrations of pedestrian and vehicle incidents in the City. The Pedestrian Network map on the next page depicts areas of missing sidewalk within the CSESP study area. Most of the missing sidewalks exist in the neighborhoods near the northern and southern limits of the study area. There are several major corridors with missing pedestrian facilities including Willow Avenue (north of Kings Canyon Road), Chestnut Avenue (south of California Avenue) and Maple Avenue (Butler Avenue to Kings Canyon Road).

There are a number of missing sidewalk segments throughout the Plan Area due to insufficient right-of-way from previously annexed county islands, unfavorable topographic conditions or utility conflicts. These segments include several major corridors with missing pedestrian facilities including Willow Ave. (north of Kings Canyon Rd), Chestnut Ave. (south of California Ave.) and Maple Ave. (Butler Ave. to Kings Canyon Rd.). These areas should also be studied to determine the existing constraints and costs to develop a capital program for these facilities. Neighborhoods in the north part of the Plan Area that are missing sidewalks may prefer to not have sidewalks or were developed without them per the applicable standards at the time.

Some strategies for improving the network include filling in sidewalk gaps and/or widening the sidewalks with landscaping and shade for a more comfortable pedestrian experience, providing traffic calming and/or installing bulb-outs to narrow the pedestrian crossing distance. Increasing controlled pedestrian crossing points along the BRT route may also be helpful in crossing such long and wide corridors.

Example of missing and incomplete sidewalk segments along Barton Avenue
Low-volume residential streets such as Laurel Ave. without sidewalks can be found throughout the Plan Area
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 11
I
l .....
~---
' I
I
--------·
Pedestrian Network
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N 0 0.125 0.25
A 0.5 Miles
Legend
C:1 Central Southeast Plan Boundary
- Open Space
- Existing Sidewalks
- Missing Sidewalks
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 12
Existing Transit Routes
City of Fresno’s Public Transportation Department currently offers 16 fixed-route bus lines, consisting of a fleet of over 100 alternatively-fueled buses. The Fresno Area Express (FAX) system provided over 10.6 million fixed-route passenger trips in 2016 and is the largest of its kind in the San Joaquin Valley. The Plan Area is currently serviced by FAX and is the primary method of public transportation within Southeast Fresno and the adjacent communities. There are six FAX lines servicing the Plan Area at an average 30-minute weekday service frequency (see map on the next page).
 Route 22 – 30-minute frequency weekday service to and from northwest Fresno.  Route 26 - 30-minute frequency weekday service to and from north Fresno.  Route 28 – 20-minute frequency weekday service to and from central Fresno  Route 33 - 30-minute frequency weekday service to and from southwest Fresno.  Route 38 – 15 to 30-minute frequency weekday service to and from northeast Fresno.  Route 41 - 30-minute frequency weekday service to and from west Fresno.

The CSESP area had a combined ridership of 1.08 million in fiscal year (FY) 2015. Ridership has decreased over subsequent years with 1.02 million in FY 2016 and 0.93 million in FY 2017, for an overall decrease of 14% from 2015 to 2017. FAX is currently evaluating their routes for adjustments to bus frequency. A ridership survey will take place in January 2018 that will be the basis of this decision-making.

Additionally, the recently implemented Fresno Area Express Q is the City’s Bus Rapid Transit system that services the Plan Area along Kings Canyon Rd. with four stops in each direction. FAX Q runs on a 10-minute frequency at peak time at ½ mile intervals. The BRT route has traffic signal priority and is designed to move through traffic more efficiently by not having to transition in and out of traffic.

The existing transit system provides future opportunities for prioritizing key neighborhood centers by focusing on areas of highest activity and ensuring proper neighborhood and amenity connections. By strategically locating future connections and development around key intersections, transit hubs and areas of commercial or civic activity, the circulation network can provide easier access to and from the transit services.

BRT Station, recently installed on Kings Canyon Rd. Fresno Area Express (FAX) offers 16 fixed-route bus lines throughout the city.

CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----~
<
"
"
0)
C:
0 0
' .----------1 ~---J ' '
·-----"" --------:

Existing Transit Routes
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
ii
0 J'.

Legend
(=I Central Southeast Pion Boundary
- Open Space
- BusRopitTronsit
ae,, FAX Line 22
~ FAX Line 26
~ FAX Line 28
,.a, FAX Line 34
~ FAX Line 38
CIJI FAX Line 41
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 14
Existing Truck Routes
As depicted in the Existing Truck Routes map on the next page, the CSESP study area has a robust truck route system. Kings Canyon Road, Chestnut Avenue, and Cedar Avenue are the major truck routes. Should impacts of commercial vehicles be considered detrimental to the quality of life in particular areas of the CSESP, the community may want to examine alterations to the truck route map in order to more clearly delineate neighborhood and commercial areas.

Majority of collectors such as this residential portion of Maple Ave. are designated as truck routes
Narrower and lower-volume streets such as Willow Ave. are also designated as truck routes
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 15
Existing Truck Routes
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
N
A 0.125 0.25 0,5 Miles
--------
.. .... '"\.

Legend
I
I ! __
-+- ~ I 0 I ;: I
3 :

I
('=I Central Southeast Plan Boundary
• open Space
- Existing Truck Routes
CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 16
Safety
According to the Transportation Injury Mapping System, during the years of 2014-2016 the CSECP Area had a total of 102 collisions, including 4 fatal, 13 involving pedestrians and 11 involving bicycles.

The Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) GIS Map below illustrates all of the collisions within this area from 2014 to 2016. There are more concentrated areas of collisions on:
 Kings Canyon Road, west of Chestnut Avenue
 Church Street, west of Chestnut Avenue
 Chestnut Avenue, north of Kings Canyon Road
The Collision Locations map on the next page illustrates the location of the fatal collisions and those involving bicycles and pedestrians. The ¾ mile section of King’s Canyon Road from Chance Avenue to Chestnut Avenue has the highest concentration of collisions, totaling 2 fatal vehicular collisions, 2 pedestrian collisions (1 fatal) and 5 bicycle collisions. Improvements along this corridor as addressed in the bicycle and pedestrian networks sections should be a focus to improve safety in this area.

Additionally, the intersections of Cedar Avenue at Butler Avenue had 3 pedestrian collisions and Chestnut Avenue at Balch Avenue had 2 pedestrian collisions, one of which was fatal. These intersections should be examined for pedestrian safety improvements.

SWITRS GIS Map: Fresno, Fresno 01/01/2014 - 12/31/2016
• z
E M.1d1son • Ave
E Grant Ave
E Wuhlngton Ave
E McKentreAve
e ·1 1oml.1 Ave~----' .
• • December 22, 201 7
SWITRS Collisions
• Collisions
e Collisions - Selected
ff
~
•
•
~ I e: McKenzie Av
a, E Nev~d.1Ave
z • C: II mOls Ave
- E Tutor • •
• •
• • E Huntington Ave
•
• ., :I! • ,nllt ••
.,
D • ~
r
u
..
f
•
.. D
> EL •• " f
• C
> " ;;
s
;
.c
u
.. ..-
•
• E ma_,,r,r,,...-,
1 J 0. i
<
~
• .,
•
I
i
E Tulare si
•

0.3 0.35 0.7
1:36,112 0.6
•
•

1.4km
•• • I

1.2 mi
Source11: E..-,, HERE, o.Lor,,..., USGS, lnt.,.rnap, IJ\ICREW.ENT P, NRCan, Eari Japan, METI, Es1i China (Hong Kong), Esri Kore.a, Esri ('Illa.land), CIRCULATION NETWORKS AND STREETSCAPES Existing Conditions Admin Draft FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 4- 17
..
.....
-
,, ... ,_,.,
.. r
I .
' l
I
I •
l
•-·
H!Hr,:.tll.~ .... -~~~ • .4Ht--ttl+'""'-11t!+'-~
(' I tL .,j
'- _. - "t I ,_ ___ .., - I
,- J , .. , .. •-'-
. i I
,n, ... ~ ... •"-
i . ...

Collision Locations 2014 - 2016
Centrd Southeast Fn~sno Spec1flc Plan
s
i
I T
1 I
I j ! .,,
·"-~• 1
J ' , I •
< t un.---.j .. , .......
t
i
,.
....

L-------,
...
.,.. _ _____ _ .J
Legend
•
l
I
~ I
'----,
1l
•s 1~ ~
· -----•---1
Can1rd Sllutheae Plan Scu,dary
• Fcrtcll Cotrtto
• lllc)da ea1111'1on1
• Plldea\rlar> Cdll1lon1
,.

UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 1
Utilities
Prepared by Stantec
Introduction
This section addresses the existing conditions related to utilities and service systems. The topics of water, wastewater, drainage/flood control, solid/hazardous waste are discussed in detail in this section. Primary information for the utilities and services systems was obtained from various sources. Wastewater information was obtained from the 2015 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan prepared by Carollo. Water facility and supply information was obtained from the 2013 City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan EIR prepared by West Yost Associates. Storm drainage information was obtained from the 2016 District (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District) Services Plan Master Update.

Water
The City of Fresno delivers drinking water to approximately 500,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers over a 114 square mile area of the city including many county Islands. The City’s water supply is made up of approximately 85% groundwater and 15% surface sources.

The City lies within the Kings Sub‐basin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, and extracts a majority of water to meet its demands from this underground aquifer.

Historically, the groundwater levels in the Fresno area have declined by an average of 1.5 feet per year since 1990. In the past 80 years, the water level has decreased from 30 feet below ground surface to more than 128 feet below ground surface. Groundwater used by the City is replenished by three different methods:
 Natural recharge (approx. 25%) - rainfall, irrigation, canal and stream flows that seep into the soil and replenish the aquifer
 Subsurface inflow (approx. 25%) - movement of groundwater from external sources such as the Sierra Nevada
 Intentional recharge (approx. 50%) - the City’s primary recharge facility is Leaky Acres, located just northwest of Fresno‐Yosemite International Airport. Other recharge facilities include Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) storm drainage basins and the Alluvial Groundwater Recharge System (AGRS) owned and operated by the City of Clovis. The City expects for up to 75% of its groundwater replenishment to come from intentional recharge at buildout.

Historically, the City has pumped 140% of the groundwater it has replenished. Projects such as the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) have reduced this pumping demand.

UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 2
The City projects that pumping demand will be approximately 85% of replenishment, during normal years at buildout.

The 2010 City of Fresno water consumption estimates by land use are:
 Single Family (74,403 AFY)
 Multi‐Family (21,087 AFY)
 Commercial/ Institutional/Government (20,754 AFY)
 Industrial (6,660 AFY)
 Landscape (9,286 AFY)
 Other –Miscellaneous (157 AFY)
The objective of City’s water plan update is to provide a sustainable and reliable water supply to meet the demands of the existing and future growth. This will be achieved by:
 Maximizing surface water use
 Replenishing groundwater with surplus surface water, when available  Increasing water conservation activities
 Using tertiary-treated recycled water
No water distribution system improvements have been identified for the CSESP area.

Sewer
The City of Fresno maintains over 1,500 miles of sewer pipes and other sanitary collection system infrastructure like manholes and lift stations. Sewer infrastructure in the Plan Area is illustrated in the map on page 3. The City’s 2015 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update identified areas in poor condition and/or with current or projected future flow deficiencies, based on City design criteria. The primary impact identified within the CSESP area was the Orange Avenue trunk sewer main. The Orange Avenue trunk is a main sewer artery that conveys flows from the City of Clovis, California State University Fresno (CSUF), and a large area of the central section of the City. The needed capacity improvements consist of replacing approximately 6,050 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline with a new 42-inch diameter sewer on the following street segments within the CSESP area (see maps on pages 4-6):
 Eighth Street: Tulare Ave. to Woodward Ave.
 Woodward Avenue: Eighth St. to Orange Ave.
 Orange Avenue: Woodward Ave. to California Ave.

The master plan also confirmed that the Gallo Winery facility at Clovis and Olive Avenue has a direct storm drain connection to the sewer system. The study recommended that this direct connection be removed to eliminate capacity impacts currently present in the downstream pipelines, including one within the CSESP area on McKenzie Avenue east of Chestnut Avenue. If the storm drain connection cannot be removed, further analysis will be required to determine capacity improvements for downstream pipelines.

No major sewer pipeline structural deficiencies were identified within the CSESP area.

UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 3
' I / 5c ~ I I
I I
----[lUJ I r'I
Beirne~
/
V/
T
.!;;
---- ====.i -- I
..... - -~ "-- 1
D I
I H - l
-..,..._ ~1=r ~ ,..___
- '----
I"\. ,__ - - 1-l L- - '---- o,,., -- - -
~ "n o,,ill
--, -- -
~I ' - Butler l--1 -1 , I \
- I-
" I ,---- l1 l e I : 0 ,__ ..... 4 I I I b I I I I I I
- I .
·-·
~---~
-,
' I I
I
-·---------.... I
I I I I I I I ·------ I I
- --------· I
I I ~ I c::::::::::i I-- -'-
~ ~ - - - - -
oI - --
~ ,, _ I>., ~~
~ l
" /
I -----i Ave I
Infrastructure- Wastewater
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
" 0 0.125 0.25 A 0.5 Miles
I
I ~ I
_, ~
I - ---- - , __ -
-
-
:::::=
-
'
:,,
-
I - ~- i
- ~
u1fg 1.7
~·P-
·~
5'
r-. HJ
Y l.i..ilr
I
I I
' y -f; r 0 & 1,-
I
- - I
-1..=-. II
--J··
·r-·1 ... I
~ . E -
!
~ · 1
_J 1
- I
- - ----..... - r -
LJ =Lj- r•-11 ·1- .. -
~ ·-
-
- - " - -~ ,__
rr - I 11Ld I
I
" _Li - r-
--r-i $ :

I II I
I
I
I "--------·
~ I~
~
dJ
T -
-~ tr ~ '
~
E
-
u:::

I'" f-[
Legend
wastewater Lift Stations
- Wastewater Pipes
C.:.cencral Southeast Plan Boundary
- BusRapitTransit
• Parks
UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 4
Sewer Improvements on Orange Avenue: Tulare Ave to Woodward Ave City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

PROJECT SHEET
Project:

Sewer Plat No.

Implementation Phase
Project Purpose:

C-5A
2759,2859
Phase 4 (2031-2035)
Replacement of Existing
Sewer Facilities
Project Location: Eighth Street between Ventura
Street and Woodward Avenue
Approximate Project Quantities:

Proposed Diameter: 42"
--'-
iii
.c
;::.
--r~r·
0 Alta A e.

Ventura Ave.
iii
,5
.,
Low Ave.

Liberty Ave.
-+
----'-"+-~-
Lyell Ave.
~ ..

Butler Ave. -.--+---- - I
Project Location Map
1" = 1,000'
- -----<
\Townsend
Orleans Av
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Project Benefit:

Project Vicinity Map
Notto Scale
Existing Customers: 83%
Future Development: 17%
Estimated Project Costs:
t
r
Estimated Construction Cost: $2,638,000.00
Estimated Contingencies Cost: $659,000.00
Estimated Management and Engineering Cost: $528,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost: $3,825,000.00
ENR CCI = 9,B35 (20 City Average, July 2014)
Project Sewer
Street
42" Proposed Pipe Diameter
,.. Existing Pipe Diameter
D,u.,;,19 . .0:\21J-OZ42\Sii11\[xitihils\P1<.Jfa,,<:/ Jobs\21J242-{C-!~.)ECA-4-Rc P/:.,f b·: dmo ill .iuf 1 I 201 4 - J·57. m
UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 5
Sewer Improvements on Woodward Ave: Eighth St to Orange Ave City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

PROJECT SHEET
Project:

Sewer Plat No.

Implementation Phase
Project Purpose:

C-5B
2759, 2859
Phase 4 (2031-2035)
Replacement of Existing
Sewer Facilities
Project Location : Woodward Avenue between
Eighth and Orange Avenues
Approximate Project Quantities:

Proposed Diameter: 42"
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Project Benefit:

Existing Customers: 83%
Future Development: 17%
Estimated Project Costs:

Estimated Construction Cost: $506,000.00
Estimated Contingencies Cost: $126,000.00
Estimated Management and Engineering Cost: $1 01 ,000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost: $733,000.00
ENR CCI = 9,835 (20 City Average, July 2014)
I Lyell Ave.

I Butler Ave, -
---' I ,__. ___,
t Tl Heaton Ave. 1
~ Orleans Av
j _j
~ ----.,;
_ Woor w rd
I I
I
Hamilton Ave.
"'Braly Ave.
in
42"
I
Project Location Map
1" = 1,000'
Woodward Ave.

Dwight Way
California Ave.
7 Project Vicinity Map
Notto Scale
Project Sewer
Street
42" Proposed Pipe Diameter
,.. Existing Pipe Diameter
Drar,,r;q, P:\213- 02-12\ 5..tc\[xfl,bits\ Projcc! .Jobs\2 IJ212_(t-58}£':ll-4-RffP:ot b· : d,-ri HI J!ll T1 2011 - J ·58 m UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 6
Sewer Improvements on Eighth Street: Woodward Ave to California Ave City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

PROJECT SHEET
Project: C-5C
Sewer Plat No. 2759,2859
Implementation Phase
Project Purpose:

Phase 4 (2031-2035)
Replacement of Existing
Sewer Facilities
Project Location: Orange Avenue between Woodward
and California Avenues
Approximate Project Quantities:

Proposed Diameter: 42"
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Project Benefit:

Existing Customers: 83%
Future Development: 17%
Estimated Project Costs:

Estimated Construction Cost:

Estimated Contingencies Cost:

Estimated Management and Engineering Cost:

Total Estimated Project Cost:
$537,000.00
$134,000.00
$107,000.00
$778,000.00
ENR CCI = 9,835 (20 City Average, July 2014)
Butler Ave.
, Heaton Ave. )
1 Orleans Ave.
- ---j _.;=----z!
5+-----'H-amiltonA~ 1>-
I ~ : ~ 1 .;; t: <e I r----r+----'
-i i iu ~ UJ Braly Ave.
~ g -=- l __ 1n Woodward Ave.

Woo, wal rd lAvr ·· Dwight Way
I . !;jll----,--r-~---,-----r..::c
California Ave.

Project Location Map
1" = 1,000'
,--
42"
,. ..

Project Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
Project Sewer
Street
Proposed Pipe Diameter
Existing Pipe Diameter
OrawifH!i. f':\71J - G7~7\ S:lo\t 11.h•bil~\l'.'OJOC{ JD9!:\/ 1J74:l_ (C- :,C)l CA- 4- .'li .' l'iof :, . dmo 1.'i J,,J P 7!JM - J ·!>9om
UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 7
Storm Drain
Storm drainage facilities within the Fresno‐Clovis Metropolitan area are planned, implemented, operated and maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). The storm drainage facilities are documented in the Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP), which is developed and updated by FMFCD. The stormwater system is shown in the map on the next page. The master plan drainage system for the Planning Area consists of over 130 individual drainage areas or urban watersheds. Drainage area boundaries are determined by geographic and topographic features and the economics of providing storm drainage service to the watershed. The storm drainage facilities within a drainage area consist of storm drain inlets, pipeline, retention basins, urban detention (water quality) basins, and storm water pump stations.

Surface grading improvements such as streets, curbs, gutters, and valley gutters are part of the City of Fresno infrastructure, but the general grading of these features is governed by the SDMP to provide a coherent implementation of drainage within the Planning Area. Storm drain inlets are located at low points in the topography as determined by the SDMP. Pipeline alignments and sizes are also shown on the SDMP. Pipeline alignments are subject to change as development proposals are put forward by development projects. Retention basins and urban detention basins locations and geometry are part of the SDMP as well. Basins are sited in the topographic low point of the drainage area. All of the storm drainage pipelines are directed to the retention and urban detention basins. Retention basins store and percolate storm water from the drainage area.

Urban detention basins provide quiescent (still) conditions for the removal or settling out of suspended solids prior to discharge of the storm water to the San Joaquin River.

Funding for storm drainage facilities occurs through the collection of drainage fees assessed on parcels as they develop, through grant funding from the State of California and the Federal Government, through low interest infrastructure improvement bonds, and in the past, through assessment districts. Drainage fees fund the majority of the construction of master plan facilities in newly developing areas. Grants, infrastructure loans, and assessment districts fund the majority of construction in previously developed drainage areas.

The only location within the CSESP area identified for storm drain improvements is  California Avenue – Between Cedar and Maple and the detention basin to the south (see map on page 9)
UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 8
I
I ·-----
I J ... J I
I
I
I
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----~
Infrastructure- Stormwater
Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan
A 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
Butler ve
Lan
I
!
r--------1 I =: I 3: I
I
I
,.. I ______ _
Legend
- Stormwater Existmg Pipes
- Stormwater Future Pipes
- Stormwater Design Pipes
C~Central Southeast Plan Boundary
- BusRapitTransit
• Parks
UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 9
Storm Drain Improvements on California Avenue between Cedar and Maple -~' )
-~!
0 z
!
, , ,i
;:c
Im
::c
X
w
I i
' I
I I I !
' I
! I
' I ;.._
UTILITIES Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 5- 10
Gas/Electrical – PG&E
The Planning Area is located within the Greater Fresno Area service territory. This service area interconnects to the bulk PG&E transmission system by 12 transmission circuits. They include nine 230 kV lines, three 500/230 kv electrical banks, and one 70 kV line. This transmission system connects to the Gates substation in the south. The Greater Fresno area generates approximately 3,987 Megawatts (MW) of electricity through thermo, hydro, solar, and biomass facilities. The largest electrical generating facility is the Helms Pumped Storage Plant that pumps water up and down between two reservoirs located at different elevations. This facility produces and stores up to 1,212 MW of electricity that represents approximately 30 percent of the electricity produced in the Greater Fresno area.

Based on electrical demand factors that were provided by PG&E, the residential demand is approximately 2,610 kWh per person per year and the nonresidential demand is approximately 7,503 kWh per employee per year.

PG&E’s natural gas system encompasses approximately 70,000 square miles in Northern and Central California. Approximately 90 percent of the natural gas supply for PG&E is from out‐of‐ state imports. The primary pipeline that extends through California includes Lines 400 and 401 consisting of 725 miles of 36‐inch and 42‐inch pipelines. These pipelines extend from the TransCanada’s system that originates in Canada and extends through Malin, Oregon. In addition, there is Line 300 that consists of 1,004 miles of 34‐inch pipeline that extends from four interstate pipelines through Topock, Arizona. The natural gas system includes various storage facilities and compressor stations along the transmission lines.

Based on natural gas demand factors that were provided by PG&E, residential demand is approximately 138 therms per person per year and the non‐residential demand is approximately 403 therms per employee per year.

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 1
Environment & Cultural
Prepared by First Carbon Solutions and City of Fresno
Introduction
This portion of the existing conditions report provides an overview of the environmental conditions in the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan (CSESP) project area. It discusses the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to cultural resources, air quality, GHG emissions, hazards & hazardous materials, and noise in Fresno to inform and support the CSESP process.

The primary purpose of the environmental analysis is to inform residents, stakeholders, and city staff on the issues that will be addressed in the CSESP and the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is designed to serve as background information and to support the development of the CSESP and EIR policies that will be investigated in more depth in the subsequent phases of the study process.

Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are buildings, objects, features, structures, or locations with historic or cultural value. Cultural resources typically include buildings or structures that are associated with an event or person that have contributed to the shaping or development of the city; objects, such as Native American artifacts discovered at a particular location or area of the city; or an archaeological, geological, or paleontological artifact, such as fossils. Specifically, cultural resources can be categorized in one of the following groups:

Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State's history and are generally less than 200 years old.

Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures. Archaeological resources are generally associated with indigenous cultures.

Paleontological Resources: Paleontology is the study of plant and animal fossils.

Burial Sites: Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains, usually associated with indigenous cultures, are interred.

Protection of cultural resources is important in maintaining the historic character of Fresno. The 2014 Fresno General Plan addresses cultural resources primarily in the Historic and Cultural Resources Element (Chapter 8) with policies and programs designed to preserve and protect these important features of the community. In addition, the City government strives to preserve the unique historic character of Fresno through the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and Local Register of Historic Resources (Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Article 16).

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 2
NRHP and CRHR Historic Resources and Historical
Landmarks
A total of 31 sites in Fresno and the immediate surrounding area are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. These sites include local landmarks such as the Old Fresno Water Tower (1894), the Thomas R. Meux Home (1889) and the streamline modern Tower Theatre (1939). All of the National Register sites are also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. An additional 4 State Historic Landmarks including Fresno Junior College (1895) are located within the City of Fresno. Only one site, California State Historical Landmark Temporary Detention Camps for Japanese American-Fresno Assembly Center is located within the plan area. This California Historical Landmark is located on the Fresno Fairgrounds. No other sites are located within the boundaries of the CSESP, however potentially eligible structures or properties may exist within the CSESP boundaries.

Fresno Historic Districts and Local Register of
Historic Resources
The City of Fresno currently has 4 official historic districts consisting of Chandler Field/Fresno Municipal Airport, Huntington Boulevard, The Porter Tract, and Wilson Island. At least 12 additional districts have been proposed or are under consideration within the downtown or Tower District area. No current or proposed historic districts are located within the CSESP.

The City also maintains a Local Register of Historic Resources that includes buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts that have sufficient integrity and are significant in Fresno’s history. As of January 2018, there were 272 individual properties on the Local Register, including the Fresno Buddhist Temple (1920), the Fresno City Hall Annex (1939) and the Helm Building (1914). In addition, the City also has a list of 13 "Heritage Properties." This category is used for properties that may not qualify for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or Local Register of Historic Resources, but that still are deserving of recognition and protection. None of these sites are located within the boundaries of the CSESP, however potentially eligible structures or properties may exist within the CSESP boundaries.

Considerations for the CSESP
From the extent of existing policies and practices to ensure the protection of historic and cultural resources, it is clear the City of Fresno places a high value on historic character and resources. Existing policies and regulations for historic resources have largely focused on designated Local and National Register properties and districts; however noteworthy structures, and potential historic districts, may exist within the CSESPas well. Examples include the Fresno County Fairgrounds, Fresno Pacific University and industrial facilities located in the southwest of the CSESP. Historic themes applicable to the CSESP area include railroad development, early residential development, ethnic communities, Late‐19th and Early 20th Century Commercial Development (1872–1945), Late‐ 19th and Early 20th Century Civic and Institutional Development (1872–1930), Industrial, Depression Era Civic and Institutional Development, Mid‐20th Century ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 3
Civic and Institutional Development (1945–1970), and Mid‐20th Century Commercial Development (1945–1970). Pursuant to General Plan Policy HCR‐2‐a, the city should continue to work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts within the CSESP and prepare nomination forms for Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National Registers, as appropriate.

While the area addressed by the the CSESP is largely comprised of residential track housing, large sections of undeveloped land are also present, and the possibility of finding prehistoric artifacts left by the Northern Valley Yokuts people when developing or redeveloping properties exists. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has characterized the City of Fresno as being “very sensitive” for potential impacts to Native American sacred sites and prehistoric deposits, particularly near waterways. Current and past waterways and their surrounding regions are considered especially sensitive for cultural resources, as indigenous people utilized these areas as permanent villages, temporary camps, and task specific sites. As such, it is recommended that requirements in the current General Plan for the protection of archaeological resources during the permitting process for proposed development projects be reiterated in the specific plan, with a focus on potentially sensitive areas within theCSESP.

As of July 1, 2015, a new category of resources has been established under CEQA called "tribal cultural resources" (TCRs) that considers tribal cultural values in addition to scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. As this law went into effect after the adoption of the City’s 2014 General Plan, the City may wish to incorporate policy pertaining to AB-52 compliance into the CSESP.

Air Quality
Air quality refers to the degree to which the air in our community is pollution-free. Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effect on air quality.

Air quality is influenced by the quantity of pollutants emitted into the air and by the concentration of pollutants in the air around us. Motor vehicles are the primary source of air pollution in Fresno and San Joaquin Valley (Valley) as a whole. Industrial activities such as electronics manufacturing, auto repair, dry cleaning, and other businesses that use chemicals or solvents also contribute to pollution levels. Additionally, particulate matter emitted into the air as a result of construction, grading activities, the use of wood-burning stoves and fireplaces, and smoke from wildfires locally, regionally and from hundreds of miles away can compound air quality issues. Also, most air entering the valley travels through the Bay Area, where it picks up pollutants.

Air pollutants are regulated to protect human health and for secondary effects such as visibility and building soiling. The Clean Air Act of 1970 tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with setting air quality standards. The State of California also sets air quality standards that are in some cases more stringent than federal standards and address additional ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 4
pollutants. The Air Resource Board (ARB) is the State agency responsible for setting air quality standards for California.

One of the most important reasons for air quality standards is the protection of those members of the population who are most sensitive to the adverse health effects of air pollution, termed “sensitive receptors.” The term sensitive receptors refer to specific population groups, as well as the land uses where individuals would reside for long periods. Commonly identified sensitive population groups are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. Commonly identified sensitive land uses would include facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants.

Residential dwellings, schools, parks, playgrounds, childcare centers, convalescent homes, and hospitals are examples of sensitive land uses.

The City of Fresno adopted the Fresno General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) on December 18, 2014.1 The Fresno General Plan addresses air quality in the Resource conservation and Resilience Element, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter with policies and programs designed to minimize air quality emissions to the extent feasible. The MEIR has an Air Quality section, a greenhouse Gas section, an appendix for Criteria Pollutant Modeling. Project impacts and mitigation measures are components of the Air Quality section.

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. Fresno is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Air Basin). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District covers the entirety of the Air Basin.

The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).

Meteorology and Climate
The SJVAB has an inland Mediterranean climate that is strongly influenced by the presence of mountain ranges. The mountain ranges to the west and south induce winter storms from the Pacific Ocean to release precipitation on the western slopes producing a partial rain shadow over the valley. In addition, the mountain ranges block the free circulation of air to the east, trapping stable air in the valley for extended periods during the cooler half of the year.

1 Fresno General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report. City of Fresno.

Adopted December 18, 2014. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/consolidatedGP.pdf.

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 5
Winter in the SJVAB is characterized as mild and fairly humid, while the summer is typically hot, dry, and cloudless. The climate is a result of the topography and the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. During the summer months, the Pacific highpressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water from below to the surface as a result of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. In winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms.

The annual temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind patterns reflect the topography of the SJVAB and the strength and location of the semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell.

Summer temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and clear sky conditions are favorable to ozone formation. Most of the precipitation in the valley occurs as rainfall during winter storms. The winds and unstable atmospheric conditions associated with the passage of winter storms result in periods of low air pollution and excellent visibility. However, between winter storms, high pressure and light winds lead to the creation of low-level temperature inversions and stable atmospheric conditions resulting in high carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations and particulate matter (PM) accumulation. The orientation of the wind flow pattern in the SJVAB is parallel to the valley and mountain ranges. Summer wind conditions promote the transport of ozone and precursors from the San Francisco Bay Area through the Carquinez Strait, a gap in the Coast Ranges, and low mountain passes such as Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass.

The climate is semi-arid, with an annual normal precipitation of approximately 14 inches.

Temperatures in the Fresno region range from a normal minimum of 38°F in January, to a normal maximum of 98°F in July. The wind is predominantly from the west-northwest at 9 miles per hour.

Air Pollutants of Concern
A substance in the air that can cause harm to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant. Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or man-made. Air pollutants of concern include:
 Ozone
 Carbon monoxide
 Nitrogen dioxide
 Sulfur dioxide
 Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and visibility reducing particles  Sulfates
 Lead
 Vinyl chloride
 Hydrogen sulfide
 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
 Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 6
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), also known as hazardous air pollutants, are another group of pollutants of concern. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, regulatory agencies have set thresholds below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.

The Fresno General Plan MEIR includes Table 5.3‐5 which provides advisory recommendations on siting new sensitive land uses near freeways, high traffic roads, distribution centers, rail yards, refineries, chrome platers, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities, as well as Table

5.3‐11 which may include high emitting toxic air contaminant stationary sources facilities located in the Plan Area
Odors
Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. The SJVAPCD has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These include wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, compositing facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, painting/coating operations (e.g. auto body shops), food processing facilities, feed lots/dairies, and rendering plants.

Screening distance for these odor generators is usually one mile, with wastewater treatment facilities and petroleum refineries having a greater screening distance of 2 miles.

According to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:

Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 7
Existing Air Quality Conditions
Existing Ambient Air Quality
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project area. The most recent published monitoring data (2014-2016) is from the FresnoGarland monitoring station (located approximately 2.6 miles north of the CSESP boundary). The data shows that during the past few years, the project area has exceeded the standards for ozone (state and national), PM10 (state), and PM2.5 (national). No recent monitoring data for Fresno County or the SJVAB was available for sulfur dioxide (SO2). Generally, no monitoring is conducted for pollutants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.

The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways. The clearest in comparison is to the state and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount the standard is exceeded. The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air.

Based on the AQI scale for the 8-hour ozone standard, Fresno experienced 154 days in the last 3 years that would be categorized as unhealthy (AQI 200), unhealthful for sensitive groups (AQI 150) or moderate (AQI 100) as measured at the Fresno-Garland monitoring station. The highest reading was 98 parts per billion (ppb) in 2015, more than the 85-ppb cutoff point for unhealthy for existing sensitive groups (AQI 150).

The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 35.4 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), which is exceeds the federal PM2.5 standard. The Fresno-Garland monitoring station nearest the project exceeded the standard on 70 days in the 3-year period spanning from 2014 to 2016.

People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.

Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. The AQI of 150 is classified as unhealthful for sensitive groups with a PM2.5 concentration of 55.4 µg/m3. At this concentration, there is increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and in the elderly. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should limit prolonged exertion. The highest concentration recorded in Fresno was 94.6 µg/m3 in 2014. At this concentration, increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly and increased respiratory effects in general population would occur. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should limit prolonged exertion when the AQI exceeds this level.

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 8
Local CO Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentration of CO, referred to as “CO hotspots.” The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO, which is 9.0 ppm (8-hr average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hr average). The Air Basin is in attainment of the state and federal standards, and this air quality monitoring station does not provide CO emission data. Existing Sources of TACs Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant impacts at the local level. The ARB Land Use Handbook recommends new sensitive land uses as follows:
 Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet for a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.

Existing TAC sources within the City of Fresno include stationary sources permitted by SJVAPCD, roadways with more than 10,000 annual average daily traffic, and highways or freeways.

SJVAPCD does not provide a screening level tool for existing stationary sources currently. There is no freeway or railroad located within 1,000 feet of the Specific Plan boundary.

Considerations for the Specific Plan
Air quality is a cumulative issue that crosses jurisdictional boundaries and requires regional collaboration and well as local initiatives. The Specific Plan should consider a range of strategies for improved air quality that includes regional collaboration and local actions such as steps to reduce traffic congestion and expand tree canopy.

When current traffic volume data is available, air quality modeling will be conducted to identify the presence or absence of CO hotspots and areas of elevated exposure to TACs in Fresno Specific Plan area and the Sphere of Influence. As needed, FCS will recommend strategies and actions to reduce associated impacts that can be incorporated into the Specific Plan.

GHG Emissions
A balance of naturally occurring gases dispersed in the atmosphere determines the earth’s climate by trapping infrared radiation (heat) in a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect.

Scientists have concluded that human activities are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, causing a rise in global average surface temperature and consequent global climate change. Pursuant to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the GHG pollutants of primary concern include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroflurocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 9
City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The City of Fresno adopted the Fresno General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) on December 18, 2014.2 The MEIR includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Plan) that provides the City’s primary strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from projected levels that would occur if no measures were implemented, referred to as the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. The intent of the GHG Plan is to achieve compliance with state GHG reduction mandates by focusing on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of growth and development on climate change. The GHG Plan does not reinvent the wheel; rather, it builds on the General Plan policies and implementation measures. Where needed, the GHG Plan provides more details to clarify and focus action and to ensure implementation.
3 The GHG Plan shows that the City will achieve a reduction of 26.8 percent from BAU by 2020 through compliance with regulations only, which exceeds the 21.7 percent required to show consistency with AB 32 targets. The local measures contained in the GHG Plan are expected to achieve an additional 3.0 percent reduction from BAU for a total reduction of 29.8 percent from BAU by 2020.

The GHG Plan includes criteria that would allow projects to qualify for permit streamlining provisions and incentives and would receive a less than significant finding for GHG impacts. For example, projects that meet the Fresno Green Checklist point totals receive the following incentives:
 25 percent fee reductions of many planning fees (Site Plans, CUPs, EAs etc.)  20 percent minor deviation from development standards, if needed (25% if public art is incorporated into the project)
 Expedited processing through the “Green Team”
 Eligibility for a Fresno Green award and use of the Fresno Green brand for the project.

Considerations for the Specific Plan
The Specific Plan should establish a policy to support the Fresno GHG Reduction Plan, which would inform and update the Priorities List for Implementation. The Specific Plan should monitor and evaluate the efficacy of current General Plan policies and the GHG Reduction Plan, with the focus on developing more effective implementation mechanisms. The first update should be completed to address changes in State law and the new 2030 statewide emissions target.

2 Fresno General Plan and Master environmental Impact Report. City of Fresno.

Adopted December 18, 2014. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/ sites/10/2016/11/consolidatedGP.pdf 3 Fresno General Plan. City of Fresno. Adopted December 18, 2014. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/ sites/10/2016/11/consolidatedGP.pdf.

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 10
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials generally refer to substances that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable, and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment. Hazardous materials are used in products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc.) and in the manufacturing of products (electronics, newspapers, plastic products, etc.). Hazardous materials can include petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of hazardous materials have a variety of causes, including highway incidents, warehouse fires, train derailments, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents.

Hazardous materials and wastes can pose a significant actual or potential hazard to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Many federal, state, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste are in place to prevent these unwanted consequences. These regulatory programs are designed to reduce the danger that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result of emergencies and disasters.

Hazardous Materials Sites
Standard Environmental Records Sources Review—Project Area Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions used the electronic database search company Envirosite Corporation to efficiently perform a records search of reasonably ascertainable environmental databases, including the standard state and federal sources, in accordance with ASTM standard of practice.

A copy of the Government Records Report search by Envirosite is provided in Appendix A (Envirosite 2017). A standard records search was conducted for the Project site using a standard 1-mile search radius, as measured from the Project site parcels associated with the Fresno Central Southeast Area Plan Area.

A search of the databases, using zip codes within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Fresno, found over 400 listings in the CSESP plan area. Review of the listings document retention of records of hazardous materials, underground storage tanks, business plan and hazardous waste generators, not necessarily indication of a release at the site. However after review, five sites of significance were identified. These sites are listed on Table HAZ-1.

Standard Environmental Records Sources Review—Off-site
Findings
A total of ten sites of significance were identified within the 1-mile search radius of the Fresno Central Southeast Area Plan Area. Five of these sites are located outside the Specific Plan ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 11
boundary, but within the 1-mile radius vicinity (shown in Table HAZ-2 and the map on the follow page).

The five sites were found to have a low, medium, or high potential for environmental impact to properties within the Fresno Central Southeast Area Plan Specific Plan boundary, based on the nature of the listing, the specific contaminants of concern, and current regulatory status with the relevant resource agency.

Criteria
The following criteria was used to determine the sites that are considered to have a low and/or no potential impact to the Project site: (1) no reported impacts to groundwater, (2) closure approval received from the lead regulatory agency, (3) relative distance from the Project site, and/or (4) identified as being cross-gradient or downgradient with respect to the local groundwater flow direction relative to the Project site. Alternatively, sites that are considered to have a medium to high potential impact on the Project site were determined to have one or more of the following characteristics: (1) they were reported to impact groundwater; (2) they are open regulatory cases; (3) they are in proximity of the Project site; and/or (4) they were identified as being up-gradient.

Groundwater in the vicinity of the Project site would be generally expected to follow local topography and flow towards the southwest. However, actual groundwater flow direction is often locally influenced by factors such as rainfall, geologic structure, seasonal fluctuations, soil and bedrock geology, production wells, and other factors beyond the scope of this report. The actual groundwater flow direction under the Project site can be accurately determined only by installing groundwater monitoring wells, which was beyond this scope of this report.

Table 1: List of Environmentally Significant Envirosite Sites in and near the Project Area
Environmentally Significant Site Address

1. Basic Training Center No.8/US Army
Corps of Engineers/Big Fresno Fair/21st
District Agricultural Association/ Fresno
Dodge Inc.
1121 S Chance Ave, Fresno, CA 93702

2. Jorgenson’s Battery 4740 E Kings Canyon Rd, Fresno, CA 93702

3. Butler And Cedar PCE Plume 4260 E Butler Ave, Fresno, CA 93702

4. Family Express Food & LIQUOR 4205 E Butler Ave, Fresno, CA 93702

5. Study Area “D” Alternate S. Chestnut Avenue/E. Mono Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 12
Environmentally Significant Site Address

6. Dry Cleaning Facility 4785 E Belmont Ave, Fresno, CA 93702

7. Team Enterprise/Commercial
Property/One Hour Martinizing
4794 E Belmont Ave, Fresno, CA
93702

8. PDM Steel Service Center 4005 E Church Ave, Fresno, CA 93725

9. South Fresno PCE Groundwater Plume 2376 S Railroad Ave, Fresno, CA 93721

10. South Fresno Regional Groundwater
Plumes
North of Church Avenue at South
East Avenue
ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 13

Un-mappable/Orphan Sites
Un-mapppable or orphan sites are regulated sites that have insufficient information to locate on a map. The Envirosite Government Records Report identified a total of 30 records that could potentially occur within the search radii of the Project site. Review of these sites determined that all 30 sites have a low potential to impact the Project site based on the previously presented criteria above.

Legend
0 Haz-1 - Sites within the Plan Area
@ Haz-2 - Sites within 1-mile of the Plan Area
□ Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 14
Considerations for Central Southeast Specific
Plan and Environmental Impact Report
The Central Southeast Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report should consider strategies to mitigate and manage risk from existing sites within the Project area as well as off-site properties in collaboration with other locally responsible agencies.

The City already requires developers to complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to determine the presence or likely presence of a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the property, based on reasonably available information about the property and the area in its vicinity. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.

Based on the status and regulatory review, it is recommended that redevelopment activities be avoided on the sites listed in Table HAZ-1. If one or more of the sites listed in Table HAZ-1 are of interest for future development, it is recommended that further consultation be conducted to confirm the regulatory status and level of remediation required to support the intended use.

If redevelopment is desired in proximity to properties listed in Table HAZ-2, it is recommended that evaluation of these sites also be undertaken to confirm the regulatory status, the potential for impact, and the need for further soil and/or groundwater investigation.

Noise
In an urban environment, noise is a part of everyday life. Excessive noise, however, is an annoyance and at elevated levels can even disrupt sleep, cause stress and tension, or interfere with other aspects of day-to-day life. As such, the adverse effects of noise on the community need to be considered during site planning in order to protect public health and the quality of life.

The Fresno General Plan, adopted December 2014, addresses noise primarily in the Noise and Safety Element with policies and programs designed to minimize excessive noise levels throughout the City. The Fresno Municipal Code addressed noise in Chapter 10, Article 1—Noise Regulations, providing rules and regulations related to noise in the City. This report describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to noise sources and the overall noise environment in the Fresno Central Southeast Area Plan area.

Noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, and local government agencies.

Existing Conditions
Environmental Setting
The City of Fresno contains multiple rail corridors, three airports, and four state highways, many major streets traversing it, and industrial facilities. The CSESP Plan area has one active rail line traversing its southern area, roughly along California Avenue; but does not contain any airports, major highways, or industrial facilities. There are multiple arterial roadways that serve the CSESP ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 15
Plan area, connecting the majority single-family residential areas to local commercial malls and the broader Fresno job centers.

Existing Noise Conditions
The Fresno General Plan measured existing conditions at nine locations (shown in Table 8) to serve as representation of typical residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as arterial roadways, elevated and below-grade freeways, and railroad crossings with and without train horn soundings.

Table 2: Measured Existing Noise Levels
Category
Noise Level
(dBA Ldn)
Railroad crossing at Shields Ave. 84
Along Railroad near W. Barstow Ave. 74
SR 41 between W. Barstow & W. Shaw Ave. 76
SR 180 near N. Peach Ave. 76
E. Shaw Ave. near N. Cedar Ave. 72
N. Blackstone Ave. near E. Ashlan Ave. 70
S. Elm Ave. near E. Jensen Ave. 68
N. Valentine Ave. between W. Ashlan & W. Holland Ave. 67 S. Fruit Ave. north of Church Ave. 65
Traffic Noise
Traffic noise is the number one contributor to noise levels in the City of Fresno, according to the General Plan. The noise levels depend on three factors:
 Volume of traffic;
 Speed of traffic;
 Number of trucks in the flow of traffic.

Vehicle noise includes noises produced by the engine, exhaust, tires, and wind generated by taller vehicles. Other factors that affect the perception of traffic noise include the distance from the highway, terrain, vegetation, and natural and structural obstacles. While tire noise from automobiles is generally located at ground level, truck noise sources can be located as high as 10 to 15 feet above the roadbed because of tall exhaust stacks and higher engines.

The General Plan projects a noise increase of between one to five decibels along existing roads; the Fresno Central Southeast Area Plan area is located along many current arterial and feeder roads.

ENVIRONMENTAL Existing Conditions Admin Draft
FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN | 6- 16
Railroad Operations Noise
There are railroad operations that occur within the Fresno Central Southeast Specific Plan area in the southern part of the Plan area, roughly along California Avenue. Per the Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element, where grade crossings exist, and warning horns and crossing alarms are signaled, individual single event noise levels associated with a train generally reach 105 dBA to 110 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the track centerline. Away from grade crossings, train pass-by noise levels are lower, typically 85 dBA to 90 dBA at a distance of 100 feet.

Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources can also have an effect on the population, and—unlike mobile, transportation-related noise sources—these sources generally have a more permanent consistent impact on people. These stationary noise sources involve a wide spectrum of uses and activities, including various industrial uses, commercial operations, school playgrounds, high school football games, HVAC units, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps. Even with incorporation of the best available noise control technology, noise emanating from industrial uses can be substantial and exceed local noise standards. These noise sources can be continuous and may contain tonal components that may be annoying to nearby receptors.

Considerations for Fresno Central Southeast Area
Plan
The principal sources of noise in the Fresno Central Southeast Specific Plan area are transportation-related. When current traffic volume data, specific to the Plan area is available, updated noise contours will be produced to characterize the current and projected noise environment in the community. On the basis of that data, Specific Plan will identify any areas where noise levels could exceed standards and recommend appropriate actions.

DEMOGRAPHIC

TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
TOTAL AREA PARKS/ 1,000 RESIDENTS

AGE OF POPULATION
30,624 people in CSE Fresno 9,150 in CSE Fresno
2,200 Acres in CSE Fresno 1.68 Acres in CSE Fresno

33.8%

9.1%

28.1%

11.6%

5.4% of Fresno City 4.7% of Fresno City

4.1% of Fresno City

1.06 Acres in Fresno City
CSE Fresno
CSE Fresno
Fresno City
Fresno City
18 & UNDER
65 & OVER

RACE / ETHNICITY
CSE Fresno
CSE Fresno CSE Fresno
Fresno City
Fresno City Fresno City

HOUSING
91,8% occupied 8.2% vacant 71% rent 29% own

93.1% occupied 7.9% vacant 51% rent 49% own

TOTAL OCCUPIED HOUSING RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING
WHERE ARE WE TODAY?
Black (13%) Black (7%)
Hispanic/Latino (63%) Hispanic/Latino (47%)
Asian (13%) Asian (13%)
American Indian and Alaska Native (1%) American Indian and Alaska Native (1%) White (8%) White (30%)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1%)
Other (1%)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1%)
Other (1%)

CENTRAL SOUTHEAST FRESNO
•••••••••• •••••••••• •••••••••• ••••••••••
•••••••••• •••••••• ■
■
■
■
■
•••••••••• • ••••••••• • • ••••••••• • ••••••••• • • • • ••••••••• • ••••••• ■ ■
■
■
■
-

EDUCATION

NOT HIGH SCHOOL GRAD COLLEGE DEGREE

47.82%
CSE Fresno

7.57%
CSE Fresno

14.59%
Fresno City

12.10%
Fresno City
INCOME + POVERTY
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME % IN POVERTY
CSE Fresno
CSE Fresno Fresno City
Fresno City

53.3% $23,562 $45,044 29.2%

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

OZONE RATIO

PESTICIDE USE

PARTICULATE MATTER
Total pounds of selected active pestcide
ingredients, lb/mile2
Amount of daily 8 hour maximum ozone
concentration over state standard
Annual mean PM 2.5 concentration, ug/m3

0.29 118.69 369.28

14.60 0.33 0.10
497.75

14.14 9.08
CSE Fresno Fresno City California
State
CSE Fresno CSE Fresno Fresno City California
State
Fresno City California
State
All census tracts in CSE Fresno are in the 75th percentile or higher of the pollution burden in the State.

HEALTH

ADULT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

CHILDREN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

OBESITY

HEALTH STATUS
% WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE
28%

24.1%

23.4%

19.2%

17.96%

19.3%
of adults in CSE Fresno
are obese
of adults in Fresno
City are obese
of adults in California
State are obese
ZIP codes
93702, 93725, 93727 ZIP codes
93702, 93725, 93727
ZIP codes
93702, 93725, 93727
CSE Fresno
Fresno City
California State
Fresno City
California State
Fresno City
California State
Fresno City
California State

39.1%

36.9%

25.8%
% of adults in fair or poor health % of adults who have walked for transportation or leisure for at least 150 minutes per week
% of children who engaged in at least 60 minutes
of physical activity daily in the past week,
excluding physical education

28.7%

20.3%

27.8%
33%
22%

20.7%

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH

ASTHMA EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS ASTHMA EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS per 10,000 residents per 10,000 residents per 10,000 residents per 10,000 residents 0 to 17 years 18+ years 0 to 17 years 18+ years

78.1 years 80.8 years
134.1 51.2 77.3 43.4

FRESNO COUNTY CALIFORNIA STATE

ASTHMA ER VISITS
100% census tracts in CSE Fresno are in the top 75th percentile for emergency room visits for Asthma compared to the state.
(Age-adjusted rate of emergency department (ED) visits for asthma per 10,000, 2007-2009)

ADDITIONAL HEALTH FACTS ABOUT CSE FRESNO

YEARS OF LIFE LOST
80% of the census tracts in CSE Fresno are in the top 75th percentile of years of life lost per capita compared to the State.

LOW BIRTH WEIGHT
50% of the census tracts in CSE Fresno are in the top 75th percentile of percent low birth weight compared to the State.

POLLUTION BURDEN
100% of the census tracts in CSE Fresno are in the top 75th percentile of Calenviroscreen 2.0 pollution burden percentile compared to the State.

HEALTH DISADVANTAGE INDEX
100% census tracts in CSE Fresno are in the top 75th percentile compared to the State. (Measured under the Health Priority Index 2016 based on four factors- pollution burden, years of potential life lost, per-term birth rate, and composite mortality index) CALENVIROSCREEN 2.0
100% census tracts in CSE Fresno are in the top 95th percentile of CalEnviroScreen Bureden compared to the State.
(CalEnviroScreen is a screening methodology that helps identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.)

MENTAL HEALTH

SERIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS MENTAL PROBLEMS
of adults in
the three ZIP
codes suffer
from serious
psychological
distress
of adults in the
three ZIP codes
needed help
for emotional/
mental or
alcohol/drug
problem in past
12 months
of adults
in Fresno
City suffer
from serious
psychological
distress
of adults in
Fresno City
needed help
for emotional/
mental or
alcohol/drug
problem in past
12 months
of adults in
Fresno City
needed help
for emotional/
mental or
alcohol/drug
problem in past
12 months

9.5% 9.9% 14.8% 17.1% 17.1%
of adults in
California
State suffer
from serious
psychological
distress

8.1%
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix B:

Prior Comments Received

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Capturing Stormwater since 1956
k:\letters\rezone letters\fresno\2023\23-02413(central southeast gpa-rezone)(dw).docx 5469 E. Olive Avenue • Fresno, CA 93727 • (559) 456-3292 • FAX (559) 456-3194 www.fresnofloodcontrol.org
File 310. “A”, “BF”, “GG”,
“II2”, “PP”, “Y”, “Z”
420.216
March 6, 2023
Jennifer Clark, Director, Planning and Development Department c/o Drew Wilson, Supervising Planner, Planning and Development Department City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Drew,
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment and Rezone P23-02413 for the
Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
Drainage Areas “A”, “BF”, “GG”, “II2”, “PP”, “Y”, “Z”
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has adopted storm drainage Master Plan systems for the areas located within the Central Southeast Specific Plan (Plan Area).

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

For areas that have existing drainage facilities and propose changes to land uses that generate more runoff than originally planned, some type of mitigation to accommodate the increased flow such as parallel pipes and/or on-site retention may be required. FMFCD has identified properties within the Plan Area that may require some form of mitigation (see attached Page 5, Exhibit 5 of the Plan Area).

The properties may either make improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may use some type of permanent peak reducing facility in order to eliminate adverse impacts on the existing system. Implementation of the mitigation measures may be deferred until the time of development. Should the properties choose to construct a permanent peak reducing facility, this system would be required to reduce runoff from a ten-year storm produced by the increased land use and release a two-year discharge which would be produced by FMFCD’s existing system design. The developer will be required to submit improvement plans to the District for review and approval showing the proposed method of mitigation prior to implementation. •
City of Fresno Planning & Development Department
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment and Rezone P23-02413 for the
Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
Drainage Areas “A”, “BF”, “GG”, “II2”, “PP”, “Y”, “Z”
March 6, 2023

k:\letters\rezone letters\fresno\2023\23-02413(central southeast gpa-rezone)(dw).docx FMFCD offers the following comments specific to the review of the Plan Area (the individual pages are included and the section or sentence has been highlighted for your reference):

1. Page 120, (iii): Revise first paragraph sentence [Therefore, runoff from the proposed project has already been anticipated by the General Plan and would not exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system.] to [Should runoff from the proposed project not previously anticipated by the General Plan exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system some form of mitigation will be required.]

2. Page 120, (iii): Revise second paragraph to remove “would” and “Maple” to “includes future” and “Chestnut”.

Add sentence: “A twenty-five foot (25’) wide storm drain easement shall be dedicated by APN’s 480-080-03 and 05 (along California Avenue west of Chestnut Avenue to FMFCD Basin) at such time development occurs for a future 36” storm drain pipeline.

No encroachments into the easement will be permitted including, but not limited to, foundations, roof overhangs, swimming pools, and trees.”

3. Page 168, Stormwater: Revise paragraph to remove “Maple” and include “Chestnut” and “future”.

Add sentence: “A twenty-five foot (25’) wide storm drain easement shall be dedicated by APN’s 480-080-03 and 05 (along California Avenue west of Chestnut Avenue to FMFCD Basin) at such time development occurs for a future 36” storm drain pipeline. No encroachments into the easement will be permitted including, but not limited to, foundations, roof overhangs, swimming pools, and trees.” The City of Fresno, FMFCD, the County of Fresno, the City of Clovis, and the California State University, Fresno are currently covered as Co-Permittees for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) discharges through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Order No. R5-2016-0040 and NPDES Permit No. CAS0085324 (Storm Water Permit) effective May 17, 2018. The previous Storm Water Permit adopted on May 31, 2013 required the adoption of Stormwater Quality Management Program (SWQMP) that describes the Storm Water Permit implementation actions and Co-Permittee responsibilities. That SWQMP was approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on April 17, 2015 and is effective until adoption of a new SWQMP, which is anticipated within the next two years.

City of Fresno Planning & Development Department
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment and Rezone P23-02413 for the
Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
Drainage Areas “A”, “BF”, “GG”, “II2”, “PP”, “Y”, “Z”
March 6, 2023

k:\letters\rezone letters\fresno\2023\23-02413(central southeast gpa-rezone)(dw).docx The Storm Water Permit requires that Co-Permittees update their CEQA process to incorporate procedures for considering potential stormwater quality impacts when preparing and reviewing CEQA documents. This requirement is found on Provision D.14 of the 2013 Storm Water Permit and in Section 7: Planning and Land Development Program – PLD 3 – Update CEQA Process.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Denise Wade
Master Plan and Special Projects Manager
DW/lrl
Attachments
~l_
Belmont Ave
--.
" E
ii:
'%,
"•-,,,, o"'
l
l
~"'
Ventura St
~~if.Qr~~~
~-6.: •o
~1>
<>1-"' Jensen Ave
i 0 0.125 0.25 0.5Mi1es
Tulare St
l
C.
~
IF ==w - ~ 0=-~
Legend
r~ CSESP Boundary
Land Use Designations
• Commercial - Community
• Commercial - General
• Mixed Use - Corridor Center
• Mixed-Use - Neighborhood
Employment - Office
• Employment - Light Industrial
• Employment - Heavy Industrial
• Railroad
Source: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan, April 2021.

FIRSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™ Q
50000002 • 10/2021 I S_Proposed Land Use Changes.cdr
'~ -L..
... ,
-1. . I
I
1-ic~
: : : Land Use Change Area
~: :: Proposed Land Use Changes outside
of Plan Area to be considered in the
South Central Specific Plan
• Open Space
• Park
- Public Facility
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
• Residential - Medium High Density
Residential - Medium Low Density
• Residential - Urban Neighborhood
CJ
" ;,
~
't,
... ~"\ o"'
l
,il "
'\
California A•
·················r : '1 i.:············;1
Ventura St
l
I
L--1
~%.,
~
Be!montAve r---1
I I -
. I
: .
:
. '- ..,, ll
1,
I
Potential Areas for
Mitigation as
identified by FMFCD ··utareSt ·-e:! \:!
I J_ I
I
I
I
I
I
~ l : i )1 ~ 4) 1
_ __ ___ Kin&!_C~onRd - ~
r- - - I ~AJRGROUNOS Lane Ave
11 ~I
Bl Butler - .
~
t
i
--... --e;- - !a.. .. i-w-- - -rrr •·-----; . I I ----1 ' • . . ' }·····: : i---: : : f I : I • I ~ --,
•• :_ - I •---' 1rr : : I
i ~ r•·-' : I
1 , II _ -:_·1 .... .L - _J - -- - -- -- - -1 - - tnuTchAve - - - - - - I
I
I _ _ _ __ _ _
.---~ !.--~
l
~
.. ~,,,, Jensen Ave
.. O 0125 025
Legend
r~ CSESP Boundary
Land Use Designations
• Commercial - Community
• Commercial - General
• Mixed Use - Corridor Center
• Mixed-Use • Neighborhood
Employment - Office
• Employment - Light Industrial
• Employment - Heavy Industrial
• Railroad
: :: Land Use Change Area
:: :: Proposed Land Use Changes outside
of Plan Area to be considered in the
South Central Specific Plan
• Open Space
• Park
- Public Facility
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
• Residential - Medium High Density
Residential - Medium Low Density
• Residential - Urban Neighborhood
Exhibit 5
Proposed Land Use Changes

RAIMI AND ASSOCIATES

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 120 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Regulatory mechanisms in place that would reduce the impacts of construction activities on drainage patterns that could result in flooding on or off the construction site include compliance with the City’s grading plan check process, the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, and the NPDES Construction General Permit. Discussion of these regulatory processes is included in the previous section’s discussion of erosion and siltation. Compliance with these required regulations would reduce the project construction impacts on drainage patterns and flooding on and off the construction site to less than significant levels.

Operationally, future development under the proposed project has the potential to increase the amount of paved, impervious surfaces within the Specific Plan Area. However, development proposed in the Specific Plan is less than what was contemplated by the General Plan and is therefore consistent with the stormwater rates and volumes anticipated in the General Plan.

Objective NS-3 and Policies NS-3-a, NS-3-b, NS-3-e, NS-3-h, NS-3-i of the approved General Plan were designed to reduce flooding impacts. Implementation of the grading plan check process, and compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that surface runoff and long-term project flooding impacts associated with alteration of grading patterns are less than significant. (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than significant impact. Continued implementation of the General Plan is projected to increase the impervious surface area within the City and its SOI. The proposed project would redevelop a number of vacant parcels to other uses. While the proposed project has the potential to increase impervious surface and as such, increase the amount of stormwater runoff, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Therefore, runoff from the proposed project has already been anticipated by the General Plan and would not exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system.

Additionally, the proposed project would include storm drain improvements in California Avenue between Cedar and Maple Avenues and the detention basin to the south of the Specific Plan Area.

Participation in the NPDES Permit process would reduce impacts to surface waters to acceptable levels, and long-term project impacts to surface or groundwater quality would not exceed acceptable levels. Continued implementation of the approved General Plan policies NS-3-a, NS-3-b, NS-3-e, NS-3-h, NS-3-I and POSS-6-b, along with preparation, implementation, and participation in the NPDES Permit process would reduce project-specific impacts on water quality associated with the significant increase in stormwater runoff. Additionally, Chapter 6, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting noncreate or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
While the proposed project has the potential to increase impervious surface and as such, increase the amount of stormwater runoff, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Therefore, runoff from the proposed project has already been anticipated by the General Plan and would not exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system.

Additionally, the proposed project would include storm drain improvements in California Avenue between Cedar and Maple Avenues and the detention basin to the south of the Specific Plan Area. includes future
FMFCD has identified Potential
Areas for mitigation within this
Plan Area.

Add sentence: A twenty-five foot (25') wide storm drain easement shall be dedicated by APN's 480-080-03 and 05 (along California Avenue west of Chestnut Avenue) at such time development occurs for a future 36" storm drain pipeline. No encroachments into the easement will be permitted including, but not limited to, foundations, roof overhangs, swimming pools, and trees.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 168 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Wastewater
As discussed above, the City’s WMD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the City, including the Specific Plan Area. The WMD manages and maintains approximately 1,600 miles of gravity sewer lines up to 84-inches in diameter, 15 active lift stations, and associated force mains.

Nearly all of the wastewater generated within the sewer service area is conveyed to the City’s RWRF for treatment. The City’s 2015 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (CSMP) Update identified 2015 wastewater flows and projected wastewater flows at General Plan buildout. In general, wastewater consists of Base Wastewater Flow (BWF) and Wet Weather Flow (WWF). BWF is flow generated by routine water usage in the residential, commercial, business and industrial sectors of the collection system. WWF includes stormwater inflow, trench infiltration, and wet weather ground water infiltration. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) is the highest observed hourly flow that occurs following the design storm event. The City’s BWF is projected to roughly double from 64.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 129.9 mgd by buildout, whereas the PWWF is projected to increase from 123.9 mgd to about 202.4 mgd by buildout (an increase of approximately 63 percent). Therefore, the City’s PWWF to BWF peaking factor is projected to decrease from roughly 1.93 to 1.56, which is relatively low for sanitary sewer collection systems.93 The CSMP Update concluded that, in general, the City’s existing collection system has sufficient capacity to convey current PWWFs without exceeding the established flow depth criterion. However, there are a few areas where capacity restrictions lead to flow depths that exceed allowable levels.

The 2015 CSMP Update identified improvements to address current and future deficiencies in the sewer collection system. The majority of improvements are driven by future development, which consist of new sewers that serve future growth or improvements to existing facilities that are needed to serve future growth. When fully implemented, the capital projects will allow the conveyance of PWWFs to the RWRF during buildout conditions The primary impact identified within the Plan Area was the Orange Avenue trunk sewer main. The needed capacity improvements consist of replacing approximately 6,050 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline with a new 42-inch diameter sewer on segments of 8th Street, Woodward Avenue, and Orange Avenue in the Plan Area. No major sewer pipeline structural deficiencies were identified within the Specific Plan Area.

The approved General Plan includes several policies to address wastewater generation and reduction of wastewater flows including PU-7-a, PU-7-b and PU-7-f. In addition, continual update of the Sewer System Management Plan and CSMP and capital improvement projects would serve to ensure that wastewater flows would be accommodated.94 The impact of future development on wastewater infrastructure would be assessed on an individual basis for specific projects. Additionally, because the proposed project contains less development than anticipated in the General Plan, the proposed project would not require the construction of additional wastewater facilities.

Stormwater
As previously discussed, the Specific Plan Area is within the FMFCD. According to the Specific Plan, California Avenue between Cedar and Maple Avenues and the detention basin to the south of the Plan Area have been identified for storm drain improvements. The FMFCD approved the 2016 93 City of Fresno. 2015. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. September. 94 City of Fresno. 2020. City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. March.

Stormwater
As previously discussed, the Specific Plan Area is within the FMFCD. According to the Specific Plan, California Avenue between Cedar and Maple Avenues and the detention basin to the south of the Plan Area have been identified for storm drain improvements. The FMFCD approved the 2016 I Chestnut
Add sentence: A twenty-five foot (25') wide storm drain easement shall be dedicated by APN's 480-080-03 and 05 (along California Avenue west of Chestnut Avenue) at such time development occurs for a future 36" storm drain pipeline. No encroachments into the easement will be permitted including, but not limited to, foundations, roof overhangs, swimming pools, and trees. ----------~
j:\environmental\swqmp implementation\7 planning and land development program\pld3 update to ceqa process\ceqa review guidance.docx

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

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

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

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

Development and redevelopment projects can result in discharge of pollutants to receiving waters. Pollutants of concern for a project site depend on the following factors:

Project location;
Land use and activities that have occurred on the project site in the past; Land use and activities that are likely to occur in the future; and Receiving water impairments.

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

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

Pesticides and herbicides Residential lawns and gardens, roadsides, utility right-ofways, commercial and industrial landscaped areas, soil wash-off
Organic materials/oxygen
demanding substances
Residential laws and gardens, commercial landscaping,
animal waste
Metals Automobiles, bridges, atmospheric deposition, industrial areas, soil erosion, metal surfaces, combustion processes Oil and grease, organics
associated with petroleum
Roads, driveways, parking lots, vehicle maintenance areas, gas stations, illicit dumping to storm drains, automobile emissions, and fats, oils, and grease from restaurants
Bacteria and viruses Lawns, roads, leaking sanitary sewer lines, sanitary sewer cross-connections, animal waste (domestic and wild),
septic systems, homeless encampments,
sediments/biofilms in storm drain system
Nutrients Landscape fertilizers, atmospheric deposition, automobile exhaust, soil erosion, animal waste, detergents
Source: Adapted from USEPA, 1999 (Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water BMPs) FMFCD’s Post-Development Standards Technical Manual provides guidance for implementing stormwater quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for drainage areas subject to the Policy, with the intention of improving water quality and mitigating potential water quality impacts from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The Post-Development Standards Technical Manual addresses the following objectives and goals:

Minimize impervious surfaces and directly connect impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment, and where feasible, to maximize on-site infiltration of stormwater runoff;
Implement pollution prevention methods supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment, and where practical, use strategies that control the sources of pollutants or constituents (i.e., where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of runoff and pollutants offsite and into MS4s;
Preserve, and where possible create or restore, areas that provide important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands, or buffer zones Limit disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems by development, including roads, highways, and bridges;
Identify and avoid development in areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss or establish guidance that protects areas from erosion and sediment loss; Implement source and structural controls as necessary and appropriate to protect downstream receiving water quality from increased pollutant loadings and flows (hydromodification concepts) from new development and significant redevelopment; •
•
•
•
•
•
j:\environmental\swqmp implementation\7 planning and land development program\pld3 update to ceqa process\ceqa review guidance.docx

Control the post-development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre-development downstream erosion and to protect downstream habitat; and
Consider integration of Low Impact Development (LID) principles into project design.

The Post-Development Standards Technical Manual describes the stormwater management requirements for Priority Projects, which are identified as meeting one or more of the following and discharge to the San Joaquin River or do not have basin service:

Home subdivisions of 10 housing units or more;
Commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet; Automotive repair shops;
Restaurants;
Parking lots 5,000 square feet or greater with 25 or more parking spaces and potentially exposed to urban runoff;
Streets and roads;
Retail gasoline outlets (RGOs); and
Significant redevelopment projects, which are developments that result in creation or addition of at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site.

Significant redevelopment includes, but is not limited to, expansion of a building footprint or addition or replacement of a structure, structural developing including an increase in gross floor area and/or exterior construction or remodeling, replacement of impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity, and land disturbing activities related with structural or impervious surfaces. Where significant redevelopment results in an increase of less than 50 percent of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing development and the existing development was not subject to Post-Construction Standards, only the proposed alteration must meet the requirements of the PostDevelopment Standards Technical Manual.

All Priority Projects must mitigate the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDV) or Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SWQDF) through LID- or treatment-based stormwater quality BMPs or a combination thereof.

For new development or significant redevelopment projects for restaurants with less than 5,000 square feet, the project applicant must meet all the requirements of the Post-Development Standards Technical Manual except for mitigating the SWQDV or SWQDF and implementing stormwater quality BMPs.

The Post-Development Standards Technical Manual can be found on FMFCD’s website here:
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Post-Development-StandardsTechnical-Manual.pdf •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
j:\environmental\swqmp implementation\7 planning and land development program\pld3 update to ceqa process\ceqa review guidance.docx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
February 23, 2023
Mr. Drew Wilson
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FRESNO CENTRAL

SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, CITY OF FRESNO, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA – DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2023 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2023020138)
Dear Mr. Wilson:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMND) for the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the SMND:

1. The SMND references the listing compiled in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly known as the Cortese List. Not all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous substances will be found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends that the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the SMND address actions to be taken for any sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous substances within the Project area, not just those found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends consulting with other agencies Yana Garcia
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Meredith Williams, Ph.D.

Director
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826-3200
Gavin Newsom
Governor
Mr. Drew Wilson
February 23, 2023

that may provide oversight to hazardous waste facilities or sites impacted with hazardous substances in order to determine a comprehensive listing of all sites impacted by hazardous waste or substances within the Project area. DTSC hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues can be found on DTSC’s EnviroStor data management system. The EnviroStor Map feature can be used to locate hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues for a county, city, or a specific address. A search within EnviroStor indicates that numerous hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues are present within the Project’s region.

2. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that project sites are safe for construction and the proposed use.

3. The SMND acknowledges the potential for historic or future activities on or near project sites to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The SMND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

4. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.

This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the SMND.

5. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and Mr. Drew Wilson
February 23, 2023

polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers. 6. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material. 7. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the SMND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision). DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the SMND. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely,
Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: (next page) t
Mr. Drew Wilson
February 23, 2023

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
From: Secrest Jr .. William <[email protected]> Sent on: Friday, Febrnruy 10, 2023 7:29:39 PM
To: Drew Wilson <[email protected]>
CC: Coletti. Karen <[email protected]>: Sophia Pagoulatos <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan - MND 30-day Public Conunent Period / Notice oflntent External Email: Use caution with links and attaclnnents Hello Mr. W ilson,
On behalf of the Fresno County Public Library, I've reviewed thie above-mentioned document with regard to cultural resource disturbances/impacts.

The section dealing with these issues is instructive and has been well-executed. Further, the mitigation measures out lined on pp. 84-86 are in keeping with established procedures under local, state and federal law s and regulations.

We would, of course, expect to be notified in the event of any cultural resource disruptions, but the mechanisms implemented in your report should allow for this in any instance.

All best,
Bill Secrest
Heritage Center
Fresno County Public Library

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS DIVISION
2220 Tulare Street, Sixth Floor / Fresno, California 93721 / Phone (559) 600-4497 / 600-4022 / 600-4540 / FAX 600-4200 The County of Fresno is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING
STEVEN E. WHITE, DIRECTOR
February 24, 2023
Drew Wilson Supervising Planner
Long Range Planning Division
City of Fresno
(559) 621-8087
SUBJECT: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan - MND 30-day Public Comment Period / Notice of Intent
Dear Drew Wilson:

The County of Fresno appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject project being reviewed by the City of Fresno. The documents received for this review were circulated to our various Fresno County Public Works and Planning divisions. Based on the County's initial review, we offer no comments from our divisions at this time.

If you have any questions regarding the information described in this letter, please contact me at [email protected] or (559) 600-4305.

Sincerely,
Raymond Martin. Staff Analyst
Development Services and Capital Projects Division
G:\4360Devs&Pln\PROJSEC\PROJDOCS\Environmental\OAR\City of Fresno\Central Southeast Area Specific Plan - MND 30\Central Southeast Area Specific Plan OAR Comment Response Letter.docx
County of Fresno
O LI VER W . W ANGER
TIMOT HY JONES*
MICHAELS. HELSLEY
RILEY C. W ALTER
PATR I CK D . TOOLE
SCOT T D . LAI R D
JOHN P . KINSEY
K URT F. VOT E
TROY T . EWELL
JAY A. CH R I STO FFERSON
MAR I SA L . BAL C H
A MANDA G . HEBESHA**
PETER M . JON E S t
STEVEN M. CRASSt
JEFFREY B . PAPEt
DEBORAH K . BOYETT
S T EVE N K. V O T E

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC

ATTORNEYS
265 E. RIVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720

M AILI NG A D DRE S S
P O ST OFFICE BOX 28340
F RESNO , C ALI F ORNIA 93729

TELE PH O NE
( 5 5 9) 2 3 3 - 4 8 0 0
FA X
(559) 2 3 3-9330
C L O VI S OFF I CE:
642 P ol l asky Aven u e
Suite 1 0 0
Clovis, C al i f o rnia 93612

O F FICE AD MINI S TR ATOR
L YN N M . H O FF MA N
NICOLAS R W riter's E - Mail Addres s : . CAR DE LLA
GIULIO A . SANC H EZ

DANI E LLE J , BE TH E L
BENJAM I N C . WEST
HUNTER C . C A STRO
STE PHANI E M . H OSMA N
RACHE L L . PO M BO
N A TH A N J. MARTI N
COLTE N D. BALLINGER
j kin s e y@wj ha tto r n e ys. com
A l so m1t ,d 1n ',' ll1 n
A l so dm I ll e d i n Id a h o
0 f Co \III S e l
VIA U.S. MAIL, E-MAIL, AND
PUBLIC RECORDS CENTER PORTAL:

Todd Stermer
City Clerk

CITY OF FRESNO
2600 Fresno Street, Room 2133
Fresno, CA 93 721
Todd. [email protected]
Drew Wilson
Long Range Planning
Planning & Development Department

CITY OF FRESNO
2600 Fresno Street, Suite 3065
Drew. [email protected]
W ebsi te ;
www. w j h attor n e ys . c o m
March 6, 2023
Sophia Pagoulatos
Long Range Planning
Planning & Development Department

CITY OF FRESNO
2600 Fresno Street, Suite 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Re: Public Records Act Request
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of my client, Donaghy Sales, Inc. ("Donaghy"), to make a request for records under the California Public Records Act ("PRA"), Government Code section 79200.000, et seq. (formerly Gov. Code, § 6250, et seq.). This request concerns the City of Fresno's pending Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("SMND") regarding the proposed Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan ("CSASP"). Relevant below, Donaghy owns the { 6260/004/01565043.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
March 6, 2023

real properties located at 2363 S. Cedar Avenue and 4455 E. Church Avenue (the "Donaghy Properties"), which are affected by the proposed CSASP.

For purposes of this request, all references to "City" shall refer to the City of Fresno, the Fresno City Council, and their employees, consultants, agents, independent contractors, or any other firm, agency, entity, person, or party acting in concert with or under their control.

All references to "communications" shall refer to any "public record," as defined by the PRA, constituting a communications, including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, voicemails, and any other form of communication constituting a "public record," regardless of whether stored on a public or personal device. (See City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 614.)
Subject to the foregoing, on behalf of Donaghy, I respectfully request copies of all "public records," as defined by Section 7920.530 of the Government Code, related to the CSASP, including:

1. All records related to the proposed CSASP's creation, including, but not limited to:
{ 6260/004/015 6504 3 .DOCX}
a. All records referenced or relied upon in any draft or final version of the proposed CSASP, or any decisions to carry out or approve the proposed CS ASP.
b. All staff reports or related records (including records referenced in such documents) the City prepared in connection with the proposed CSASP.
c. All audiotapes, transcripts, minutes, or notes of any public hearing or public meeting relating to the proposed CS ASP.
d. All records submitted by any person or entity to the City relating to the proposed CSASP.
e. All studies or technical reports related to the proposed CSASP. f. All notices issued by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Pub. Res. Code, § 21000, et seq.), or any other law governing the processing and approval of the proposed CSASP.
g. All proposed decisions or findings submitted to the City by its staff or consultants, or any other person or entity, related to the proposed CSASP.

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
March 6, 2023

h. All records referenced in any version of any findings considered by the City related to the proposed CS ASP.

1. All memoranda prepared or received by the City related to the proposed CSASP.

2. All records related to the City's consideration and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed CSASP.

3. All communications to and from the City regarding the proposed CS ASP.

4. All internal City communications regarding the proposed CSASP.

5. All communications to and from the City regarding the environmental review processes associated with the proposed CSASP as required by CEQA.

6. All notices issued by the City to landowners whose zomng 1s contemplated to be changed under the proposed CSASP.

7. All notices issued by the City to Donaghy regarding contemplated zoning changes to the Donaghy Properties under the proposed CSASP.

8. All records concerning the property located at 4455 E. Church Avenue, Fresno, CA 93725, including, but not limited to, all permits, approvals, authorizations, plans, findings, investigations, and/or reviews issued or performed in connection with the proposed CSASP, its preparation, and/or any development.

9. All records concerning the property located at 2363 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93725, including, but not limited to, all permits, approvals, authorizations, plans, findings, investigations, and/or reviews issued or performed in connection with the proposed CSASP, its preparation, and/or any development.

I hereby consent to electronic production of the records requested herein.

However, before producing the requested records electronically, please contact me to confirm a mutually agreeable method of electronic production. I am prepared to reimburse any costs of response to this request that are both reasonably necessary and authorized by law. If the costs are estimated to exceed $200, please provide me with an estimate of reimbursable costs prior to incurring such costs. Additionally, we request that this electronic production be conducted on a rolling basis, such that responsive records for each numbered request are produced as they become available.

If you determine that all or any part of the above requests do not constitute a request for reasonably identifiable public records, please contact my office so that clarifications { 6260/004/01565043.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
March 6, 2023
Page4
regarding the nature of the request can be resolved in accordance with Government Code section 7922.600. Should you determine that only part of the above requests do not constitute a request for reasonably identifiable public records, please promptly make available all requested records not affected by the need for additional clarification.

If you determine that some-but not all- information contained in any requested public record is exempt from disclosure, and you intend to withhold the exempt information, please redact the exempt information only and make the remainder of the record available.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact Hannah Wilhelm at [email protected] or (559) 233-4800.

Very truly yours,
1l.9t; ~ P.Kinsey
{ 6260/004/01565043.DOCX}
OLIVER W. WANGER
TIMOTHY JONE S*
MICHAELS. HELSLEY
R I LEY C. WA L TER
PATRICK D. TOOLE
SCOTT D. LAIRD
JOHN P. KINSEY
KURT F. VOTE
TROY T. EWELL

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC

ATTORNEYS
265 E. R IVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720

MA I LING AD DRESS
POST OFF I C E BOX 28340
F R ES NO, CALIFORN I A 93729
IDI
CLOVIS OFFI C E : JAY A. CHRISTOFFERSON
MARISA L. BALCH
AMANDA G. HEBESHA**
PETER M . JONES!
TE L EPHONE 642 Pol l as ky Aven u e
STE V E N M . CRASS!
JEFFREY B . PAPEt
DEBORAH K. BOYETT
STEVEN K . VOTE
NICOLAS R . CARDELLA
G IU LIO A. SANCH EZ
DANIELLE J . BETHEL
B E NJAMIN C . WEST
HUNTER C . CASTRO
STEPHAN I E M. HOSMAN
RACHEL L. POMBO
NAT HAN J. MARTIN
COLTEN D. BALLINGER
A ls o a dmil1 e d i n W a sh i n gton
A I s o ad m i 11 e d i n I d II h o
0 I Couns e l

VIA EMAIL & UNITED STATES MAIL
Drew Wilson
Long Range Planning
Planning & Development Department

CITY OF FRESNO
2600 Fresno Street, Suite 3065
Fresno, CA 93 721
Drew. [email protected]
(559) 233 - 4800 Suite 100
FAX
( 559) 233 - 9330
March 6, 2023
Sophia Pagoulatos
Long Range Planning
Planning & Development Department

CITY OF FRESNO
2600 Fresno Street, Suite 3065
Fresno, CA 93 721
[email protected]
C lovi s , Califor n i a 93612

OFF I CE A DMI N I S T RAT O R
LYNN M. HOFFMAN
Writer's E - Mail Address:
j kin sey@wj h attorneys. com
Website:
www . wj h attorneys. com
Re: Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Wilson and Ms. Pagoulatos:

Thank you the opportunity to provide comments on the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (the "IS/MND") for the proposed Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan (the "CSASP"). As you are aware, my law firm represents several landowners within the City of Fresno and the CSASP area, including Donaghy Sales, Inc. ("Donaghy"), which owns real property located at 2363 S. Cedar Avenue and 4455 E. Church Avenue (the "Donaghy Properties"). I am making these comments on their behalf.

In short, Donaghy strongly objects to any attempt by the City to downzone the Donaghy Properties to a non-industrial zoning district. Donaghy has invested significantly in both the City of Fresno and the Calwa community. It employs hundreds of Fresnans and provides significant contribution to the City's tax base. Its facility is a clean, state-of-the-art operation. And it has a {6260/004/01564180.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023
Page2
long track record of giving back to the Calwa community, including the development and construction of the Calwa community park adjacent to the Donaghy Properties. If Donaghy's facilities are converted to a legal non-conforming status, the value of the Donaghy Properties would crater, Donaghy would be unable to obtain financing required to electrify its fleet and related infrastructure, and Donaghy would generally be unable to modernize its operations. The City should decline to downzone the Donaghy Properties.

A. The IS/MND Should Be Recirculated for Public Comment As an initial matter, the City's website contains contradictory and confusing information regarding the public review period. (See Exhibit "A.") Specifically, the City's notice first states that "[t]he public comment period is from April 3, 2023, to March 6, 2023." (Id.) Elsewhere, the City's website states the "30-day comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is from February 3, 2023 - March 6, 2023." As such, the City's own documents are entirely unclear as to when comments are due.

I made inquiry to the City seeking to confirm the deadline for the submission of public comment. It took repeated attempts and well over a week to receive a response from the City. (See Exhibit "B.") Although the City's website refers to the end of the comment period beginning on April 3, 2023, the City responded that March 6, 2023, was the end of the public comment period. (See id.) I also note that the website was only recently corrected on March 3, 2023. Because this date is different than the notice provided on the City's website through March 2, 2023, 1 the City should at the very least extend the comment period on the IS/MND through April 3, 2023.

In addition, although the IS/MND appears to contemplate the potential rezoning of the Donaghy Properties, Donaghy was not provided notice of the potential downzoning of its property by the City of Fresno (the "City"). This appears to be a continuation of City staffs recent practice of not providing light industrial landowners with notice that their properties would be downzoned, akin to what occurred in connection with the Southwest Specific Plan in 2017. Donaghy was only recently made aware of the potential rezone by a third-party unaffiliated with the City. As a result of this, on February 21, 2023, and March 1, 2023, I made inquiries to City staff and the City Attorneys' office asking "what measures have been taken to inform property owners whose zoning may be changed of the CSASP process " (See Exhibit "B.") The City has not responded to this portion of the inquiry.

As a result of the foregoing, the City should provide actual notice to all landowners whose properties are at risk of being rezoned/downzoned, recirculate the IS/MND for another See https://www.fresno.gov/darm/p1anning-development/plans-projects-under-review/#tab-02 (visited March 2, 2023, and March 3, 2023).
{6260/004/01564180.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

30-day public comment period, and provide a clear date for the close of the public comment period.

B. The Project Description for the CSASP Is Unstable and Inconsistent Throughout the IS/MND and the Technical Reports
CEQA requires that an environmental document's project description, and the accompanying analysis, must be accurate and consistent throughout the environmental document. (See, e.g., County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 195; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 738; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730; Santiago Water Dist. v. County if Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 830; Christward Ministry v. County of San Diego (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 31, 45; Dusek v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (1986) 173 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1040.) AsexplainedinCountyofinyo:

A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against the environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. (County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-93.)
If the project description is curtailed or inconsistent, it prevents the IS/MND from serving as a vehicle for intelligent public participation in the decisionmaking process. An unstable project description may also signal that the lead agency is attempting to minimize the impacts of a project by not discussing its reasonably foreseeable effects. (See, e.g., San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655.) As a result, California courts have long recognized that "[a]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the Sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient" environmental document. (County of Inyo , supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 193, italics added.)
As an initial matter, the IS/MND is entirely unclear about the actual size of the CSASP area. The document and the technical reports include several values for the size of the CSASP, ranging from 1,770 acres to as many as 2,200 acres. Specifically:
• Page 1 of the IS/MND states that "[t]he Specific Plan Area is approximately 2,200 acres just east and southeast of Downtown Fresno .... " (IS/MND at 1.) The same value appears on page 123 of the IS/MND; Appendix B.2 - Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, (see Appendix B.2 at 1), and the City's website. (See Exhibit "A.") { 6260/004/015 64180 .DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

• The values in Table 5 on page 50 of the IS/MND add up to 2,168.34 acres. (IS/MND at 50, Table 5.) The same value is used in Exhibit 6 of the IS/MND.
• Table 1 of the IS/MND states the CSASP area includes 1,792.5 acres. (IS/MND at 3, Table 1.)
• Table 2 of the IS/MND states the CSASP area includes 1,770 acres. (IS/MND at 6-7, Table 2.)
Throughout the IS/MND, it is also entirely unclear whether the Donaghy Properties are within or outside the CSASP area. For example:
• Exhibit 6 of the IS/MND includes the Donaghy Properties as being part of the CSASP. Similarly, the boundary of the CSASP denoted in Appendix A.1 - Records Map Search, includes the Donaghy Properties. • Exhibits 3, 8, 9, and 10 do not include the Donaghy Properties within the plan area. (IS/MND, Exhibits 3, 8, 9, 10.) Similarly, Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix B.2 - Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis do not include the Donaghy Properties. (See Appendix B.2, Figures 1, 2.)
• The Donaghy Properties appear to be outside the CSASP area in Exhibits 4 and 5, although the maps are somewhat ambiguous. (IS/MND, Exhibits 4, 5.)
• As noted above, many of the references in the IS/MND state the CSASP area is 2,200 acres, suggesting the Donaghy Properties are, in fact, included in the CSASP area. (See, e.g., IS/MND at 1, 123; id., Appendix B.2 at 1; see also Exhibit "A.")
• The "Environmental Setting" in the IS/MND notes that the CSASP area includes "industrial facilities," (IS/MND at 2), suggesting the Donaghy Properties are within the plan area. Similarly, Table 1 of the IS/MND suggests that the CSASP currently includes 56.2 acres of land designated Heavy Industrial and 9 .3 acres designates Light Industrial. (IS/MND at 3, Table 1.) The IS/MND also states that "[t]he southern portion of the Specific Plan Area around California A venue is dominated by heavy and light industrial facilities." (IS/MND at 3.) This all suggests the Donaghy Properties are within the CSASP area.
{ 6260/004/015 64180 .DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

• Pages 42 and 45 of the IS/MND discuss mitigation for future industrial developments, even though the CSASP seeks to write all industrial land uses out of the CSASP area, and the industrial properties-such as the Donaghy Properties-are fully built-out.

Further, the IS/MND is styled as a "subsequent" IS/MND, but lacks any reference to an initial IS/MND or any other document the IS/MND purports to tier-off of. This renders the project description, and the entire scope of the IS/MND, entirely unclear and confusing.

In short, the varying descriptions of the CSASP in the IS/MND are contradictory and confusing. One cannot even ascertain what the boundary of the CSASP is, much less whether the Donaghy Properties are actually included within the CSASP boundary. As a result, the IS/MND violates CEQA on its face for failing to include a stable and accurate project description.

C. The CSASP's Elimination of Industrial and Employment-Generating Land Uses is Part of a Larger Effort by the City of Fresno to Downzone Industrial Properties that Should Be Addressed as a Whole In addition to Donaghy's specific concerns regarding the Donaghy Properties, it should also be noted that the CSASP seeks to change the zoning and land use designations for properties that are already developed and operating. These landowners have invested-and continue to invest-millions of dollars in the City, provide employment to hundreds of Fresno residents, and contribute significantly to the City's tax base. They likewise serve as significant bases of employment.

Even with the legal non-conforming use provisions of the City's Development Code, the downzoning of industrial properties used by existing businesses has the potential to wipe out over 50% of the value of those properties, cause loan defaults, and jeopardize the ability of landowners to further invest in the City by upgrading their facilities. This is of particular concern to Donaghy, which has provided significant investment in the City, including the development and construction of the park adjacent to its facilities.

The legal non-conforming use provisions are also of concern because Donaghy leases some of its space to third-parties, including portions of its facility that were recently vacated by Amazon. If the City rezones this property, and Donaghy is unable to re-let the space within time limits provided under the legal non-conforming use provisions, the building could use its legal non-conforming status. In addition, the legal non-conforming use provisions only allow inconsistent uses that are identical to a prior use, thereby limiting the number of type of potential tenants to which Donaghy could lease the structure.
{ 6260/004/01 564180 .DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023
Page6
There is likewise significant concern regarding the proposed reduction in industrial land uses within the CSASP area compared to the General Plan, diminishing the opportunity for further economic development within the City. This is particularly true given that all of the City's recent plan documents seek to either remove or reduce industrially-zoned properties within the City. For example, as you are aware, the 2017 Southwest Specific Plan ("SWSP") eliminated all industrially-zoned property from the plan area. Likewise, the City's Proposed Plan map for the South Central Specific Plan (SCSP) seeks to significantly reduce the amount of industrially-zoned land compared to the General Plan.2 In addition, with the exception of three small properties with existing businesses, the proposed land use map for the West Area Specific Plan does not contemplate any industrial zoned properties.3 And the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan includes no proposed industrially-zoned properties. 4 And aside from a small handful of properties along the S.R. 180 corridor in West Fresno, along Golden State Boulevard in Northwest Fresno, and within the Palm Bluffs area, there are no undeveloped industrial-zoned properties elsewhere in the City. In short, there is currently little room for industrial growth or expansion within the City's jurisdictional boundaries, which will ultimately inhibit further investment in the City, and result in new and existing employers locating to other nearby communities, many outside Fresno County.

The City's failure to assess these efforts results in the piecemealing/segmentation of environmental review. The failure to adequately describe a project, or provide sufficient detail, results in the improper piecemealing or segmentation of environmental review. As explained above, the downzoning of the Donaghy Properties (and others within the CSASP area) is part of a larger effort by the City and others to eliminate and/or reduce industrially-zoned properties throughout the City. So the City can understand the negative effects associated with eliminating industrial/employment-generating zoning, this effort should be addressed at a systematic, Citywide level. Without doing so, the City is essentially piecemealing environmental review by failing to evaluate the "whole of an action." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378.) As such, before the City continues to consider the downzoning of existing industrial businesses, the City should evaluate the potential impacts of those actions as a whole.

D. An Environmental Impact Report is Required for the CSASP

1. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Effects on the Environment and, As Such, the County Must Prepare an EIR
Because the CSASP would downzone existing, clean light industrial properties, the CSASP should be denied on the merits. But even if the City were to consider the CSASP as 2 4
https :/ /www. fresno. gov/ darm/wp-content/up loads/sites/ 10/2 023/02/2 B !ended-Proposed-PLU. pdf https:/ /www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 10/2022/04/ Appendix-A-Maps.pdf https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/ I 0/2022/03/SEDA-Landuse-Map. pdf { 6260/004/01564180.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

currently formulated, the IS/MND is not the appropriate vehicle to evaluate the CSASP's potential environmental effects under CEQA. Rather, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, as there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that there are significant impacts from the CSASP, and those impacts could be cumulatively considerable.

Prior to considering any "project" under CEQA, a lead agency must first determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR for the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063.) The lead agency makes this determination based on the "fair argument" standard. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(±)(1).) As explained by the Supreme Court:
[S]ince the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of that act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.
(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) The Supreme Court has explained that even in "close and doubtful cases," an EIR should always be prepared to ensure "the Legislature's objective of ensuring that environmental protection serve as the guiding criterion in agency decisions." (Id. at 84; see also Pub. Res.

Code, § 21101, subd. (d).) Many courts have stated that the "EIR is the heart of CEQA. The report .. . may be viewed as an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 438, quoting County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810, emphasis added.) The CEQA Guidelines set forth the "fair argument" test used to evaluate whether an EIR is required:

If the lead agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR. Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(±)(1), internal citations omitted; see also Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (d).)
{ 6260/004/01564180.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

Moreover, an agency's failure to gather or analyze information on a project's impacts can expand the scope of the fair argument standard necessitating the preparation of an EIR. (See, e.g., Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 ["CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public," and a lead agency "should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather data."].) Accordingly, if any commenting party makes a fair argument that the CSASP's environmental impacts "may have a significant effect on the environment," the County must prepare an EIR, even if other substantial evidence supports the argument that adverse environmental effects will not occur. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(g)(l); see also Sierra Club v.

County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316 ["[i]f there is substantial evidence of such an impact, contrary evidence is not adequate to support a decision to dispense with an EIR."].) Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that an EIR is necessary:

Aesthetics/Urban Decay. The potential for a project to cause "urban decay" is an environmental impact that must be addressed under CEQA. Urban decay refers to the widespread physical deterioration of properties or structures in an area caused by business closures and multiple long-term vacancies. The CSASP and related planning endeavors by the City have the strong potential to result in urban decay.

At the hearing on the IS/MND and the proposed CS ASP, real estate experts will testify that when an industrial property becomes a legal non-conforming use, it can have a large number of serious effects. First, the value of the property will decline substantially, oftentimes causing the property to lose over half its value. This loss of value not only effects the property at issue, but lessens the value of surrounding properties. Moreover, legal non-conforming status can jeopardize the ability of the landowner and/or tenant to receive financing for capital improvements, which can in tum jeopardize the ability to upgrade to electrification and other clean infrastructure. Downzoning can likewise frustrate the ability to sell or re-lease the property to new tenants. And long periods of no tenancy or occupation can cause a use to lose its legal non-conforming status. Vacant industrial properties, in tum, become eyesores, attract graffiti and litter, and attract squatters.

As explained above, the City is currently engaged in numerous planning endeavors that would both reduce the amount of industrially-zoned properties in the City, as well as downzoning industrial properties with active industrial uses. This citywide downzoning has the strong potential to create adverse physical conditions in surrounding neighborhoods, leaving large swaths of vacant former industrial areas across the City. This has the potential-indeed, the likelihood-of resulting in visible symptoms of physical deterioration, such as boarded windows and doors, extensive graffiti, dumping of refuse onsite, overturned dumpsters, dead trees and shrubbery, lack of building maintenance, squatters and encampments, and unsightly and dilapidated fencing. Before it continues to downzone even more industrial properties, the { 6260/004/01564180.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

City should evaluate the potential for its policies to cause urban decay, and adopt mitigation to ensure these acts of downzoning will not create adverse physical environmental effects.

Transportation/Vehicle Miles Traveled. The City's General Plan and zoning code refer to industrial facilities as "employment" uses. This is because they provide a local employment center for area residents. The CSASP, however, seeks to erode the viability of employment centers by downzoning existing industrial businesses, such as the Donaghy Properties. If a light industrial landowner, such as Donaghy, is forced to relocate due to the downzoning of its properties, there are few, if any, viable development properties within the City and nearby Fresno County. Moreover, NIMBYism and the local legal and political environment have created conditions where development of new industrial uses in either the City or nearby County areas is virtually impossible.5 As such, the City's practice of downzoning existing industrial properties will increase the pressure on local industrial businesses to move elsewhere, likely many miles beyond the City's jurisdictional boundaries. It is perhaps no surprise that new light industrial development is proliferating in Tulare County and Madera County at a time when such development has stagnated in the City. The unintended consequences of the City's planning policies will be industrial landowners continuing to locate their businesses outside the City, resulting in far longer commutes for Fresno residents, vastly increasing vehicle miles traveled.

Air Quality/Climate Change. Air quality and climate change impacts generally correspond with vehicle miles traveled. As explained above, the CSASP will, at both a project level and cumulatively, contribute to increases in vehicle miles traveled by promoting the closure and relocation of existing industrial land uses. The City should evaluate the potential air quality and climate change impacts of these planning decisions.

Agricultural Impacts. Because the City's actions at a project and cumulative level seek to eliminate existing industrial uses and zoning in the City, pressure will be placed on outlying communities, including land currently used as farmland, to develop new environmental land uses to meet industrial demand. The IS/MND is inadequate because it does not address these potential effects.

A few examples include:
https://leadershipcounsel.org/city-of-fresno-remove-light-industrial-zoning-in-the-proposed-planamendment/ https :// gvwire. com/202 3/02/0 I /fresno-coca-co la-warehouse-project-faces-opposition/ https ://fresnoland. org/2022/ l 0/ 12/attorney-genera 1-bonta-urges-fresno-c ity-counci I-to-deny-southwestindustrial-rezone/ https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/sb 1000-letter-fresno-county.pdf https :/ /www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article267225262 .htm I https://www.kvpr.org/govemment-po I itics/2018-0 1-23/more-jobs-or-more-pollution-plan-for-newindustrial-park-in-fresno-draws-opposition { 6260/004/01564180.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

Impacts to Public Utilities/Public Services. Industrial land uses contribute significantly to the local tax base, as confirmed by the City's 2022 budget.6 These tax revenues help fund a wide range of public services, including police, fire, parks, and public works. The City of course cannot provide these services without tax revenue. Despite this, the City is engaged in the systematic downzoning of industrial properties, including existing businesses. This creates a risk that existing uses will go out of business, and that they will no longer contribute to the City's tax base. These consequences would have a commensurate impact on the City's ability to raise revenues for essential services. Despite this, there is no discussion in the IS/MND about how the City's proposed actions of downzoning or eliminating industrially zoned properties within the City would adversely impact the City's ability to provide public services.

E. The Downzoning of the Donaghy Properties Would Interfere with Donaghy's Constitutional Rights
The Downzoning Would Result in a Regulatory Taking. The Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits governmental takings of private property for public use without just compensation. (U.S. Const., amend. V; see also Cal Const., Art. I, § 19.) This includes what is known as a "regulatory taking." (Allegretti & Co. v. County of Imperial (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1270 ['"government regulation of private property may, in some instances, be so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster'"], quoting Lingle v. Chevron US.A. Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 537.) Regulatory takings are analyzed under the Penn Central framework. (Id.)
Under the Penn Central framework, "[t]here is no set formula but several factors have particular significance." (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 261.) "Primary among those factors are the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations." (Id.) "In addition, the character of the governmental action-for instance whether it amounts to a physical invasion or instead merely affects property interests through some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good-may be relevant in discerning whether a taking has occurred." (Id.) There will be a severe economic impact here. The mere downzoning of a light industrial property can cause the property to lose half its value. It can frustrate the ability of a landowner to receive financing, attract new tenants, engage in new uses, or expand its operations. The only way to avoid this effect is to allow the Donaghy Properties to keep their industrial zoning.

Procedural and Substantive Due Process. As a member of the public, Donaghy has the right to be free from arbitrary and discriminatory decision-making. (Ross v. City of Yorba Linda https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article26396718 l .html https://www.fresno.gov/finance/wp-content/uploads/sites/ l l /2022/05/FY2023 ProposedB udget-1 .pdf {6260/004/01564180.DOCX}
WANGER .JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

(1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 960.) Likewise, Donaghy is entitled to receive notice of relevant actions by the City. (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 607.) Due process rights can also be violated by repeated project denials and procedural errors in the approval process, (Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 561), or through the failure to provide a fair hearing. (Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 90.) Donaghy has been denied due process rights for several reasons, including the City's failure to provide it with notice of the rezone, the confusing information on the City's website, the inadequate project description that makes it unclear whether the Donaghy Properties are part of the CSASP, and the City's general efforts to undermine the investments of industrial landowners throughout the City by systematically downzoning industrial property without notice.

Equal Protection. Donaghy is also protected by the equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, which prohibit a state (including a state agency) from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In land use decisions, a violation of equal protection often exists where similarly situated property is treated differently, (see, e.g., Carpenteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara (9th Cir. 2003) 344 F.3d 822, 831; Herrington v. County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 1488, 1501), and there is no reasonable basis for the difference in treatment. (See, e.g., Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg (9th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 936, 944; see also Gerhart v. Lake County Montana (9th Cir. 2011) 637 F.3d 1013, 1022.) The same basic requirements apply equally under state constitutional law. (Walgreen Co. v. City & County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424, 428; Stubblefield Constr. Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 713.) Equal protection principles are also often implicated when a local government agency deviates from its own rules. (See, e.g., Genesis Env 't Servs. v. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dist. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 597, 607.) Specifically, the City has declined to include industrial landowners such as Donaghy in public workshops, steering committees, and topic groups. At the same time, the City continues to stress public outreach and direct engagement of other persons and entities. There is no rational basis for the City declining to include industrial representatives in public workshops, steering committees, and topic groups.

Ill
I II
Ill
Ill
I I I
Ill
{ 6260/004/01564180.DOCX}

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Drew Wilson
Sophia Pagoulatos
March 6, 2023

F. Conclusion
For each of the foregoing reasons, the City should not adopt the IS/MND for the CSASP, and should decline to approve the CSASP as currently formulated. Although Donaghy believes the CSASP should fail on its own merits, it may not be approved unless the City prepares a full environmental impact report to fully evaluate its numerous potentially significant effects, and to fully mitigate each of those negative environmental effects. cc: Mayor Jerry Dyer (via email)
Councilmember Luis Chavez (via email)
Enclosures
{ 6260/004/015 64180. DOCX}
EXHIBIT "A"
... t.i) 0 @ 559.621.CITY 559.627-2489 ~ G\.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES DOI NG BUSINESS COMMUNITY
DEPARTMENTS I WANT TO ...

Planning and Development
Current Planning
It I Current Planning_ / Plans & Projects Under Review
Plans & Projects Under Review
The City of Fresno makes every effort to encourage public participation, while simultaneously informing the pub lic of projects that are under review. The following is a list of projects currently under review and reports prepared on behalf of t he City.

SB 743-Vehicle Miles Traveled Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Producer's Dairy Rendering Plant Relocation Project West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Farmland Preservation Program Sout h Centra l Specific Plan (SCSP) Program Environmental Im pact Report for the City of Fresno General Plan Amendment No. Pl9- 04226
Cannabis Elm Avenue Revitalization Strategy Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant Vesting Tent ative Tract Map No. 6360 Tapestry Ill Tract 6795 (FEIR) Costco Commercial Center South Central Commu nity Benefits Fund Kings Canyon Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Connectivity Study Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Mixed Use Text Amendment Scannell Properties Office/Warehouse Project
Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Public Draft Environmental Assessment The Public Draft of the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan was completed in 2027 and the associated Environmental Assessment is now ready for Public Review. The public comment period is from February 3, 2023, to March 6, 2023. The Environmental Assessment can be downloaded below in the Project Document Section. The Specific Plan and Environmental Assessment is tentatively scheduled to be considered by Planning Commission and City Council in April and May 2023.

How to Comment
Send via email to [email protected] and [email protected] or mail to:

Long-Range Planning
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Help us reimagine Central Southeast Fresno!
The City of Fresno is embarking on a new and exciting project - the creation of a Specific Plan for the Central Southeast Area. The Central Southeast Specific Plan will be a long-range planning document that provides a vision for growth and development in the community over the next 20- to 30-years. The Specific Plan will address a wide range of topics that impact the quality of life in the community.

These include affordable housing,jobs and economic development, transportation, parks and open space, and a healthy environment. The Plan will include a vision, policies and if needed, development standards that will balance new development and preservation of the existing community identity.

Project Area
:c.
--· ~ lf't' {t
Ir "4 ·--
·- le
--
iJ.U ~- -· ..... ........
- - · - r -
- -- - -- !1
~
·-· -· ·-- - - ·~---· ......
-- - ti
-- f t• fi
,,
--.. l1 P<J.lh Jf~ .... ,..,... 'I-"?. -
•t
CSEASP Project Area
The Central Southeast Specific Plan area covers over 2,200 acres (3.4 square miles) just east and southeast of downtown, bounded by Belmont Ave to the north, S Orange Ave to the west, E Church Ave to the south, and S Peach Ave to the east. This diverse area is characterized by a mix of suburban housing developments, industrial uses, public facilities, and vacant land.

Why is the Specific Plan important?
The Central Southeast Specific Plan offers a special opportunity to help shape the future of southeast Fresno - including the area's economic vitality, transportation network, parks, and neighborhood character. Based on feedback from the community and elected officials, the area could benefit from infrastructure and mobility improvements, increased access to parks and open space, development of vacant lots, and recommendations to revitalize key commercial corridors such as Ventura/Kings Canyon Rd. The Specific Plan w ill help:
• Shape the places we live, work, shop, and play
• Guide the public services, infrastructure, and investments in the area • Guide the types and forms of new development in Southeast Fresno • Establish clear priorities to better guide investment Who do I contact for more information?
For more information call Drew Wilson at the City of Fresno drew.wi [email protected] or call .(559) 621-8087.

Project Documents
The 30-day comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is from February 3, 2023 - March 6, 2023
@ Subseguent Mitigated Negative Declaration for Central Southeast Area SQecific Plan
@ Notice of Intent to File Mitigated Negative Declaration @ Mitigated Negative Declaration-Public Review Draft
@ Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Program Environmental lmQact ReQort for General Plan Amendment Pl9-04226 !El Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan UQdate (2021)
!El Central Southeast Area SQecific Plan - Public Review Draft @ Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Existing Conditions ReQort @ Project Summar:1-
@ Factsheet
@ Central Southeast SQecific Plan Initiation ReQort
Workshop Material
Below you wil l find the presentations and Community Workshop summary's for the workshops to date. If you would like to host a m ini-workshop please email Drew Wilson at [email protected].@
@ Central Southeast Area SQecific Plan CommunitY- WorkshoQ l Summar:1- @ Central Southeast Area SQecific Plan Communit:1-WorkshoQ l PowerPoint @ Central Southeast Area SQecific Plan CommunitY- WorkshoR 2 PowerPoint Initiation Report
A fundamental step in the Central Southeast Specific Plan process is the initiation of the Plan's Draft Guiding Principles and the Proposed Land Use Map. The initiation process includes the Fresno City Council's approval of the Proposed La nd Use Map that will allow the project team to begin t he Environmental Assessment. A report has been drafted to summaries how the development of the Guiding Principles and Proposed Land Use Map. The Central Southeast Specific Plan Initiation Report can be found below in the Project Documents section. --~~------- _________ ...

Planning and Development Department
Planning & .Development Process
Current Planning

EXHIBIT ''B''
John Kinsey
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Thanks John.

Sophia Pagoulatos <[email protected]>
Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:48 PM
John Kinsey; Drew Wilson
Talia Kolluri
RE: Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Public Comment Period Your email has been received, and the public comment period ends on March 6, 2023.

Sophia Pagoulatos I Planning Manager
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
0: 621-8062 C: (559) 907-5221
Resources: GIS Data Hub I Fresno Municipal Code I Plans & Projects Under Review AICP

CERTIFIED
From: John Kinsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Drew Wilson <[email protected]>; Sophia Pagoulatos <[email protected]> Cc: Talia Kolluri <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Public Comment Period External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
I did not receive any response to the email below. Can you please advise? John P. Kinsey, Esq.

Certified Specialist in Appellate Law
State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93720
Phone: (559) 233-4800, Ext. 216
Fax: (559) 233-9330
Website: www.wjhattorneys.com
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for use by the addressee(s) and may contain attorney-client privileged and/or company confidentia l information. Do not copy, forward or distribute this e-mail without permission. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mai l, you are hereby notified that any copying, forwarding or distribution of the e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and permanently delete the e-mail from your computer and destroy any printout.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: John Kinsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:43 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Talia Kolluri <[email protected]>
Subject: Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Public Comment Period Good evening, Drew and Sophia:

I am assisting Donaghy Sales with respect to the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan. It appears that the City is contemplating changing their zoning from Light Industrial to Office, which would likely result in them being a legal nonconforming use. As such, we are planning on submitting comments on the IS/MND and the CSASP.

Can you please advise when the public comment period will end? The City's website states the "public comment period is from April 3, 2023, to March 6, 2023," but then later down it states the "30-day comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is from February 3, 2023 - March 6, 2023." If the end of the public comment period is March 6, 2023, we believe the City should restart the public comment period for another 30-days after the website is corrected. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/planning-development/plans-projects-under-review/#tab-02 Also, can you please advise what measures have been taken to inform property owners whose zoning may be changed of the CSASP process? Donaghy was unaware this was occurring (and as of a year or so ago it was contemplated that they would be in the SCSP, as opposed to the CSASP}, and it wants to understand whether it missed a communication.

Thanks,
John P. Kinsey, Esq.

Certified Specialist in Appellate Law
State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93720
Phone: (559} 233-4800, Ext. 216
Fax: (559) 233-9330
Website: www.wihattorneys.com
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.

For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 2 From: Secrest Jr., William
To: Drew Wilson
Cc: Coletti, Karen; Sophia Pagoulatos
Subject: RE: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan - MND 30-day Public Comment Period / Notice of Intent Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 12:29:46 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello Mr. Wilson,
On behalf of the Fresno County Public Library, I've reviewed the above-mentioned document with regard to cultural resource disturbances/impacts.

The section dealing with these issues is instructive and has been well-executed. Further, the mitigation measures outlined on pp. 84-86 are in keeping with established procedures under local, state and federal laws and regulations.

We would, of course, expect to be notified in the event of any cultural resource disruptions, but the mechanisms implemented in your report should allow for this in any instance.

All best,
Bill Secrest
Heritage Center
Fresno County Public Library
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix C:

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Supporting Information

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
City of Fresno, Fresno County, California
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
556.621.2489
Contact: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
7726 N. First Street, #413
Fresno, CA 93720
714.508.4100
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Phil Ault, Project Director
Laura Campion, Project Manager
Date: July 14, 2025
•• • FCS
An ADEC Innovation

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................v Section 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................1

1.1 - Project Location................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 - Existing Conditions............................................................................................................ 1

1.3 - Project Summary ............................................................................................................... 2 Section 2: Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................9

2.1 - State................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 - Local................................................................................................................................. 10 Section 3: Findings.....................................................................................................................13

3.1 - Land Evaluation (50 Percent)........................................................................................... 13

3.2 - Site Assessment (50 Percent) .......................................................................................... 17 Section 4: Conclusion .................................................................................................................21

4.1 - Important Farmland ........................................................................................................ 21 Appendix A: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual Appendix B: Project LESA Scoring Tables
List of Tables
Table 1: Soils Summary......................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary............................................. 21 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 3: Important Farmland Map ....................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 4: Soils Map .............................................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 5: Zone of Influence.................................................................................................................. 19

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions v Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
DOC California Department of Conservation
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
LCC Land Capability Class
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
SR State Route
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Project Location

1.1.1 - Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Area
The Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) is located in the southeast area of the City of Fresno (City), in Fresno County (County), California. The City is located in the central San Joaquin Valley, approximately 200 miles north of Los Angeles, and 170 miles south of Sacramento.

The City is located on the State Route (SR) 99 corridor.

The Specific Plan Area is approximately 2,200 acres just east and southeast of Downtown Fresno and is bounded by Belmont Avenue to the north, East Avenue to the west, Church Avenue to the south, and Peach Avenue to the east. Additionally, the Specific Plan Area is located within the Roosevelt Community Plan Area.

The Specific Plan Area sits just north of the Industrial Triangle and is surrounded to the west by some of the oldest City neighborhoods and to the east by unincorporated County agricultural lands. The northernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area is 0.25 mile from access to SR-180, while the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area generally runs along the city limits, adjacent to and circumventing several unincorporated lands under the jurisdiction of the County. The Specific Plan Area is located on the Clovis, Fresno South, and Malaga, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, Range 20 East, Township 13 South, Section 36; Range 21 East, Township 13 South, Section 31; Range 20 East, Township 14 South, Sections 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24; and Range 21 East, Township 14 South, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19.

1.1.2 - Assessor’s Parcel Number 480-080-05
This Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is limited to evaluating relevant parcels mapped by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). The Specific Plan Area includes one approximately 17.85-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 480-080-05) located at the northwest corner of Chestnut Avenue and Florence Avenue, classified as Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Farmland of Unique Importance) by the DOC (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). Accordingly, this LESA Model is limited to evaluating whether the protected farmland on this parcel (hereby known as “APN 480-080-05”) accurately reflects the significance of the farmland.

1.2 - Existing Conditions
APN 480-080-05 currently contains a single-family residential building and associated infrastructure.

APN 480-080-05 also contains land used for agriculture, consisting of row crops, and a driveway to provide access to the building on-site. APN 480-080-05 is currently designated Residential, Medium Density by the Fresno General Plan (General Plan) and is zoned RS-5 (Residential Single-Family Medium Density).

County of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Introduction Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
2 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx The DOC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps APN 480-080-05 as containing approximately 12.95 acres of Prime Farmland, 4.40 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and

0.50 acres of Urban and Built-up Land (refer to Exhibit 3).

1.3 - Project Summary
Under the proposed Specific Plan, APN 480-080-05 would be redesignated as Residential, Urban Neighborhood.
31680036 • 07/2025 | 1_reg io n al.mxd
Exhibit 1
Regio n al Locatio n Map
Source: Cen sus 2000 Data, The Califo rn ia Spatial In fo rmatio n Library (CaSIL).

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

LAND EV ALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
!
·|}þ99
·|}þ201
·|}þ180
·|}þ41
·|}þ168
Fresno County
Tulare County
Madera County
Fresno County
Millerton
Lake
Big Dry Creek
Reservoir
Hensley Lake
Sierra
National
Forest
Clovis
Fresno
Sanger
Reedley
Selma
Fowler
I 5 2.5 0 5
Miles
!
Text
APN 480-080-05
APN 480-080-05
Legend
City of Fresno
_J
-· _,
D

FIRSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
, ,--
.

I
,, ·-- - '
,·
. ,-..... )
{ .. -.. _,
I
,- """"'.,. ,' I \ •
• , I
~ ! ,·
I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
31680036 • 07/2025 | 2_ local_ vicin ity.mxd
Exhibit 2
Local Vicin ity Map
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. Fresn o Coun ty. City of Fresn o.

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
E Florence Ave
S Chestnut Ave
E Dwight Way
S Maple Ave
E Butler Ave
E Hamilton Ave
S Willow Ave
S Winery Ave
E Woodward Ave
E Church Ave
E Geary St
!( Fresno Pacific University
!( Mosqueda Park
I 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Legend
APN 480-080-05 17.85 acres

FIRSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
31680036 • 07/2025 | 3_fa rmla nd.mxd
Exhibit 3
Impor ta nt Fa rmla nd Ma p
Source: ESRI Aeria l Ima gery. Fresno County. City of Fresno. Ca lifornia Depa rtment of Conser va tion.

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
E Florence Ave
E Dwight Way
S Chestnut Ave
E Church Ave
S Whitney Ave
E Pitt Ave
E Truman Ave
E Belgravia Ave
E Belgravia Ave
E Tower Ave
E Florence Ave
E Geary St
E Atchison Ave
S Winery Ave
E Braly Ave
S Sierra Vista Ave
S Woodrow Ave
S Baird Ct
S Backer Ave
E Cetti Ave
E Hamilton Ave
E Woodward Ave
D
P
S
S
D
I 500 250 0 500
Feet
Legend
APN 480-080-05 17.85 acres
Land Cover Categories
D - Urban and Built-Up Land 0.50 acre
P - Prime Farmland 12.95 acres
S - Farmland of Statewide Importance 4.40 acres

FIRSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
lc=JI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Regulatory Framework FirstCarbon Solutions 9 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx SECTION 2: REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 - State

2.1.1 - Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
In 1975, the Soil Conservation Service (since renamed Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) began farmland mapping efforts across the nation with the goal of producing agricultural resource maps based on soil quality and land use. As part of this nationwide agricultural land use mapping effort, the NRCS developed a series of definitions known as Land Inventory Monitoring criteria. The Land Inventory Monitoring criteria classify the land’s suitability for agricultural production; suitability includes both the physical and clinical characteristics of soils and the actual land use. In the early 1980s, to continue these farmland mapping efforts in California, the FMMP was created within the DOC. The FMMP carries out these mapping activities on a continuing basis and with a greater level of detail; this is accomplished by using a modified Land Inventory Monitoring criteria. These criteria utilize the NRCS and Storie Index Rating Systems but also consider physical conditions, such as dependable water supply for agricultural production, soil temperature range, depth of the groundwater table, flooding potential, rock fragment content, and rooting depth. The FMMP prepares Important Farmland maps for all counties in California, using the modified Land Inventory Monitoring criteria as well as current land use information.

The FMMP classifies farmland based on agricultural productivity characteristics as follows:
• Prime Farmland: Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain the long-term production of agricultural crops. These lands have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. • Unique Farmland: Land of lesser-quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but it may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as are found in some climatic zones in California. • Farmland of Statewide Importance: Land similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to hold and store moisture. • Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance in the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county’s Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Grazing Land: Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

The FMMP also provides the following land classifications for nonagricultural land:
• Urban and Built-up Land: Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Regulatory Framework Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 10 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. • Other Land: Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines; borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. • Water: Perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres. • Areas Not Mapped: Area which falls outside of the NRCS soil survey; not mapped by the FMMP.

2.1.2 - Williamson Act
In 1965, the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was adopted. This voluntary program allows property owners to have their property assessed for its agricultural production rather than at the current market value. The property owner is thus relieved of having to pay higher property taxes as long as the land remains in agricultural production. The purpose of the Williamson Act is to encourage property owners to continue to farm their land and to prevent the premature conversion of farmland to urban uses. Participation requires that the area consist of 100 contiguous acres of agricultural land under one or more ownerships.

Upon approval of a Williamson Act application by the Board of Supervisors of the county in which the land is located, the agricultural preserve is established and the land within the preserve is restricted to agricultural and compatible uses for at least 10 years. Williamson Act Contracts are automatically renewed for an additional 10-year period unless the property owner applies for nonrenewal or early cancellation. The Williamson Act also contains provisions for cancellation of contracts under certain circumstances.

There are no active Williamson Act Contracts on APN 480-080-05 evaluated in this LESA Model or within APN 480-080-05’s Zone of Influence.

2.2 - Local

2.2.1 - City of Fresno General Plan
The General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies relevant to agricultural resources:

Objective RC-9 Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.

Policy RC-9-a Regional Cooperation. Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land resources.

City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Regulatory Framework FirstCarbon Solutions 11 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx Policy RC-9-b Unincorporated Land in the Planning Area. Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
• Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; • Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or
• Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).

Policy RC-9-c Farmland Preservation Program. In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some or all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 13 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx SECTION 3: FINDINGS
The LESA Model is divided into two components: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. The following narrative describes the model inputs. The weighting factor for each input is shown in parentheses.

3.1 - Land Evaluation (50 Percent)

3.1.1 - Land Capability Classification (25 Percent)
The LESA Model assigns points based on the type of soils that comprise APN 480-080-05 and the proportion of APN 480-080-05 that is underlain by each type of soil (Exhibit 4). Table 1 summarizes the Class I, II, and III soils that underlie APN 480-080-05. The total Land Capability Class (LCC) score is

82.98. 3.1.2 - Storie Index Rating (25 Percent)
The Storie Index is a quantitative rating of the agricultural value of the soils (0 to 100). A higher the score indicates the soil is more suitable for growing a wide range of crops. Lower scores indicate soils less desirable for agricultural uses. The Storie Indices for APN 480-080-05’s soils are shown in Table

1. Each soils’ proportion of APN 480-080-05 is multiplied against its Storie Index value. From there, the values are summed, which yields the overall Storie Index. In this case, the overall Storie Index score is 74.14.

Table 1: Soils Summary
Soil Name and Abbreviation Acres
Percent of
Area
Land
Capability
Class (LCC) LCC Score
Storie
Index
Storie
Index
Score
Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes (ArA)

2.05 11.48% IIs 9.19 93 10.68
Atwater sandy loam, moderately deep,
0 to 3 percent slopes (AtA)

2.07 11.60% IIIs 6.96 47 5.45
Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes (GtA)

9.23 51.71% I 51.71 93 48.09
Greenfield sandy loam, moderately
deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes (GuA)

2.51 14.06% IIIs 8.44 46 6.47
Madera clay loam (Me) 1.99 11.15% IIIs 6.69 31 3.46
Total 17.85 100% — 82.98 — 74.14
Source: Web Soil Survey. 2025.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
31680036 • 07/2025 | 4_soils.mxd
Exhibit 4
Soils Map
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. Fresn o Coun ty. USDA Soils Data Mart, Fresn o Eastern .

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
E Florence Ave
E Dwight Way
S Chestnut Ave
E Church Ave
S Whitney Ave
E Pitt Ave
E Truman Ave
E Belgravia Ave
E Belgravia Ave
E Tower Ave
E Florence Ave
E Geary St
E Atchison Ave
S Winery Ave
E Braly Ave
S Sierra Vista Ave
S Woodrow Ave
S Baird Ct
S Backer Ave
E Cetti Ave
E Hamilton Ave
E Woodward Ave
Me
AtA
ArA
GtA
GuA
I 500 250 0 500
Feet
Legend
APN 480-080-05 17.85 acres
Soils Classification
ArA - Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.05 acres AtA - Atwater sandy loam, moderately deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.07 acres GtA - Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 9.23 acres GuA - Greenfield sandy loam, moderately deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.51 acres Me - Madera clay loam 1.99 acres

FIRSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
-
D
-
-

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Findings
FirstCarbon Solutions 17 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx

3.2 - Site Assessment (50 Percent)

3.2.1 - Project Size (15 Percent)
APN 480-080-05 consists of approximately 11.28 acres of LCC I and II soils and approximately 6.57 acres of LCC III soils.

For project size, the LESA Model assigns 30 points for sites that contain 10 to 19 acres of LCC I and II soils and 0 points for sites that contain fewer than 10 acres of LCC III soils. The LESA Model instructs that the highest score should be selected, which, in this case, is 30. The overall project size score is therefore 30.

3.2.2 - Water Availability (15 Percent)
The LESA Model scores water availability based on whether irrigated production is feasible and whether there are physical or economic restrictions. These factors are considered for both drought and non-drought years.

The LESA Model divides APN 480-080-05 into portions defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it (i.e., served by irrigation district water, groundwater, or a combination of both). The LESA Model then determines whether irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible and if any physical or economic restrictions exist for each water resource supply portion of APN 480-080-05.

APN 480-080-05 is currently irrigated for agricultural use and depends on existing groundwater wells. As such, 100 percent of APN 480-080-05 is served by groundwater only.

Irrigated production is feasible in both non-drought and drought years. While APN 480-080-05 would have no physical or economic restrictions in non-drought years, it would have physical and economic restrictions in drought years because of reductions in water supply and the extra cost of pumping the same amount of groundwater from deeper within the existing wells. As such, APN 480-080-05 would have a Water Availability Score of 80.

3.2.3 - Surrounding Agricultural Lands (15 Percent)
The LESA Model assigns points when Important Farmland accounts for 40 percent or more of surrounding land uses (Important Farmland includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland).

The Zone of Influence identifies the level of agricultural land use within a 0.25-mile radius of APN 480-080-05. Parcels that are intersected by the 0.25-mile buffer are included in their entirety.

Properties within the Zone of Influence of APN 480-080-05 total 305.64 acres. There are 305.16 acres of Urban and Built-up Land; 0.29 acre of Farmland of Statewide Importance; 0.15 acre of Farmland of Local Importance; and 0.04 acre of Rural Residential Land (Exhibit 5).

Important Farmlands include lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland of Local Importance is not recognized as Important Farmland for the purposes of analysis under the LESA Model. There are 0 acres, or 0 percent, of the total City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Findings Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
18 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx surrounding acreage that are characterized as Important Farmland. Because less than 40 percent of the land within 0.25 mile of APN 480-080-05 is classified as Important Farmland, the surrounding agricultural land score is 0.

3.2.4 - Protected Resources Lands (5 Percent)
The LESA Model assigns points when Protected Resource Lands account for 40 percent or more of surrounding land uses. Protected resource lands are those with active Williamson Act Contracts for which Notices of Non-Renewal have not been filed. There are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Zone of Influence. Because less than 40 percent of the land within 0.25 mile of APN 480- 080-05 is characterized as Protected Resource Lands, the score is 0. 31680036 • 07/2025 | 5_ ZOI.mxd
Exhibit 5
Zone of Influence
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. Fresno County. City of Fresno. California Dep artment of Conservation.

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
E Florence Ave
E Dwight Way
S Chestnut Ave
E Church Ave
S Whitney Ave
E Pitt Ave
E Truman Ave
E Belgravia Ave
E Tower Ave
E Geary St
E Atchison Ave
S Winery Ave
E Braly Ave
S Sierra Vista Ave
S Woodrow Ave
S Baird Ct
S Backer Ave
E Cetti Ave
E Hamilton Ave
E Woodward Ave
D
L
S
D
R
S Maple Ave
S Price Ave
S Backer Ave
E Burns Ave
S Sierra Vista Ave
S Price Ave
S Backer Ave
I 700 350 0 700
Feet
Legend
APN 480-080-05 17.85 acres
Zone of Influence 305.64 acres
Land Cover Categories
D - Urban and Built-Up Land 305.16 acres
S - Farmland of Statewide Importance 0.29 acre
L - Farmland of Local Importance 0.15 acre
R - Rural Residential Land 0.04 acre
IDI
D
D
-

FIRSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
R ua.

I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Conclusion
FirstCarbon Solutions 21 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/3168/31680036/LESA Model Report/31680036 Fresno CSE_LESA Model Report.docx SECTION 4: CONCLUSION

4.1 - Important Farmland
Table 2 provides the LESA Model scoring summary. As shown in the table, when the weighting factors are applied, APN 480-080-05 yields a LESA Model score of 55.8.

Table 2: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary Category Factor Points Factor Weight Weighted Points
Land Evaluation Land Capability Class 82.98 0.25 20.7
Storie Index 74.14 0.25 18.5
Subtotal — 0.50 39.3
Site Assessment Project Size 30 0.15 4.5
Water Resources Availability 80 0.15 12.0
Surrounding Agricultural Lands 0 0.15 0
Surrounding Protected Lands 0 0.05 0
Subtotal — 0.50 16.5
Grand Total 55.8
Significant Impact? No
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2025.

Impacts to land that receives a LESA score between 40 and 59 are considered potentially significant only if the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. Projects that score between 40 to 59 points and have either a Land Evaluation or Site Assessment subscore less than 20 are not considered significant for the purposes of CEQA according to the LESA Model significance criteria. As shown in Table 2, while the total LESA score is 55.8, the Site Assessment subscore is 16.5. Therefore, the proposed project’s conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use is considered less than significant for the purposes of CEQA.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix A:

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
______________________________________________

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL

LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
______________________________________________
Instruction Manual
1 For further information, please contact:

California Department of Conservation
Office of Land Conservation
801 K Street, MS 13-71
Sacramento, CA 95814-3528
(916) 324-0850
FAX (916) 327-3430
© California Department of Conservation, 1997
The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. 2 3
______________________________________________

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL

LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
______________________________________________
Instruction Manual
1997

Department of Conservation
Office of Land Conservation
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
_________________________________________________
Executive Summary.............................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 Defining the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System........................... 2 Background on Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Nationwide.................................................................................... 2 Development of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model............................................................................. 3 The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model....................................................................................... 6 Section I. Required Resources and Information................................................. 6 Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Factors................................. 7

A. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors....................................... 7

1. The Land Capability Classification Rating....................... 10

2. The Storie Index Rating ...................................................... 12 B. Scoring of Site Assessment Factors ..................................... 13

1. The Project Size Rating...................................................... 13

2. The Water Resources Availability Rating......................... 16

3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating........................ 23

4. The Surrounding Protected Resource
Land Rating......................................................................... 28 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final Scoring........................................... 29 Section IV. Scoring Thresholds for Making Determinations of Significance under CEQA................................................................... 31 Bibliography........................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A. Abridged set of California LESA step-by-step scoring instructions ........................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Application of the California LESA Model to a hypothetical proposed project ...................................................... B-1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
___________________________________________________________________ Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features.

The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended “to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code Section 21095).

The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. This Manual provides detailed instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects.
2 INTRODUCTION
Defining the LESA System
The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system is a point-based approach that is generally used for rating the relative value of agricultural land resources. In basic terms, a given LESA model is created by defining and measuring two separate sets of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent soilbased qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site Assessment, includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. While this dual rating approach is common to all LESA models, the individual land evaluation and site assessment factors that are ultimately utilized and measured can vary considerably, and can be selected to meet the local or regional needs and conditions for which a LESA model is being designed to address. In short, the LESA methodology lends itself well to adaptation and customization in individual states and localities. Considerable additional information on LESA may be found in A Decade with LESA - the Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment (8).

Background on LESA Nationwide
In 1981, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then as the Soil Conservation Service, released a new system that was designed to provide objective ratings of the agricultural suitability of land compared to demands for nonagricultural uses of lands. The system became known as Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, or LESA. Soon after it was designed, LESA was adopted as a procedural tool at the federal level for identifying and addressing the potential adverse effects of federal programs (e.g., funding of highway construction) on farmland protection. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (5) spells out requirements to ensure that federal programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland, and calls for the use of LESA to aid in this analysis.

Typically, staff of the NRCS is involved in performing LESA scoring analyses of individual projects that involve other agencies of the federal government.

Since its inception, the LESA approach has received substantial attention from state and local governments as well. Nationwide, over two hundred jurisdictions have developed local LESA methodologies (7). One of the attractive features of the LESA approach is that it is well suited to being modified to reflect regional and local conditions.

Typical local applications of LESA include assisting in decision making concerning the sitting of projects, changes in zoning, and spheres of influence determinations. LESA is 3 also increasingly being utilized for farmland protection programs, such as the identification of priority areas to concentrate conservation easement acquisition efforts.

Because of the inherent flexibility in LESA model design, there is a broad array of factors that a given LESA model can utilize. Some LESA models require the measurement of as many as twenty different factors. Over the past 15 years, the body of knowledge concerning LESA model development and application has begun to indicate that LESA models utilizing only several basic factors can capture much of the variability associated with the determination of the relative value of agricultural lands. In fact, LESA models with many factors are increasingly viewed as having redundancies, with different factors essentially measuring the same features, or being highly correlated with one another. Additional information on the evolution and development of the LESA approach is provided in, A Decade with LESA -The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8).

Development of the California Agricultural LESA Model
In 1990 the Department of Conservation commissioned a study to investigate land use decisions that affect the conversion of agricultural lands in California. The study, conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., was prepared in response to concerns about agricultural land conversion identified in the California Soil Conservation Plan (1) (developed by the ad hoc Soil Conservation Advisory Committee serving the Department of Conservation in 1987). Among these concerns was the belief that there was inadequate information available concerning the socioeconomic and environmental implications of farmland conversions, and that the adequacy of current farmland conversion impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not fully known. The findings of this study are included in the publication, The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California (2).

Currently, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines contains procedures or specific guidance concerning how agencies should address farmland conversion impacts of projects. The only specific mention of agricultural issues is contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will “convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land”.

Among the conclusions contained in The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California study was that the lack of guidance in how lead agencies should address the significance of farmland conversion impacts resulted in many instances of no impact analysis at all. A survey of environmental documents sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) between 1986 and 1988 was performed. The survey 4 showed that among projects that affected at least 100 acres of land and for which agriculture was a project issue, nearly 30 percent received Negative Declarations, and therefore did not did not receive the environmental impact analysis that would be provided by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Of those projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands and being the subject of an EIR, the study found a broad range of approaches and levels of detail in describing the environmental setting, performing an impact analysis, and providing alternative mitigation measures. The only agricultural impacts found to be significant in the EIRs were those involving the direct removal of prime agricultural lands from production by the project itself. The focus on prime farmland conversion in the projects surveyed was deemed to be related to the narrow direction provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended “to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code Section 21095).

This legislation authorizes the Department of Conservation to develop a California LESA Model, which can in turn be adopted as the required amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Presentation of the California LESA Model
The California LESA Model is presented in this Manual in the following sections:

Section I. provides a listing of the information and tools that will typically be needed to develop LESA scores for individual projects.

Section II. provides step-by-step instructions for scoring each of the six Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the Model, with an explanation of the rationale for the use of each factor.

Section III. defines the assignment of weights to each of the factors relative to one another, and the creation of a final LESA score for a given project.

Section IV. assigns scoring thresholds to final LESA scores for the purpose of determining the significance of a given project under CEQA where the conversion of agricultural lands is a project issue.
5 Additionally:

Appendix A. provides an abridged set of step-by-step LESA scoring instructions that can be used and reproduced for scoring individual projects.

Appendix B. demonstrates the application of the California LESA Model to the scoring of a hypothetical project.
6 The California Agricultural LESA Model
Section I. Required Resources and Information
The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model requires the use and interpretation of basic land resource information concerning a given project. A series of measurements and calculations is also necessary to obtain a LESA score. Listed below are the materials and tools that will generally be needed to make these determinations.

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment calculations will require:

1. A calculator or other means of tabulating numbers

2. An accurately scaled map of the project area, such as a parcel map

3. A means for making acreage determinations of irregularly shaped map units. Options include, from least to most technical:
· A transparent grid-square or dot-planimeter method of aerial measurement · A hand operated electronic planimeter
· The automatic planimetry capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS)

4. A modern soil survey, generally produced by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, which delineates the soil-mapping units for a given project. [Note: If modern soil survey information is not available for a given area of study, it may be necessary to draw upon the services of a professional soil scientist to perform a specific project survey].

5. Maps that depict land uses for parcels including and surrounding the project site, such as the Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Map series, the Department of Water Resources Land Use map series, or other appropriate information.

6. Maps or information that indicate the location of parcels including and surrounding the project site that are within agricultural preserves, are under public ownership, have conservation easements, or have other forms of long term commitments that are considered compatible with the agricultural use of a given project site. 7 Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Factors
This section provides detailed step-by-step instructions for the measurement and scoring of each of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the California Agricultural LESA Model, and is intended to serve as an introduction to the process of utilizing the Model. Once users are familiar with the Model, a more streamlined set of instructions and scoring sheets is available in Appendix A. In addition, the scoring of a hypothetical project is presented using these scoring sheets in Appendix B.

Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors
The California LESA Model includes two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated:

1. The Land Capability Classification Rating

2. The Storie Index Rating
The information needed to make these ratings is typically available from soil surveys that have been conducted by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service). Consultation should be made with NRCS staff (field offices exist in most counties) to assure that valid and current soil resource information is available for the project site. Copies of soil surveys are available at local field offices of the NRCS, and may also be available through libraries, city and county planning departments, the Cooperative Extension, and other sources. In addition, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) may also be consulted to obtain appropriate soil resource information for the project site. A directory of CPSS registered soil consultants is available through the Professional Soil Scientists Association of California, P.O. Box 3213, Yuba City, CA 95992-3213; phone: (916) 671-4276. 1) The USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) - The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating (Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils.

An expanded explanation of the LCC is included in most soil surveys. 2) The Storie Index - The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are 8 considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity).

In some situations, only the USDA Land Capability Classification information may be currently available from a given published soil survey. However, Storie Index ratings can readily be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists.

Users are encouraged to seek assistance from NRCS staff or Certified Professional Soil Scientists to derive Storie Index information for the soils as well. If, however, limitations of time or resources restrict the derivation of Storie Index ratings for the soils within a region, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating.

Under this scenario the LCC rating would account for 50 percent of the overall LESA factor weighting.

Identifying a Project’s Soils
In order to rate the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index factors, the evaluator must identify the soils that exist on a given project site and determine their relative proportions. A Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.) is used to tabulate these figures, based upon the following:

Step 1.

Locate the project on the appropriate map sheet in the Soil Survey.

Step 2.

Photocopy the map sheet and clearly delineate the project boundaries on the map, paying close attention to the map scale.

Step 3.

Identify all of the soil mapping units existing in the project site (each mapping unit will have a different map unit symbol) and enter the each mapping unit symbol in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A).

Step 4.

Calculate the acreage of each soil mapping unit present within the project site using any of the means identified in Section 1, Required Resources and Information, and enter this information in Column B.

Step 5.
9 Divide the acres of each soil mapping unit by the total project acreage to determine the proportion of each unit that comprises the project, and enter this information in Column C.
10 1. Land Evaluation - The Land Capability Classification Rating Step 1.

In the Guide to Mapping Units typically found within soil surveys, identify the Land Capability Classification (LCC) designation (e.g., IV-e) for each mapping unit that has been identified in the project and enter these designations in Column D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.).

Step 2.

From Table 2., The Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, obtain a numeric score for each mapping unit, and enter these scores in Column E.

Step 3.

Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit (Column C) by the LCC points for each mapping unit (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F.

Step 4.

Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project.

Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) Table 2. Numeric Conversion of Land
Capability Classification Units
Land LCC
Capability Point
Classification Rating
I 100
IIe 90
IIs,w 80
IIIe 70
IIIs,w 60
IVe 50
IVs,w 40
V 30
VI 20
VII 10
VIII 0
11 Table 1A. Table 1B.

Land Evaluation Worksheet Site Assessment Worksheet 1.

Land Capability Classification (LCC) Project Size Score and Storie Index Scores

A B C D E F G H I J K
Soil Map Project Proportion of LCC LCC LCC Storie Storie Index LCC Class LCC Class LCC Class Unit Acres Project Area Rating Score Index Score I - II III IV - VIII (Must Sum LCC Storie Index Total Acres
Totals to 1.0) Total Total
Project Size
Scores
Highest Project
Size Score D
12 2. Land Evaluation - The Storie Index Rating Score
Step 1.

From the appropriate soil survey or other sources of information identified in Appendix C, determine the Storie Index Rating (the Storie Index Rating is already based upon a 100 point scale) for each mapping unit and enter these values in Column G of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.).

Step 2.

Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit found within the project (Column C) by the Storie Index Rating (Column G), and enter these scores in Column H.

Step 3.

Sum the Storie Index Rating scores in Column H to obtain a single Storie Index Rating score for the project. Enter this Storie Index Rating Score in Line 2 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8)
13 Scoring of Site Assessment Factors
The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated:

1. The Project Size Rating

2. The Water Resources Availability Rating

3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating

4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating

1. Site Assessment - The Project Size Rating
The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating in Table 1A. The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score.

Step 1.

Using information tabulated in Columns B and D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A), enter acreage figures in Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1B) using either Column I, J, or K for each of the soil mapping units in a given project.

Step 2.

Sum the entries in Column I to determine the total acreage of Class I and II soils on the project site.

Sum the entries in Column J to determine the total acreage of Class III soils on the project site.

Sum the entries in Column K to determine the total acreage of Class IV and lower rated soils on the project site.

Step 3.

For each of the three columns, apply the appropriate scoring plan provided in Table 3, Project Size Scoring, and enter the Project Size Score for each grouping in the Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1B). Determine which column generates the highest score. The highest score becomes the overall Project Size Score. Enter this number in Line 3 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ).
14 Table 3. Project Size Scoring
LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score
80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100
60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80
40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60
20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40
10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20
fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 fewer than 40 0
10-19 10
fewer than 10 0
Explanation of the Project Size Factor
The Project Size factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3).

The inclusion of the measure of a project’s size in the California Agricultural LESA Models is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. Certain economies of scale for equipment and infrastructure can also be more favorable for larger operations. In addition, larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon support industries (e.g., fertilizers, farm equipment, and shipping) and food processing industries.

While the size of a given farming operation may in many cases serve as a direct indicator of the overall economic viability of the operation, The California Agricultural LESA Model does not specifically consider the issue of economic viability. The variables of economic viability for a specific farm include such factors as the financial management and farming skills of the operator, as well as the debt load and interest rates being paid by an individual operator, which are issues that cannot readily be included in a statewide LESA model.

15 In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of a farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different quality lands that comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide a greater economic return per unit acre. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the Land Capability Classification ratings that were previously determined in the Land Evaluation analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum score on lesser quality soils could also be derived, provided there is a sufficiently large acreage present. Acreage figures utilized in scoring are the synthesis of interviews that were conducted statewide for growers of a broad range of crops. In the interviews growers were queried as to what acreage they felt would be necessary in order for a given parcel to be considered attractive for them to farm.

The USDA LCC continues to be the most widely available source of information on land quality. Project Size under this definition is readily measurable, and utilizes much of the same information needed to score a given project under the Land Evaluation component of the methodology. This approach also complements the LE determination, which, while addressing soil quality, does not account for the total acreage of soils of given qualities within a project.

This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high quality agricultural land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be considered significant agricultural resources. In this way, no single acreage figure for a specific class of soils (e.g., soils defined as “prime”) is necessary. 16 2. Site Assessment - The Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non-drought. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability Worksheet (Table 4) is used to tabulate the score.

Step 1.

Identify the different water resource types that are used to supply the proposed project site (for example, irrigation district water, ground water, and riparian water are considered to be three different types of water resources). Where there is only one water source identified for the proposed project, skip to Step 4.

Step 2.

Divide the proposed project site into portions, with the boundaries of each portion being defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it. A site that is fully served by a single source of water will have a single portion, encompassing the entire site.

A site that is fully served by two or more sources that are consistently merged together to serve a crop’s needs would also have a single portion. (e.g., a portion of the proposed project may receive both irrigation district and groundwater). If the project site includes land that has no irrigation supply, consider this acreage as a separate portion as well. Enter the water resource portions of the project in Column B of Table 4, Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability.
[As an example, a hypothetical project site is determined to have four separate water supply portions:

Portion 1 is served by irrigation district water only;
Portion 2 is served by ground water only;
Portion 3 is served by both irrigation district water and ground water; Portion 4 is not irrigated at all.]
Step 3.

Calculate the proportion of the total project area that is represented by each water resource portion, and enter these figures in Column C of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability, verifying that the sum of the proportions equals 1.0.
17 Table 4. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability

A B C D E
Water Weighted
Project Water Proportion of Availability Availability
Portion Source Project Area Score Score
(C x D)
1 2
3 4
5 6
(Must Sum Total Water
to 1.0) Resource Score
18 Step 4.

For each water resource supply portion of the project site, determine whether irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible, and if any physical or economic restrictions exist, during both drought and non-drought years. These italicized terms are defined below:
· A physical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural practices -- such as planting a crop that uses less water, or leaving land fallow. (This could be from cutbacks in supply by irrigation and water districts, or by ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. Poor water quality can also result in a physical restriction -- for example by requiring the planting of salt-tolerant plants, or by effectively reducing the amount of available water.) · An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. (This could be from surcharge increases from water suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of pumping more ground water to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of ground water from deeper within an aquifer.)
· Irrigated agricultural production is feasible when:
1) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the portion of the project identified in Step 2;
2) Physical and/or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt production; and
3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic return on crops though irrigated production.
(A major question that should be considered is, if there is an irrigated crop that can be grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site? Depending upon the jurisdiction, some typical crops that have a large water demand may not be feasible to grow on the project site, while others that require less water are feasible. Information to aid in making this determination can be obtained from county agricultural commissioners, the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other sources.) · Dryland production is feasible when rainfall is adequate to allow an economically viable return on a nonirrigated crop.
· A drought year is a year that lies within a defined drought period, as defined by the Department of Water Resources or by a local water agency. Many regions of the state are by their arid nature dependent upon imports of water to support irrigated agriculture. These regions shall not be considered under periods of drought unless a condition of drought is declared for the regions that typically would be providing water exports.
19 Step 5.

Each of the project’s water resource supply portions identified in Step 2 is scored separately. Water Resources Availability scoring is performed by identifying the appropriate condition that applies to each portion of the project, as identified in Table 5., Water Resource Availability Scoring. Using Table 5, identify the option that best describes the water resource availability for that portion and its corresponding water resource score. Option 1 defines the condition of no restrictions on water resource availability and is followed progressively with increasing restrictions to Option 14, the most severe condition, where neither irrigated nor dryland production is considered feasible. Enter each score into Column D of Table 4.

Step 6.

For each portion of the project site, determine the section's weighted score by multiplying the portion's score (Column D), by its proportion of the project area (Column C), and enter these scores in Column E, the weighted Water Availability Score. Sum the Column E scores to obtain the total Water Resource Availability Score, and enter this figure in Line 4 of the Final LESA Score Sheet (Table 8). 20 Table 5. Water Resource Availability Scoring
Non-Drought Years Drought Years
WATER

RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS
Option RESOURCE
Irrigated Physical Economic Irrigated Physical Economic Production Restrictions Restrictions Production Restrictions Restrictions SCORE Feasible? ? ? Feasible? ? ?
1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100
2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95
3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90
4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85
5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80
6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75
7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65
8 YES NO NO NO -- -- -- -- 50
9 YES NO YES NO -- -- -- -- 45
10 YES YES NO NO -- -- -- -- 35
11 YES YES YES NO -- -- -- -- 30
12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 25 production in both drought and non-drought years
13 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 20 production in non-drought years (but not in drought years) 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0
21 Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would need to be represented in this system.

First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural production (such as being forced to change to lower-value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are referred to as restrictions.

Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost -- a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were classified into two major categories -- physical and economic. These are separated because, generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be reflected in the LESA system.

Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures.

Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be scored as high as a similar project site that does not.

The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water? 22 If the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries.

The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past -- it should be a prediction of how the water system will perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmental reasons, which will decrease the future available surface water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance. 23 3. Site Assessment - The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a project's "Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The determination of the ZOI is described below, and is illustrated with an example in Figure 1.

Defining a Project’s "Zone of Influence"
Step 1.

Locate the proposed project on an appropriate map and outline the area and dimensions of the proposed project site.

Step 2.

Determine the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site (Rectangle A).

Step 3.

Create a second rectangle (Rectangle B) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet) beyond Rectangle A on all sides.

Step 4.

Identify all parcels that are within or are intersected by Rectangle B.

Step 5.

Define the project site's "zone of influence" as the entire area of all parcels identified in Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1. [In the illustration provided in Figure 1, Parcels W, X, and Y extend beyond Rectangle B and are therefore included in their entirety in defining the project site's Zone of Influence.]
Figure 1: Defining a Project’s Zone of Influence
Step I. Determine lite
area and dimensions
of 1he project
.....

Rectangle A
Step 2. DeremHrie Lhe
smallesl r«lang1c that \-..111
completely contain the proJec1 site (indlcoled as Rectangle A}.

Rectangle B
~
Step 3. Create: a se<:c.md rectangle (Rectangle Bl that extends 0.25 mile <1320 feet) beyfmd Rectangle A on au sidf!s.

Step 4. fdenU.fy all parcels that are v.ithln or
are lnters<?cted by Rectangle B. 111.+
Steps. Deti.ne the proJect's ·zone of tnfluence"
as the (:l'ltire area of au varce.1s fdentlfled tn Step 4, less the area of the pnmosed project fro01 Step l.

In this cixampler parcels w.., X. and Y e.xtcnd beyond Rectangle B ana a.re there10re included ln the their endrety In defining the project's zone of Influence.
25 Measuring Surrounding Agricultural Land
Step 1.

Calculate the percentage of the project's Zone of Influence that is currently producing agricultural crops. [This figure can be determined using information from the Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources’ Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, or direct site inspection. For agricultural land that is currently fallowed, a determination must be made concerning whether the land has been fallowed as part of a rotational sequence during normal agricultural operations, or because the land has become formally “committed” to a nonagricultural use. Land that has become formally committed, whether fallow or not, should not generally be included in determining the proportion of the Zone of Influence that is agricultural land. For further information on the definition of Committed Land, refer to the following Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating.]
Step 2.

Based on the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI determined in Step 1, assign a Surrounding Agricultural Land score to the project according to Table 6, and enter this score in Line 5 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8) .

Table 6. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating
Percent of Project’s Surrounding
Zone of Influence Agricultural Land
in Agricultural Use Score
90 - 100% 100 Points
80 - 89 90
75 - 79 80
70 - 74 70
65 - 69 60
60 - 64 50
55 - 59 40
50 - 54 30
45 - 49 20
40 - 44 10
40 < 0
26 Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California Agricultural LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a “Zone of Influence” that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. In a simple example, a single one quarter mile square project (160 acres) would have a Zone of Influence that is a minimum of eight times greater (1280 acres) that the parcel itself.

Land within a Zone of Influence that is observed to be fallow will require a case by case determination of whether this land should be considered agricultural land. The Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Maps may be of assistance in making this determination. In addition, land currently in agricultural production may be designated as being "committed" to future nonagricultural development. The Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has a land use designation of Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, and is defined as "land that is permanently committed by local elected officials to nonagricultural development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply by a majority vote of a city council or county board of supervisors. The "committed" land must be so designated in an adopted local general plan, and must also meet the requirements of either (a) or (b) below:
(a). It must have received one of the following final discretionary approvals:

1. Tentative subdivision map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act);

2. Tentative or final parcel map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act);

3. Recorded development agreement (per Government Code §65864);

4. Other decisions by a local government which are analogous to items #1-3 above and which exhibit an element of permanence. Zoning by itself does not qualify as a permanent commitment.

Or
27 (b) It must be the subject of one of the final fiscal commitments to finance the capital improvements specifically required for future development of the land in question as shown below:

1. Recorded Resolution of Intent to form a district and levy an assessment;

2. Payment of assessment;

3. Sale of bonds;

4. Binding contract, secured by bonds, guaranteeing installation of infrastructure;

5. Other fiscal commitments which are analogous to items #1-4 above and exhibit an element of permanence."
Lead agencies are encouraged to identify Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use within a project's ZOI and make the determination whether this land, while still in agricultural production, be considered nonagricultural land for the purposes of the calculation performed here. 28 4. Site Assessment - The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following:
· Williamson Act contracted lands
· Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources · Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses.

Instructions for the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Step 1.

Utilizing the same "Zone of Influence" (ZOI) area calculated for a project under the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, calculate the percentage of the ZOI that is Protected Resource Land, as defined above.

Step 2.

Assign a Surrounding Protected Resource Land score to the project according to Table 7, and enter this score on Line 6 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ).

Table 7. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating
Percent of Project's Surrounding
Zone of Influence Protected Resource
Defined as Protected Land Score
90 - 100% 100 Points
80 - 89 90
75 - 79 80
70 - 74 70
65 - 69 60
60 - 64 50
55 - 59 40
50 - 54 30
45 - 49 20
40 - 44 10
40 < 0
29 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent.

Land Evaluation Factors
Land Capability Classification 25%
Storie Index Rating 25%
Land Evaluation Subtotal 50%
Site Assessment Factors
Project Size 15%
Water Resource Availability 15%
Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15%
Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5%
Site Assessment Subtotal 50%
Total LESA Factor Weighting 100%
Each factor is measured separately (each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate line in Column B of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor’s score is then multiplied by its respective factor weight, resulting in a weighted factor score in Column D as indicated in Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed, yielding a Total LESA Score (100 points maximum ) for a given project, which is entered in Line 7 of Column D. 30 Table 8. Final LESA Scoresheet

A B C D
Factor Factor Weighted
Factor Name Rating X Weighting = Factor
(0-100 points) (Total = 1.00) Rating
Land Evaluation

1. Land Capability Classification <Line 1>_______ X 0.25 = _______

2. Storie Index Rating <Line 2>_______ X 0.25 = _______ Site Assessment

1. Project Size <Line 3>_______ X 0.15 = _______

2. Water Resource Availability <Line 4>_______ X 0.15 = _______

3. Surrounding Agricultural Lands <Line 5>_______ X 0.15 = _______

4. Protected Resource Lands <Line 6>_______ X 0.05 = _______ Total LESA Score <Line 7>_______
(sum of weighted factor ratings)
31 Section IV. California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds - Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA
A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors.

The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project’s conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as well as the component LE and SA subscores. In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring thresholds.

Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds
Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant
40 to 59 Points Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points
80 to 100 Points Considered Significant
32 Bibliography

1. Conserving the Wealth of the Land - A Plan for Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation. 1987.

2. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones and Stokes, Associates, Inc., for the California Department of Conservation. 1991.

3. Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995.

4. LESA Guidelines for Local Jurisdictions - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995.

5. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. The Farmland Protection and Policy Act, part 658. Code of Federal Regulations - Agriculture, Parts 400 to 699. 1990.

6. Pease, J and R. Coughlin. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition; prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1996.

7. Pease, J., et al. State and Local LESA Systems: Status and Evaluation; In: Steiner, F., J.

Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994.

8. Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno—Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix B:

Project LESA Scoring Tables

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Soil Map Unit Project Acres Proportion of Project Area LCC LCC Rating LCC Score Storie Index Storie Index Score ArA 2.05 0.1148 IIs 80 9.19 93 10.68
AtA 2.07 0.1160 IIIs 60 6.96 47 5.45
GtA 9.23 0.5171 I 100 51.71 93 48.09
GuA 2.51 0.1406 IIIs 60 8.44 46 6.47
Me 1.99 0.1115 IIIs 60 6.69 31 3.46
TOTAL 17.85 1 82.98 74.14
Total Acres
Total Class I Total Class II Total Class III Total Class IV Total Class V Total Class VI Total Class VII

9.23 2.05 6.57
Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Scores Table 3-Proj. Size Scoring
LCC Class
I-II
LCC Class
III
LCC Class
IV-VIII N/A Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score
ArA 2.05 80 + 100 160 + 100 320 + 100
AtA 2.07 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80
GtA 9.23 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60
GuA 2.51 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40
Me 1.99 10-19. 30 40-59 60 40-99 20
fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 fewer than 40 0
10-19. 10
fewer than 10 0
Total Acres 11.28 6.57 0
Project Size Scores 30 0 0 Total Class I Total Class II Total Class IV Total Class V Total Class VI Total Class VII Highest Project Size Score 30
Total Acres
Score
30 Project Size Score
LCC Class
I-II
LCC Class
III
LCC Class

IV-VIII
TOTAL PROJECT SIZE RATING=
Total Class III

11.28 6.57
30 0
Project Portion Water Source Proportion of Project Area Water Availability Score Weighted Availability Score (C x D) 1 Irrigation District Water Only 0
2 Groundwater only 1 80 80
3 Both irrigation and ground 0
4 Not irrigated at all 0
Total 1 Total water resource score 80
Table 5. Water Resource AvailabHity Scoring1
Non-Orough YealiS Drought Years
WATER

RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS
Option RESOURCE
Irrigated Physieam Eccnomie lmgatect Ptlysica Economic
Proou.c:: ~on Restri:ctiorts Resuiclioos Prod ction Resm:dions Restrictions SCORE Feas!ble? ? ? Feasible? ? ?
1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100
2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 96
3 YES NO YE-$ YES NO YES I 90
4 YES NO NO YES YES NO I 85
5 "tES NO NO YES YES YES I 80
6 YES YES I NO YES YES NO I 75
7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 66
8 YES NO NO NO -- - - 50
9, YES NO YES NO - - - - 45, I
10 YES YES NO NO - - - - 35
11 YES YES I YES I NO - - - 30
12 lniga, ed production no feasil, e, but rainfall adequate for dryl!and 25 production in both drought and non-drouaht years
1:3 ~~ga~ production not feasible, but rai~I adeqµate for dryland 20 productton. in non-drought years {but 11ot 1n drollght years) 1:4 ~ [Neidler irrigated nor drytar1d produdl.ion feasible 0 - ~
in
Table 6: Surrounding Ag Land Rating Table 7: Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score Percent of
Project's
Zone of Influence
Surround Ag
Land Score
Percent of
Project's
Zone of Influence
Surround Ag
Land Score
90-100% 100 points 90-100% 100 points
80-89 90 80-89 90
75-79 80 75-79 80
70-74 70 70-74 70
65-69 60 65-69 60
60-64 50 60-64 50
55-59 40 55-59 40
50-54 30 50-54 30
45-49 20 45-49 20
40-44 10 40-44 10
<40 0 <40 0
Section Ill. Weighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 ,percent of the total LESA score of a given project is d erived from lhe Land Evaluation factors. and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are fisted below. wilh lhe sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent.

Land Evaluation Factors
Land Capability Classification
Storie Index Rating
Land Eval uation Subtotal
Sit e Assessment Factors
Project Size
Water Resource Availability
s=,dlng Agricultural Lands
Surrounding Protected Resource Lands
Site Assessment Subtotal
Total LESA Factor Weighting
25%
25%
50"/4
15%
15%
15%
5%
50"/4
100%
Each factor is measured separately (each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate fine in Colum n B of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor's score is then multiplied b ) its respecilve factor we;ght, resulting in a weighted factor score In Column D as indicated in Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed, y;etcling a Total LESA Score (100 points maximum ) for a given project. which is entered in L ine 7 of Column D.

Factor Name
Factor Rating
(0-100 points) X
Factor Weighting
(Total=1.0) = Weighted Factor Rating
Land Evaluation

1. Land Capability Classification 82.98 0.25 20.7

2. Storie Index Rating 74.14 0.25 18.5

0.5 39.3
Site Assessment

1. Project Size 30 0.15 4.5

2. Water Resource Availability 80 0.15 12.0

3. Surrounding Agricultural Lands 0 0.15 0.0

4. Protected Resource Lands 0 0.05 0.0

0.5 16.5
TOTAL 55.8
Subtotal
Subtotal
Table ·9 Ca ifornia LESA odel Scoring: Thresholds
Tota LESA Score
0 to 39 Points
40 to 591 Points
60 to 791 Points
80 to 100 Points
Not Cons1idered Significant
Considered Signifi.cant only n LE and SA
subscores are each g~eater than or equal to 20 points
Considered Significant un' ess either lE or SA
subscore· ~s less than 20 points
Considered sr gnificant
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix D:

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FirstCarbon Solutions
D.1 - Records Search Map

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2021 | 50000002_record_search_map1.mxd CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Record Search Map 1
Source: USGS Clovis, Malaga, & Fresno South 7.5' Quadrangles / Land Grants: T13S R20E Sec: 36; T13S R21E Sec: 31; T14S R20E Sections: 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24; T14S R21E Sections: 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
Fl RSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
Calwa .. ... :
.... ..

Stockyards
EOGAR
"
CA
....
'b
\
.
... ... .... ---... .. . . . . ....... .
• • • . . ... --..
. . . . .. . . . ... , .... , .. ,... } . .. :::::::;::: l .. _;.-''~~ . . . . .. ::::::::::: "': , .,_ ........ . ·--- -·
l r ,~ . . 1/1 ,.. .. : I
;
:
. ' .. ::::••••• I •••••••••
~--·········: ••••••••• .... ·····i . . ...... . ~:::;::::::: ~ .·:::::::
••••••••• ~ •••••••••
........... . ....... . -········ .... *--- ......... .. • ••••• ••••!.S ••••••••• :==~ ml::::::::: , •• 111:"4. •••••••• ';Jr.' •.•••••• ·---- .. ...__ ......... . .. . . . ....... . t . • 50000002 • 10/2021 | 50000002_record_search_map2.mxd CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Record Search Map 2
Source: USGS Clovis, Malaga, & Fresno South 7.5' Quadrangles / Land Grants: T13S R20E Sec: 36; T13S R21E Sec: 31; T14S R20E Sections: 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24; T14S R21E Sections: 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
0 • . ,
a
D
. I .
■
., _______
I • •
-·
Fl RSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
~1 ...
~ :
0 I _), n V£
EDGAR AV£
.... ..
" =:. \.. . Stoci<yards - . __., - waie, ••I
' ?.'' I - Tank . : : ... NOR . ·"'' . .

City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FirstCarbon Solutions
D.2 - California Historical Resources Information System Request and Results

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
1 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
ACCESS AND USE AGREEMENT NO.:_______________ IC FILE NO.:________________________ To: ___________________________________________________________________ Information Center Print Name: ____________________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Affiliation: ________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________ State: ________________ Zip: __________________ Phone: __________________ Fax: __________________ Email: ____________________________________ Billing Address (if different than above): _________________________________________________________ Billing Email: _______________________________________________ Billing Phone: ___________________ Project Name / Reference: ___________________________________________________________________ Project Street Address: ______________________________________________________________________ County or Counties: ________________________________________________________________________ Township/Range/UTMs: _____________________________________________________________________ USGS 7.5’ Quad(s): ________________________________________________________________________ PRIORITY RESPONSE (Additional Fee): yes / no
TOTAL FEE NOT TO EXCEED: $___________________________
(If blank, the Information Center will contact you if the fee is expected to exceed $1,000.00) Special Instructions:

Information Center Use Only
Date of CHRIS Data Provided for this Request: ___________________________________________________ Confidential Data Included in Response: yes / no
Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 37 Southern San Joaquin Valley Dr. Dana DePietro 10/6/2021 FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek CA 94597 530.219.1432 [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Project Fresno T13S R20E Sec: 36; T13S R21E Sec: 31; T14S R20E Sections: 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 2 Clovis, Malaga, and Fresno
□ □
■
□ □
2 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
Mark the request form as needed. Attach a PDF of your project area (with the radius if applicable) mapped on a

7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle to scale 1:24000 ratio 1:1 neither enlarged nor reduced and include a shapefile of your project area, if available. Shapefiles are the current CHRIS standard for submitting digital spatial data for your project area or radius. Check with the appropriate IC for current availability of digital data products.
• Documents will be provided in PDF format. Paper copies will only be provided if PDFs are not available at the time of the request or under specially arranged circumstances. • Location information will be provided as a digital map product (Custom Maps or GIS data) unless the area has not yet been digitized. In such circumstances, the IC may provide hand drawn maps. • In addition to the $150/hr. staff time fee, client will be charged the Custom Map fee when GIS is required to complete the request [e.g., a map printout or map image/PDF is requested and no GIS Data is requested, or an electronic product is requested (derived from GIS data) but no mapping is requested].

For product fees, see the CHRIS IC Fee Structure on the OHP website.

1. Map Format Choice:

Select One: Custom GIS Maps  GIS Data  Custom GIS Maps and GIS Data  No Maps  Any selection below left unmarked will be considered a "no. " Within project area Within ______ radius
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no
Within ______
radius
Location Information:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations1
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations
Report Locations1
“Other” Report Locations2

3. Database Information:
(contact the IC for product examples, or visit the SSJVIC website for examples) Within project area
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database1
List (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
List (PDF format)
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet yes / no yes / no
Report Database1
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
List (PDF format)
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet
Include “Other” Reports 2
yes / no yes / no

4. Document PDFs (paper copy only upon request):

Within project area Within ______
radius
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records1
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records
Reports1
“Other” Reports2
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
1/2 ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
1/2 mi. ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
1/2 mi. ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
mi. ■
1000
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form

5. Eligibility Listings and Documentation:

Within project area Within ______
radius
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory3:

Directory listing only (Excel format)
Associated documentation4
OHP Archaeological Resources Directory1,5:

Directory listing only (Excel format)
Associated documentation4
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976):

Directory listing only (PDF format)
Associated documentation4

6. Additional Information:

The following sources of information may be available through the Information Center. However, several of these sources are now available on the OHP website and can be accessed directly. The Office of Historic Preservation makes no guarantees about the availability, completeness, or accuracy of the information provided through these sources. Indicate below if the Information Center should review and provide documentation (if available) of any of the following sources as part of this request.

Caltrans Bridge Survey yes
/ no
/ no
yes
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
Ethnographic Information
Historical Literature
Historical Maps
Local Inventories
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps
Shipwreck Inventory
Soil Survey Maps
1 In order to receive archaeological information, requestor must meet qualifications as specified in Section III of the current version of the California Historical Resources Information System Information Center Rules of Operation Manual and be identified as an Authorized User or Conditional User under an active CHRIS Access and Use Agreement. 2 “Other” Reports GIS layer consists of report study areas for which the report content is almost entirely non-fieldwork related (e.g., local/regional history, or overview) and/or for which the presentation of the study area boundary may or may not add value to a record search.
3 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Includes, but not limited to, information regarding National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and historic building surveys. Previously known as the HRI and then as the HPD, it is now known as the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD). The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources. 4 Associated documentation will vary by resource. Contact the IC for further details. 5 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Previously known as the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, now it is known as the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD).

The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources.
3 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
1/2 mi.
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Bl B 8 8

B B B B
8 B 8 8
50000002 • 10/2021 | 50000002_record_search_map1.mxd CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Record Search Map 1
Source: USGS Clovis, Malaga, & Fresno South 7.5' Quadrangles / Land Grants: T13S R20E Sec: 36; T13S R21E Sec: 31; T14S R20E Sections: 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24; T14S R21E Sections: 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
Fl RSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
Calwa .. ... :
.... ..

Stockyards
EOGAR
"
CA
....
'b
\
.
... ... .... ---... .. . . . . ....... .
• • • . . ... --..
. . . . .. . . . ... , .... , .. ,... } . .. :::::::;::: l .. _;.-''~~ . . . . .. ::::::::::: "': , .,_ ........ . ·--- -·
l r ,~ . . 1/1 ,.. .. : I
;
:
. ' .. ::::••••• I •••••••••
~--·········: ••••••••• .... ·····i . . ...... . ~:::;::::::: ~ .·:::::::
••••••••• ~ •••••••••
........... . ....... . -········ .... *--- ......... .. • ••••• ••••!.S ••••••••• :==~ ml::::::::: , •• 111:"4. •••••••• ';Jr.' •.•••••• ·---- .. ...__ ......... . .. . . . ....... . t . • 50000002 • 10/2021 | 50000002_record_search_map2.mxd CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Record Search Map 2
Source: USGS Clovis, Malaga, & Fresno South 7.5' Quadrangles / Land Grants: T13S R20E Sec: 36; T13S R21E Sec: 31; T14S R20E Sections: 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24; T14S R21E Sections: 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
0 • . ,
a
D
. I .
■
., _______
I • •
-·
Fl RSTCARBON
SOLUTIONS™
~1 ...
~ :
0 I _), n V£
EDGAR AV£
.... ..
" =:. \.. . Stoci<yards - . __., - waie, ••I
' ?.'' I - Tank . : : ... NOR . ·"'' . .
10/18/2021

Dana DePietro
FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Blvd. Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Re: Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Project Records Search File No.: 21-410
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Clovis, Malaga, and Fresno USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS data
Resources within project area: 35 Resources, See attached list.

Resources within 0.5 mile radius: 33 Resources, See attached list.

Reports within project area: 18 Reports, See attached list.

Reports within 0.5 mile radius: 22 Reports, See attached list.

Note:

Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Note: Only the Title Page, Table of Contents, & Executive Summary of TU-00102 was included.

OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Note: P-15-007046 is not listed in the BERD. The 2013 HPD page was included for this resource.

California
Historical
R esources
Information
~ ys t e rn
Fresno
Kern
King s
Mader a
Tular e
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
California State University, Bakersfield
Mail Stop: 72 DOB
9001 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, California 93311-1022
(661) 654-2289
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.csub.edu/ssjvic
Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,
Jeremy E. David
Assistant Coordinator
SSJVIC Record Search 21-410
Reports in PA: Reports in .5 mile: Resources in PA: Resources in .5 mile: Informal Resource FR-00257 FR-00135 P-10-003930 P-10-004248 SHL #934
FR-00296 FR-01231 P-10-004249 P-10-004253
FR-01651 FR-01686 P-10-004675 P-10-004274
FR-01723 FR-01694 P-10-005306 P-10-004280
FR-01742 FR-01696 P-10-005307 P-10-004286
FR-01800 FR-01850 P-10-005308 P-10-004287
FR-01979 FR-02000 P-10-005309 P-10-004299
FR-02073 FR-02002 P-10-005310 P-10-004310
FR-02076 FR-02106 P-10-005311 P-10-004312
FR-02109 FR-02143 P-10-005312 P-10-004349
FR-02169 FR-02172 P-10-005313 P-10-004677
FR-02194 FR-02192 P-10-005314 P-10-004762
FR-02228 FR-02217 P-10-005315 P-10-004763
FR-02332 FR-02238 P-10-005316 P-10-004764
FR-02620 FR-02287 P-10-005317 P-10-004765
FR-02653 FR-02496 P-10-005318 P-10-004766
FR-02972 FR-02504 P-10-005319 P-10-004767
FR-02992 FR-02628 P-10-005320 P-10-004768
FR-02655 P-10-005321 P-10-004769
FR-02722 P-10-005322 P-10-004770
FR-02806 P-10-005323 P-10-005120
FR-02896 P-10-005324 P-10-005121
P-10-005325 P-10-005225
P-10-005326 P-10-005305
P-10-005327 P-10-006224
P-10-005328 P-10-006225
P-10-005329 P-10-006594
P-10-005330 P-10-006595
P-10-005331 P-10-006596
P-10-005332 P-10-006599
P-10-005333 P-10-006600
P-10-005334 P-10-006601
P-10-005335 P-10-007094
P-10-005336
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SSJVIC Record Search 21-410
FR-00135 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project.

Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Hatoff, Brian, Voss, Barb,
Waechter, Sharon,
Benté, Vance, and Wee,
Stephen
NADB-R - 1140863
FR-00257 1990 Historic Property Survey Report Route 180 Chestnut Avenue to Highland Avenue; 06-
FRE-180, R60.9/R6736 06250-342400
DeLeuw, Cather and
Company; David Chavez
Associates
Caltrans - 06-FRE180 R60.9/R67.6
06250-342400
FR-00296 1992 Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Fresno Unified School District, Southeast
Fresno High School, Middle School, and
Elementary School
Cultural Resources
Consulting
NADB-R - 1140239 Bissonnette, Linda Dick
FR-01231 1994 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Construction of Route 180 Urban Project
California Department of
Transportation
Nissen, Karen, Comeyne,
Dominique, and AguilarLuna, Judy
Caltrans - 06-FRE180 P.M. 56.1/60.9
CU 821 EA 025731
FR-01231A 1993 Supplemental Historic Architectural Survey Report for the Route 180 Urban Project
Sections of Cedar Avenue and East Thomas
Avenue
Lortie, Frank Cal Trans
FR-01231B 1994 Supplemental Historic Property Survey
Report for the Route 180 Urban Project
between Route 99 and Chestnut Avenue
Aguilar-Luna, Judy Cal Trans
FR-01651 2000 Cultural Resources Survey for the Level (3) Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics
Project: Segment WS04: Sacramento to
Bakersfield
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.

Submitter - Project Nelson, Wendy J.

Number 27101
FR-01686 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Pacific Bell Site, CV-600-01, and the
Fairgrounds Site, City of Fresno, Fresno
County, California
Peak, Melinda A. Peak & Associates, Inc.

FR-01694 1994 Supplementary Historic Building Survey,
Historic Resources Survey (Ratkovich Plan),
Fresno, California
California State University,
Fresno
Powell, John Edward and
McGuire, Michael J.

FR-01696 2001 A Cultural Resource Study for the Self-Help Housing Project In the Southeast Fresno
Area, Fresno County, California
Varner, Dudley M. Varner Associates
FR-01723 2000 Historical and Cultural Resource Assessment For A Proposed Telecommunications Facility
Site No. CV-600-08, 4696 East Kings Canyon
Road, Fresno, California
Brown, R. Keith and Brown & Mills, Inc.

Pastron, Allen G.