2.-T ID 26-269 -Supplemental Packet — Fresno City Council, May 7, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the proposed project objectives or would be more costly.
• The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated, along with its impacts. The No Project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. • The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason.” Therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project.
• For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR. • An EIR does not need to consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
• Although the focus of the alternatives analysis should be on alternatives that reduce or avoid environmental impacts, an EIR may also present alternatives that provide greater project benefits at increased environmental cost, which helps to highlight the policy trade-offs in the consideration of the proposed project and alternatives to the project.

The range of potentially feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in Section 15126.6[f][1] of the State CEQA Guidelines) are environmental impacts; site suitability; economic viability; social and political acceptability; technological capacity; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative that would not achieve the basic project objectives.

5.3 Project Objectives
As mentioned in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the Conservancy Act (PRC Section 32500 et seq.) sets forth the statutory mission and authorities of the Conservancy to develop, and manage in the San Joaquin River Parkway, a planned 22-mile natural and recreational area in the San Joaquin River floodplain extending from Friant Dam to SR 99. Specifically, the Conservancy’s activities are to implement the Parkway Master Plan, a 22-mile regional greenspace and wildlife corridor along both sides of the River, with an interconnected trail system and recreational and educational features.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.4 Alternatives
This discussion of alternatives identifies and examines a range of potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or reduce the severity of one or more significant environmental effects or increase the benefits of the project. The alternatives were also selected to and/or address the public comments received during the scoping process. Five Six action alternatives and a No Project alternative are evaluated in this DEIR:
• Alternative 1: Added Parking
• Alternative 2: Bluff Trail Alignment
• Alternative 3: River’s Edge Trail Alignment
• Alternative 4: No Parking
• Alternative 5: Palm and Nees Access
• Alternative 5B: North Palm Avenue and Nees Access
• Alternative 6: No Project

5.5 Alternative Development Process
The project’s purpose and objectives and its potentially significant environmental impacts were considered during the development of alternatives. The Conservancy cohosted three open house–style public and agency scoping meetings with the City and the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust. The first public meeting was held on November 17, 2008, at 7815 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 310, in Fresno (office of H. T. Harvey & Associates). The second public meeting was held on March 29, 2011, at Nelson Elementary School, 1336 West Spruce Avenue in Fresno. A third public meeting was held on June 17, 2014, at the Pinedale Community Center, 7170 N. San Pablo Avenue in Fresno. These meetings informed the selection of the alternatives. In this DEIR, the five The six alternatives described below are modifications of the proposed project and may include project elements as described in Section

2.4, “Project Description.”
After circulation of the DEIR, the City of Fresno proposed that the Conservancy evaluate Alternative 5B, which had been removed from further consideration in the circulated DEIR, and recirculate the DEIR for public review and comment. The Conservancy worked collaboratively with the City on this proposal and determined that including analysis of Alternative 5B in a partially recirculated DEIR was appropriate.

The basis for selecting each alternative is provided below. • Alternative 1, “Added Parking,” was developed to address the potential impacts of the project on air quality and project VMT, to provide greater, more convenient vehicle access for residents of

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

the Fresno metropolitan area, including providing increasing opportunities for equal access for disadvantaged communities, and to provide more parking capacity. • Alternative 2, “Bluff Trail Alignment,” was developed to reduce the circuitous alignment of the proposed trail and to reduce potential impacts on riparian habitat and disturbance to nearby residences on the floodplain.
• Alternative 3, “River’s Edge Trail Alignment,” was developed to provide multiuse trail access close to the river and to possibly reduce the potential effects of wildland fires on the residences located on the bluffs.
• Alternative 4, “No Parking,” was developed to address the potential effects of parking at the project site
including noise, vehicle traffic, and effects on safety. • Alternative 5, “Palm and Nees Access,” was developed to address the potential impacts of the project on air quality and VMT; to provide greater, more convenient vehicle access for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, including providing increasing opportunities for equal access for disadvantaged communities; and to provide more parking capacity. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[f][2]), Alternative 5 is an added off-site alternative and includes the project as described in Section 2.4, “Project Description.” • Alternative 5B, “North Palm Avenue Access,” was developed to provide additional options for addressing limited public access to the River for residents of nearby disadvantaged communities, and more broadly for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area; and to provide more parking capacity. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[f][2]), Alternative 5B is an added off-site alternative and includes the project as described in Section 2.4, “Project Description.”
• Alternative 6, the No Project Alternative, is included in accordance with Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Analysis of this alternative considers the effects if the project were to not proceed, and if no trail extension, parking, or recreational amenities were constructed.

5.6 Alternative 1: Added Parking
Alternative 1 consists of the project as described in Section 2.4, “Project Description,” plus a public vehicle entrance, additional parking area, and public access to the trail extension from West Riverview Drive. Alternative 1 was developed to augment public vehicular access to the project site for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, and for residents of nearby disadvantaged communities, because of the travel distance to the proposed Perrin Avenue vehicle entrance and parking area. As discussed in Section

4.2, “Environmental Justice—Disadvantaged Communities,” providing recreational opportunities along the River can benefit nearby disadvantaged communities. During the public scoping process, concerns were

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

raised that limiting vehicular access to one entrance at Perrin Avenue would limit access for residents on the Fresno side of the River, including residents of disadvantaged communities near the project site and in west Fresno.

In this alternative, the trail extension alignment, Perrin Avenue parking lot, and associated recreation amenities would be constructed as described for the project. In addition, a 40-stall parking lot would be constructed between the H Pond and the E Pond. This parking lot would not accommodate horse trailers.

LED light sets with rechargeable batteries and a solar panel would be mounted on light poles, providing sufficient illumination for security and maintenance. A two-vault ADA-accessible restroom, fire hydrant, and pet station would be located in the parking lot area. Access to the parking lot would be provided by a controlled vehicle entrance and a two-lane paved road from West Riverview Drive. Figure 5-1 presents a conceptual drawing of the parking lot and the road. Table 5.6-1 summarizes Alternative 1 project components by length and mile.

Table 5.6-1 Summary of Alternative 1 Project Components Project Component
Alternative 1
Length (miles) Area (acres)
Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 2.4 3.5
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 3.1 3.5
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved)
(unpaved)
0 0

0.8 0.9
Bluff Trail
(paved)

0.3 0.4
Added Parking (paved) 0 1.7
Unimproved Hiking Trails 1.8 1.3
Total 7.6 12.1
Source: Data compiled by AECOM 2016
In total, the project components of Alternative 1 described above would cover approximately 7.6 miles or

12.1 acres.

5.6.1 Environmental Setting
The geographic location and environmental and regulatory settings for Alternative 1 are the same as stated for the project in Chapter 3 of this DEIR.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-1 Alternative 1—Added Parking

it
i
~\

SPANO PARK

AC,C,ESS STAIR

RESTROOMS
HAt>ITAT

RESTORATION
PROJEC,f
R IVfR AC,C,fSS
TRAIL

PROJEC-T
t,OUNDARY
t-HUF:t:-HILL AVE
ENTRANC,E ro
t,LUrl" TRAIL
PIC,NIC, AR!:A

VVIIH NATURAL
SHADE

ADDITIONAL
PARKIN&. PAY-

STATION AND

RESTROOM

EX JS TINE,
!:>LUFF TRAIL
VIEW DEC./<.

WITH NATURAL
SHADE
HAt>ITAT
Rf.ST ORATION
...... -."I"'-----n¼-• PROJEC, TS
t>LUFF TRAIL-
ADA At-C.ESS TO

EATON TRAL

FOR PEPS AND
t>IKES
PAVED VEHIC.LE
AC.C,E55 FROM
RIVERVIEW DR.
,_ VIEWINI:> AREA
RIVER At-t-ESS
TRAIL

PEDESTRIAN
TRAIL
EMER€>EN1,Y,

MAINTENANC-E

AND PRIVATE
AC,C,fSS IWAP
ONLY
NON-fLAMMAt,Lf
eve:R&Rf!f!N
VEl:>ETATION
t,UFFER
11>-FT
E~UE5TRIAI\I
TRAIL
17--l"T LEWIS S.

EATON TRAIL

7.-FT
TRAIL

SHOULDER

RIVER AC,C,ESS
TRAIL

PERR IN AVENUE
PARKIN& LOT.
5EE ENLAR0ED
PLAN
PUt,Ll<, VEHIC.LE.

AC,C,E,SS
EXJ5T. FENt:-E
111 II 13BBlilleii-oe•1 i- i>-i:,. ~. !! ,,"'l:l~i';J"'"" dn~;:H,.~j.,11~ ~~p~.:;"r;: .J,-<2~ t.,..._i:..,jf ... ~~~ .. ~~ll ij"'z:t::i-,,'b!! h_..,-..Jx ~:;t,1~::~~111~1~~ "'11;',~"'2 0ilc ~
~~nu,~ ... ~
"nt~•fi;~ ~ ~i'z:~!lni;r;i ~ 1L ~ g i : ~Ii; rt ~
""< • "" ~ ~ i5 l"I
~ ~ I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.6.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under Alternative 1, an additional 40-stall parking lot, recreation amenities, and a two-lane road would be visible to homeowners with residences on the bluffs. This alternative would alter the view of the River.

Effects of construction activities on aesthetics would be temporary.

The proposed trail extension would generally follow the alignment shown in the conceptual drawing in Figure 2-3.

After construction, the second parking lot and recreation amenities, traffic, and people using the trail would be visible during the day. Cars parked in the added parking lot and the Perrin Avenue parking lot would be visible to homeowners on the bluffs, the public at Spano Park, visitors along the Bluff Trail, and traffic traveling along SR 41. All of these changes would alter the visual character of the project area. The presence of the trail extension, parking lot, and recreational amenities would alter the natural aesthetic features of the River as seen from the surrounding area. The long-term presence and use of the trail extension could affect sensitive viewer groups and could be considered a conflict with the unique and scenic resource that is the River. The impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure Aesthetics and Visual Resources-1 would reduce the impact on scenic vistas to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Access to the additional parking lot would be limited to the daytime. Alternative 1 includes low-level outdoor security lighting that would be fully shielded and would point down toward the ground. This would represent a new source of lighting; therefore, the impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure Aesthetics and Visual Resources-2 would reduce the impact from a new source of lighting and glare to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.6.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As stated for the project, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or forestland is located in the project area. No impact on agriculture or forestry resources would occur under Alternative 1.

5.6.4 Air Quality
Alternative 1 includes project construction and the addition of a new vehicle entrance and parking lot. Air pollutant emissions were calculated using construction of a 3.5-mile multipurpose trail extension, the Perrin Avenue parking lot, and an additional parking lot as inputs. The paved portion of the Perrin Avenue parking lot is calculated to be 0.8 acre; the additional parking lot and paved road from West Riverview Drive to the parking lot are estimated to be 1.7 acres. Under this alternative, the added parking lot,

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

recreational amenities, and a restroom would be constructed and could generate approximately 558 daily trips.

This alternative would generate only slightly more construction-related and operational emissions than the project (Table 5.6-2 and Table 5.6-3). Alternative 1 would reduce VMT per visitor to the project site from the Fresno metropolitan area. However, because of improved public vehicular access and increased parking, it is projected that total project emissions would increase under this alternative. The CalEEMod results for the Perrin Avenue parking lot and the additional parking lot can be found in Appendix C. All air quality impacts of Alternative 1 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 5.6-2 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Construction Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Project 1.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Alternative 1 1.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

1 PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers.

Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016
Table 5.6-3 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Project 2.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.1
Alternative 1 4.3 1.3 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.2
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

1 PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers.

Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016

5.6.5 Biological Resources
Alternative 1 would result in slightly more ground disturbance, noise generation, and vegetation removal than the project because of the additional parking lot. Impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species or their habitats would be potentially significant. Species using habitat associated with the H

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

and E ponds would be temporarily displaced by noise and visitor activity from the additional parking lot.

The impact would be potentially significant. The biological resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1

2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Biological Resources-1 through Biological Resources-8 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.6.6 Cultural Resources
Impacts of Alternative 1 on cultural and historic resources would be the same as described for the project.

The additional parking lot and road would be located to avoid the recorded archaeological resource and Perrin Ditch described in Section 3.6, “Cultural Resources.” Less potential exists for construction to uncover cultural or paleontological resources under Alternative 1 than under the project because this alternative would be located at a greater distance from a previously identified cultural or paleontological resource site. Inadvertent discovery of cultural resources and human remains during construction cannot be definitely ruled out; therefore, the impact would be potentially significant. The cultural resources BMPs identified in Section

2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources-1 and Cultural Resources-2 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.6.7 Geology and Soils
Impacts from exposure to seismic events, unstable geological units, and expansive soils would be the same under Alternative 1 as under the project. However, clearing, grading, and excavation activities for construction of the additional parking lot and road would remove more vegetative cover and induce more soil erosion than under the project. Table 5.6-4 compares the acreages affected by Alternative 1 and by the project. Alternative 1 would disturb about 12.1 acres, compared to 10.5 acres disturbed by the project.

The impact would be potentially significant. The geology and soils BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1

2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 1 would generate only slightly more construction-related and operational emissions of GHGs than the project (Table 5.6-5). The emissions would not approach any adopted or recommended thresholds. The CalEEMod results for the Perrin Avenue parking lot and the additional parking lot can be found in Appendix C. All impacts of Alternative 1 related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.6-4 Acres of Land Disturbed—Project vs. Alternative 1 Project Component
Proposed Project Alternative 1
Length (miles) Size (acres) Length (miles) Size (acres) Paved Multiuse Trail 2.4 3.5 2.4 3.5
Unpaved Multiuse Trail 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.5
Perrin Avenue Parking—Paved 0 0.8 0 0.8
Perrin Avenue Parking—Unpaved 0 0.9 0 0.9
Bluff Trail 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4
Added Parking NA NA 0 1.7
Existing Hiking Paths 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.3
Total 7.6 10.5 7.6 12.1
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016
Table 5.6-5 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 1 Amortized
Construction
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Total Construction
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Total Operational
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Project 192 6 501
Alternative 1 192 6 748
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016

5.6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The impacts of Alternative 1 from routine transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials, along with the potential for accidental spills, would be similar to those of the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

The additional facilities proposed under Alternative 1 would be located within the same overall project site as the project’s facilities; therefore, like the project, this alternative would have no impact related to emissions of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school, or to hazards from airports and airstrips.

Alternative 1 would provide appropriate emergency-vehicle access (fire, police, and ambulance) via the West Riverview Drive entrance onto the project site, including the additional parking lot. This road would also provide additional emergency egress for members of the public using the trail extension.

Construction activity would occur only within the project site and would not block or reduce access to city streets. Therefore, like the project, Alternative 1 would have no impact related to interference with emergency response and/or evacuation plans.

Because Alternative 1 would entail construction of additional facilities, the potential for wildland fire hazards from sparks emitted by construction equipment would be slightly greater than the project’s wildland fire hazard, and the impact would be potentially significant. The hazards and hazardous

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

materials BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 1. Additionally, implementing Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 through Hazards and Hazardous Materials-6 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

The additional vehicle entrance, access road, and parking lot would not be located on a hazardous materials site that is part of the Cortese List. Thus, like the project, Alternative 1 would result in a less- than-significant impact related to potential exposure of construction workers and the public from known hazardous materials. No mitigation is required.

5.6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts of Alternative 1 on hydrology and water quality are described below.

Water Quality
Temporary Impacts. Under Alternative 1, a 40-stall parking lot, access road, and restroom facilities would be constructed in addition to the facilities described for the project in Chapter 2. As shown in Table 5.6-4, a greater area would be disturbed under Alternative 1 than under the project; however, the construction activities would be similar. The BMPs and mitigation measures would also be the same under Alternative 1; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 1 on water quality (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new impervious surfaces and parking would be greater under Alternative 1 than under the project (see Table 5.6-4). Alternative 1 would have an additional restroom at the added parking lot along with the facilities and uses described for the project. The additional parking area would result in impacts related to the presence of urban contaminants in runoff. However, the BMPs and mitigation measures for Alternative 1 would be the same as those for the project. The long-term impacts of Alternative 1 on water quality (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be potentially significant. However implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Groundwater
Temporary Impacts. The construction activities for the project and Alternative 1 would be similar; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 1 on groundwater (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new, impervious surface would be greater under Alternative 1 than under the project (see Table 5.6-4). However, the percentage of impervious surface proposed is very small relative to the total area of the project site, and this increase would not measurably affect recharge to the local groundwater basin. Operations under Alternative 1 would not substantially increase groundwater demands, and existing supplies provided for fire suppression are expected to be adequate to serve the site without lowering groundwater levels. The long-term impact on groundwater would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Drainage
Temporary Impacts. Like the project, Alternative 1 would require grading, moving soil, and placing structures on steep slopes and within flood zones, which could alter drainage courses and runoff patterns relative to existing conditions. Table 5.6-6 depicts the total area of disturbance within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway for Alternative 1. Compared to the project (see Table 3.10-1), the area of disturbance would differ slightly, but the construction activities for the project and Alternative 1 would be similar, and the BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 1 on drainage (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. Placing impervious surfaces and other project components adjacent to or within the designated floodway and 100-year floodplain and on the steep bluffs could contribute to hydromodification processes and associated water quality impacts. Modifications to the bluffs for construction of the Spano Park stairway and the Bluff Trail access would be the same as under the project. No impervious surfaces would encroach into the designated floodway under Alternative 1. The total area of impervious and hard-packed surfaces within the 100-year floodplain would be slightly greater under Alternative 1 than under the project (as shown in Table 3.10-1). The area of flood zone would differ slightly, but implementation of project design features, BMPs, and Parkway Master Plan policies and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the long-term impacts of Alternative 1 on drainage (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.6-6 Project Components of Alternative 1 within the 100-Year Floodplain and Designated Floodway
Project Component
100-Year Floodplain Designated Floodway
Length (miles) Area (acres) Length (miles) Area (acres) Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 1.1 1.6 0 0
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 1.3 1.7 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved)
(unpaved)
0 0
<0.1
0 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking
(unpaved) 0 0 0 0
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Added Parking (paved) NA 0.7 0 0
Existing Unimproved Hiking
Trails 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.0
Total 4.3 5.3 1.4 1.0
Note: NA = not applicable
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016
Runoff. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 1 on runoff would be similar to those described for the project and would be potentially significant. The water quality and geology BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 1.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Floodway a nd 100-Year Floodplain Hazard Area. Table 5.6-6 summarizes the components of Alternative 1 that would affect land within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Under Alternative 1, about 5.4 acres of land within the 100-year floodplain would be disturbed by construction- related activities. Compared to the project, this is an increase of about 0.7 acre (Table 3.10-1). Similar to the project, 1 acre of land within the designated floodway would be disturbed by construction of the proposed improvements to the existing hiking trails under Alternative 1. Overall, impacts of Alternative 1 related to the construction and placement of structures within the designated floodway and the 100-year floodplain would be slightly greater than the impacts of the project and would be significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4 and Hydrology and Water Quality- 5 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Exposure of People or Structures to Flooding. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 1 regarding exposure of people or structures to flooding would be similar to those described for the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 1 regarding the potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be similar to those described for the project. No impact would occur related to potential for a seiche or tsunami, and the impact related to mudflow potential would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.6.11 Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 1, the trail extension and amenities described for the project and the additional parking lot and a paved two-way road would be located on an alluvial floodplain terrace along the south side of the River. Vehicle access to the parking lot would be provided via West Riverview Drive. Alternative 1 would not physically divide an established community.

Alternative 1 does not conflict with the Parkway Master Plan, the Bullard Community Plan, or the City of Fresno’s General Plan Update 2035, except for a potential conflict with General Plan Policy POSS-7-g.

Policy POSS-7-g states: “Public access into the River View Drive area/neighborhoods should be limited to cyclists and pedestrians with the exception of public safety, circulation, and/or other government/support service provider vehicles.” Alternative 1 would not limit public access to cyclists and pedestrians because it would provide a public vehicular access point through River View Drive, which potentially conflicts with Policy POSS-7-g. However, the public access to the Parkway that would be developed under Alternative 1 would be only on land owned by the Conservancy. As explained in Chapter 3, the Conservancy, as a State entity, is not subject to local government land use planning; therefore, the City’s General Plan Update 2035 is not an “applicable” plan under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d).

This EIR discusses consistency with local plans for informational purposes only. Therefore, to the degree that project activities would occur only on State-owned land, Alternative 1 would not or conflict with any
applicable land use plan or policy. No impact would occur.

5.6.12 Mineral Resources
Like the project, Alternative 1 would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

5.6.13 Noise
Construction activities under Alternative 1 would cause a short-term temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Noise levels could exceed ambient noise standards established by the City of Fresno for residential areas. The impact of noise levels exceeding 55 dBA, even temporarily, would be significant.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.6.14 Population and Housing
Like the project, Alternative 1 would not induce substantial population growth or displace a substantial number of housing. No impact would occur.

5.6.15 Public Services
Like the project, Alternative 1 would not alter existing public service ratios, response times, or performance standards for fire or police protection and would not induce population growth or demand for new school facilities. No impact would occur.

5.6.16 Recreation
Alternative 1 would provide additional parking (40 more spaces) and vehicular visitor access to the trail extension and recreation amenities via the West Riverview Drive entrance. The alternative would reduce the travel distance for each visitor promote greater access from the Fresno metropolitan area. Additional access would encourage visitor use such as hiking, bicycling, jogging, and picnicking. In particular, tThe Alternative 1 entrance would also help reduce barriers for access to provide new and enhanced recreation opportunities for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities or census tract. Visitors would not have to travel north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East Frontage Road, also known as Blackstone Avenue, a 180-degree reverse in direction and an 8.3-mile trip.

Visitors would be able to enter the project area via the existing West Riverview Drive entrance. As under the proposed project, the increase in visitor use under Alternative 1 would not result in substantial damage to or have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

The impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.

5.6.17 Transportation
The transportation analysis of Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 1 considers all improvements that are constructed or planned for completion by 2025. Appendix H provides a detailed discussion of the methodology used to determine LOS and VMT summarized below.

All study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better under Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 1 conditions (Table 5.6-7). Similar to with-project conditions, all roadway segments under Alternative 1 have sufficient capacity to accommodate added traffic and still operate at acceptable LOS.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

In July 2011, the City completed a traffic signal warrant study for the Audubon Drive/Del Mar Avenue intersection. The study was performed at the request of local residents because the traffic volume is so heavy on Audubon Drive that traffic entering the intersection from the minor street, Del Mar Avenue, suffers excessive delay. The warrant for 8-hour, 4-hour, and peak-hour traffic is satisfied. The City proposes to add a signal at the Audubon Drive/Del Mar Avenue intersection in the future. The study reported that no accidents occurred at this intersection between July 2010 and July 2011. Under Alternative 1, traffic volume is anticipated to increase because visitors would turn at the Audubon Drive/Del Mar Avenue intersection to either access or leave the West Riverview Drive entrance. The additional traffic may result in accidents and add to traffic delays at Del Mar Avenue. This impact would be potentially significant.

Table 5.6-7 Roadway Segment Analysis Project Buildout (2025) plus Alternative 1 Conditions Roadway
Segment1
Number
of
Lanes2 Direction
ADT 24-
Hour
Volume
(2025) Base plus Alternative 1
Conditions
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Vol LOS Vol LOS
1 SR 41 between the Fresno–Madera
County line and Avenue 12 2/D NB
SB 35,998 780
608
B
B
1,165
1,352
B
B
2 SR 41 East Frontage Road (Cobb Road
Ranch) north of Vin Rose Lane 1/U NB
SB 528 31
43 C
C
28 61
C
C
3 Audubon Drive between SR 41 and
Palm Avenue 1/U EB
WB 16,990 405
482
C
C
480
651
C
C
4 Audubon Drive just east of SR 41 2/D EB
WB 16,070 399
502
C
C
467
691
C
C
5 Del Mar Avenue between Audubon
Drive and West Riverview Drive 1/U NB
SB 2,370 63
104
C
C
107
109
C
C
Notes:

ADT = average daily traffic; D = divided; EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; SR = State Route; U = undivided; Vol = volume; WB = westbound
1 Evaluated using Table 7 Florida Tables.
2 Number of lanes in each direction.

Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2016
Mitigation Measure Alt. 1–Traffic-1
The Conservancy shall share with the City, on a pro rata basis, the cost of i Installing either a traffic signal or other effective traffic control such as a traffic roundabout, designed by the City for the Audubon Drive/Del Mar Avenue intersection, would improve access to the West Riverview Drive entrance by reducing wait time for traffic entering the intersection from Del Mar Avenue and would reduce the potential for traffic accidents. The West Riverview Drive entrance and added parking for Alternative 1 would not be open to the public until such The Conservancy would negotiate a fair-share contribution to fund these traffic safety improvements are constructed and operational.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
The Although a traffic signal or traffic roundabout would improve access to the West Riverview Drive entrance by reducing wait time for traffic entering the intersection from Del Mar Avenue, and would reduce the potential for traffic accidents. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Alt. 1–Traffic-1 would reduce the impact is on the City’s priority list, the City has not committed to a date for construction of these improvements. The Conservancy cannot guarantee that these improvements would be implemented because they are controlled by another agency. If Alternative 1 were adopted, the Conservancy would recommend approval of this mitigation measure to the City consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2). However, because the Conservancy cannot guarantee that these improvements would be carried out, if the Conservancy proceeded to carry out Alternative 1 before installation of an effective traffic control measure, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Conservancy would be required to make a statement of overriding considerations at the time of approval to proceed with this option.

Alternatively, the Conservancy may condition carrying out the vehicle entrance and additional parking area accessed from West Riverview Drive under Alternative 1 upon the City’s construction and operation of these traffic improvements. Not implementing any project activities that could lead to the identified transportation impacts until the traffic improvements are operational would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.6.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Similar to the project, Alternative 1 would not affect utility infrastructure or services such as water supply, solid waste, wastewater, or power supply. No impact would occur.

5.6.19 Cumulative Impacts
Sections 15126 and 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines state that EIRs are to consider the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as well as cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR and other projects causing related impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[a]).

As described previously, with implementation of BMPs and application of proposed mitigation measures (e.g., for biological resources and aesthetic and visual resources), the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts viewed independently (Chapter 3). The proposed project

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

also would not have an incremental effect that is cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with other projects causing related impacts in the study area (Chapter 4).

Like the proposed project, Alternative 1 would not substantially contribute to a cumulative impact for any studied topic except traffic because all other environmental impacts would be either less than significant or reduced to a less-than-significant level with the imposition of mitigation measures and application of BMPs.

Under future Year 2025 with Alternative 1 conditions, a significant impact at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Audubon Drive is expected due to increased delays at an intersection predicted to operate below acceptable LOS. Payment of Paying fees to fund a fair-share contribution toward constructing an intersection improvement at this location would reduce the proposed Project’s incremental contribution of Alternative 1 toward this cumulative impact. Although mitigation measures are identified, it is beyond the ability of the Conservancy to ensure implementation of the traffic signal. The City has not designed an improvement or identified funding to construct an improvement at present because signal warrants are not met. If the Conservancy were to construct and operate Alternative 1 before identification of a funding source and design of the necessary improvements, then traffic associated with Alternative 1 would present a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact. Alternatively, if the Conservancy were to condition carrying out the vehicle entrance and parking accessed from West Riverview Drive, as proposed under Alternative 1, until the City constructs the traffic improvement, then no cumulative impact would result.

5.6.20 Environmental Justice Considerations
Disadvantaged Community Census Tract 6019004404 is located about 0.5 mile south of the project area.

Residents of this community, and more broadly, residents of Fresno would have the opportunity to access the multiuse trail and recreation amenities via the additional public vehicle entrance and parking. Visitors would not have to travel north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East Frontage Road, also known as Blackstone Avenue, a 180-degree reverse in direction. Visitors would be able to enter the project area via the existing West Riverview Drive gate and access road. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

As discussed in Section 4.2 in Chapter 4 of this EIR, the proposed project would cause no significant adverse environmental impacts and does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities. Alternative 1 proposes an additional parking lot accessed via West Riverview Drive, which would result in slightly more potential environmental impacts than the proposed project.

Construction-related and operational emissions of air pollutants would be slightly greater under Alternative 1 than under the proposed project, but these impacts would remain less than significant with

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

no mitigation required. This alternative would also result in short-term, temporary increases in ambient noise levels because of the construction required for the added roadway, parking lot, and facilities; however, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with Mitigation Measure Noise-1.

Overall, based on the environmental impacts analysis for Alternative 1, this alternative does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities.

As discussed in Section 4.2, residents of disadvantaged communities would likely access the project site primarily via private vehicle because transit options are limited and most disadvantaged communities in Fresno are not within walking or bicycle distance of the project site. The proposed entrance at Perrin Avenue is near a currently used informal vehicular access point at the gate of the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail, which this project would extend down River to the west. The proposed project would improve vehicular access to the Parkway’s trail system with this proposed 50-space parking lot; however, reaching that access point from the Fresno side would require traveling north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East frontage road (Blackstone Avenue). Adding another vehicular access point at the existing West Riverview Drive gate and access road, as proposed by Alternative 1, could improve access to the project site for disadvantaged communities by providing a more convenient access point utilizing surface roadways near the project site. Not requiring the additional travel up SR 41 may help to reduce barriers to access for disadvantaged communities in Fresno, including central, southeast, and west Fresno, and may help to ensure that the project’s benefits, in terms of equitable access to parks and green spaces, are shared equitably within the community.

5.7 Alternative 2: Bluff Trail Alignment
Alternative 2 includes the project elements described in Section 2.4, “Project Description,” with a less circuitous trail extension alignment lying nearer the toe of the bluff.

Under Alternative 2, the trail extension would be aligned about 300 feet from the base of the bluffs. The multiuse trail specifications would be the same as described for the project. All other amenities, including the parking lot, recreation facilities, landscaping, and restrooms, would be the same as described for the project. A conceptual drawing of the Bluff Trail alignment is provided in Figure 5-2. In total, project components described for Alternative 2 would cover approximately 6.7 miles or 9.1 acres. Table 5.7-1 summarizes Alternative 2 project components by length and area.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.7-1 Summary of Alternative 2 Project Components Project Component
Alternative 2
Length (miles) Area (acres)
Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 1.5 2.2
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 2.3 2.9
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved) 0 0.8
Perrin Avenue Parking
(unpaved) 0 0.7
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0.3 0.5
Existing Unimproved Hiking Trails 2.6 1.9
Total 6.7 9.1
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016

5.7.1 Environmental Setting
The geographic location and environmental and regulatory settings for Alternative 2 are the same as stated for the project in Chapter 3 of this DEIR.

5.7.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under Alternative 2, as under the project, the trail extension, parking lot, recreation amenities, and people using the trail would be visible during the day from various viewing areas. This visibility would result in a conflict with the unique and scenic riverine resource and would degrade the existing visual quality of the surrounding area. LED lighting in the parking lot would create a new source of glare. This impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Aesthetics and Visual Resources-1 and Aesthetics and Visual Resources-2 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

No additional mitigation is required.

5.7.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As stated for the project, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or forestland is located in the project area. No impact on agriculture or forestry resources would occur under Alternative 2.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I
Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-2 Alternative 2—Bluff Trail Alignment

it
i

SPANO PARK
5TAIRt-A5E
Re5TROOM5
-_1- HM>ITAT

RESTORATION
PROvf"C.T
RIVER At.t, E55
TRAIL
PROJEt,f
fJOUNDARY
Pit.Nit, AREA
w1n1 NATURAL
SHADE
-\--'\Pc~ - t-H URC.HILL AVE.

ENTRANt,E TO
f>LUFF T RAIL
ii----EX15TINc, fJLIJFF
TRAIL
VIEW DEC.K
~~ I WITH NATURAL
SHADE
HAe>ITAT

RESTORATION
PROJEt-T5
DR .

VIE.WIN€> AREA
RIVER AC.t.ES5
TR AIL
EMERi!"JENC.Y.

MAINTE'NANC.E

AND PRIVATE
At-t-E55 RO/ID
ONLY
RIVER At-C.E55
TRAIL

PERRIN AVENUE
PARKINc, LOT
PUr>LIC. VEH It-LE
At,t,f55
EXIST. FENt,E
1111 GB BGH!ll - 0 • • 1 ! i
e:,. 4' g, ·i,i ~;:-i;.-,r-,i;i,~~
PH~;1HH--~~1.
"~""'~~>h,O !l~~ -, ~,,"..., I~=:.~ i°"~1'J~z: i::::i
nt t'I. z: = 1. -, ,,, "'I h "I """:rJZ
Q~ a-t Ji ~-<fq, i~,~~g ~~~i;lt,~~c ill .... ~
t~i:11:; ~
iiHi~1':~ ~ :-~t~
IJI ~ f'I' >- I'll i
~i ; ~
r °' l
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I
Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.7.4 Air Quality
Air quality modeling for Alternative 2 produced the same results as modeling for the project. The CalEEMod inputs used for the project were also used for this alternative. The CalEEMod run for the Perrin Avenue parking lot can be found in Appendix C. The air quality impacts of this alternative would be the same as the impacts of the proposed project. All air quality impacts of Alternative 2 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.7.5 Biological Resources
Alternative 2 would result in slightly less ground disturbance, noise generation, and vegetation removal than the project. Impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species or their habitats would be potentially significant. The biological resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 2. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Biological Resources-1 (Special-Status Plant Species) through Biological Resources-10 (Wildlife Movement) would reduce impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.7.6 Cultural Resources
As stated for the project, no historic resources are present in the area. Under Alternative 2, the trail extension alignment would be located to avoid the recorded archaeological resource and Perrin Ditch described for the project in Section 3.6, “Cultural Resources.” Less potential exists under this alternative to uncover cultural or paleontological resources during construction; however, discovery of cultural resources and human remains during construction cannot be definitely ruled out. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. The cultural resources BMPs identified in Section

2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best
Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 2. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources-1 and Cultural Resources-2 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.7.7 Geology and Soils
Impacts from exposure to seismic events, unstable geological units, and expansive soils would be the same under Alternative 2 as under the project. Clearing, grading, and excavation activities to construct the trail extension alignment would remove vegetative cover and induce soil erosion. Table 5.7-2 compares the acres of land affected by Alternative 2 with the acreage affected by the project. Fewer acres would be disturbed under Alternative 2.

Construction activities under Alternative 2 would result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil, although less than under the proposed project. This impact would be potentially significant. The geology and soils BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of

I
i
i
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Alternative 2. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Table 5.7-2 Acres of Land Disturbed—Project vs. Alternative 2 Project Component
Proposed Project Alternative 2
Length (miles) Size (acres) Length (miles) Size (acres) Paved Multiuse Trail 2.4 3.5 1.5 2.2
Unpaved Multiuse Trail 3.1 3.6 2.3 2.9
Perrin Avenue Parking—Paved 0 0.8 0 0.8
Perrin Avenue Parking—Unpaved 0 0.9 0 0.9
Bluff Trail 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4
Added Parking NA NA NA NA
Existing Hiking Paths 1.8 1.3 2.6 1.9
Total 7.6 10.5 6.7 9.1
Note: NA = not applicable
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016

5.7.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions modeling for Alternative 2 produced the same results as modeling for the project. The CalEEMod inputs used for the project were also used for this alternative. The CalEEMod run for the Perrin Avenue parking lot can be found in Appendix C. The impacts of this alternative related to GHG emissions would be the same as the impacts of the proposed project: all GHG emissions impacts of Alternative 2 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.7.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The impacts of Alternative 2 from routine transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials, along with the potential for accidental spills, would be similar to those of the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

The facilities proposed under Alternative 2 would be located within the same overall project site as the project; therefore, like the project, this alternative would have no impact related to emissions of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school or related to hazards from airports and airstrips.

Alternative 2 would provide appropriate emergency-vehicle access (fire, police, and ambulance) at both the West Riverview Drive and Perrin Avenue entrances. These access points would also provide additional emergency egress for members of the public using the trail extension. Construction activity would occur only within the project site and would not block or reduce access to city streets. Therefore, like the project, Alternative 2 would have no impact related to interference with emergency response and/or evacuation plans.

I Page 5-26
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Alternative 2 would entail constructing a slightly shorter trail extension than under the project; therefore, the potential for wildland fire hazards from sparks emitted by construction equipment would be slightly less than the project’s wildland fire hazard. However, the trail extension would be closer to the bluffs under Alternative 2, and the greater proximity could slightly increase the fire hazard for the residential housing on top of the bluffs. As under the project, this impact of Alternative 2 would be potentially significant, but mitigation measures such as implementing a fire prevention plan, prohibiting open burning and the use of barbeque grills, and requiring that all equipment be properly equipped with spark arresters would reduce the impact to less than significant.

The Alternative 2 trail extension and associated facilities would not be located on a hazardous materials site that is part of the Cortese List. Thus, as under the project, the impact of Alternative 2 related to potential exposure of construction workers and the public from known hazardous materials would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

As under the project, plant species and prevailing winds may constitute a fire hazard and expose people or property to a significant wildland fire risk under Alternative 2. This alternative consists of a different trail extension alignment, located about 300 feet from the base of the bluffs in an area of natural vegetation.

Equipment used for trail construction and ongoing maintenance within the project site could emit sparks, which could increase the wildland fire hazard. A wildfire could be inadvertently ignited during recreational use of the trail and its amenities.

Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. The hazards and hazardous materials BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 2. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 through Hazards and Hazardous Materials-6 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.7.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Temporary Impacts. Construction activities for the project and Alternative 2 would be similar; however, Alternative 2 would disturb a larger area than the project. BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same as under the project. Therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 2 on water quality would be similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project and would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Long-Term Impacts. Alternative 2 would have a smaller area of new impervious/paved surfaces and parking than the project (Table 5.7-2), but would have the same uses. The BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same as under the project. Therefore, the long-term impacts of Alternative 2 on water quality would be similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project and would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Groundwater
Temporary Impacts. Construction activities for the project and Alternative 2 would be similar; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 2 on groundwater would be similar to those described above for the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The amount of new impervious/paved surfaces associated with Alternative 2 would be slightly smaller than that of the project. Operations under Alternative 2 would not substantially increase groundwater demands. Existing supplies that would be provided for fire suppression are expected to be adequate to serve the site under Alternative 2 without lowering groundwater levels. The long-term impact on groundwater would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Drainage
Temporary Impacts. Like the project, Alternative 2 would require grading, moving soil, and placing structures on steep slopes and within flood zones, which could alter drainage courses and runoff patterns relative to existing conditions. Table 5.7-3 presents the total area of disturbance within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. A slightly smaller area within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway would be disturbed under Alternative 2 than under the project (as shown in Table 3.10-1). The area of disturbance would differ slightly, but the construction activities for the project and Alternative 2 would be similar, and the BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 2 on drainage (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.7-3 Project Components of Alternative 2 within the 100-Year Floodplain and Designated Floodway
Project Component
100-Year Floodplain Designated Floodway
Length (miles) Area (acres) Length (miles) Area (acres) Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 0.7 0.3 0 0
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 1.0 0.5 0 <0.1
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking
(unpaved) 0 0 0 0
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Existing Unimproved Hiking Trails 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.1
Total 4.1 2.6 1.5 1.1
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016
Long-Term Impacts. Placing impervious/paved surfaces and other project components adjacent to or wi
thin the designated floodway and 100-year floodplain and on the steep bluffs could contribute to hydromodification processes and associated water quality impacts. Modifications of the bluffs would be the same under Alternative 2 as under the project. No impervious/paved surfaces would encroach into the designated floodway under Alternative 2. The total area of impervious/paved and hard-packed surfaces within the 100-year floodplain would be slightly greater under Alternative 2 than under the project.

Although the area of flood zone would differ slightly, implementation of project design features, BMPs, and Parkway Master Plan policies and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the long-term impacts of Alternative 2 on drainage would be similar to those described above for the project, and would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4, Hydrology and Water Quality-5, and Hydrology and Water Quality-6 would reduce the long-term impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Runoff. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 2 on runoff would be similar to those described for
the project and would be potentially significant. The water quality and geology BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 2.

Im
plementation of Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality-7 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Floodway and 100-Year Floodplain Hazard Area. Table 5.7-3 summarizes project components under Al
ternative 2 that would affect land within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. In the 100- year floodplain, a total of 4.6 acres would be affected compared to a total of 3.9 acres for the project. No construction of paved surfaces would occur within the designated floodway under this alternative. Overall, impacts of Alternative 2 related to the construction and placement of structures within the designated

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

floodway and the 100-year floodplain would be slightly greater than the impacts of the project and would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-9 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Exposure of People or Structures to Flooding. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 2 regarding exposure of people or structures to flooding would be similar to those described for the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 2 regarding the potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be similar to those described for the project. No impact would occur related to potential for a seiche or tsunami, and the impact related to mudflow potential would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.7.11 Land Use and Planning
Like the project, Alternative 2 would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy. No impact would occur.

5.7.12 Mineral Resources
Like the project, Alternative 2 would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

5.7.13 Noise
Construction activities under Alternative 2 would cause a short-term temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Noise levels could exceed ambient noise standards established by the City of Fresno for residential areas. The impact of noise levels exceeding 55 dBA, even temporarily, would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.7.14 Population and Housing
Like the project, Alternative 2 would not induce substantial population growth or displace a substantial number of housing. No impact would occur.

5.7.15 Public Services
Like the project, Alternative 2 would not alter existing public service ratios, response times, or performance standards for fire or police protection and would not induce population growth or demand for new school facilities. No impact would occur.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.7.16 Recreation
Impacts of Alternative 2 on recreation would be similar to those described for the project. No impact would occur.

5.7.17 Transportation
Alternative 2 would result in the same LOS as the proposed project. All roadway segments under this alternative would have sufficient capacity to accommodate added traffic and still operate at acceptable LOS. In addition, VMT would be the same as under the project. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.7.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Like the project, Alternative 2 would not affect utility infrastructure or services, such as water supply, solid waste, wastewater, or power supply. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.7.19 Cumulative Impacts
Sections 15126 and 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines state that EIRs are to consider the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as well as cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR and other projects causing related impacts (State CEQA Guidelines 15130[a]).

As described previously, with implementation of BMPs and application of proposed mitigation measures (e.g., for biological resources and aesthetic and visual resources), all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts viewed independently (Chapter 3). The proposed project also would not have an incremental effect that is cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with other projects causing related impacts in the study area (Chapter 4).

Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not have an incremental effect that is cumulatively considerable for any studied topic. The proposed trail alignment complies with policies adopted for the protection of natural resources including setbacks established by the Parkway Master Plan and limits on landform alteration established by the City of Fresno Bluff Protection Ordinance. All impacts could be

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

reduced to less than significant with incorporation of BMPs and application of mitigation measures. No cumulative impacts would occur as a result of Alternative 2.

5.7.20 Environmental Justice Considerations
As described in Section 4.2, “Environmental Justice—Disadvantaged Communities,” two disadvantaged community census tracts are located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Access to the Bluff Trail alignment and recreation amenities along the River for Alternative 2 would benefit individuals by improving quality of life and the community. However, access to the trail extension and recreation amenities would be provided by a single access point, the Perrin Avenue entrance. The location would benefit residents in disadvantaged community Census Tract 6039001000 and Madera County residents traveling to the project area via SR 41. However, travel to this entrance would require residents of the nearby disadvantaged community Census Tract 6019004404, and more broadly, residents of Fresno to travel north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East Frontage Road, also known as Blackstone Avenue, a 180-degree reverse in direction. This would increase VMT by 8.3 miles and increase the generation of vehicular emissions. This impact would be potentially significant. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. Therefore, this would be an unavoidable significant impact on a nearby disadvantaged community or census tract, and more broadly, on the residents of Fresno.

Relative to the proposed project, Alternative 2 includes a less circuitous trail extension alignment nearer the toe of the bluff. The impacts analysis for Alternative 2 found that this alternative would not result in any additional adverse environmental impacts. The proposed project would cause no significant adverse environmental impacts and does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities; therefore, Alternative 2, which would have the same impacts as the proposed project, also does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities.

In terms of improving access to the project site for disadvantaged communities, Alternative 2 would not add any additional access points. Therefore, this alternative would not improve access to the project site for disadvantaged communities relative to the proposed project and would not improve the equitable distribution of the benefits of the trail project.

5.8 Alternative 3: River’s Edge Trail Alignment
Alternative 3 includes the project elements described in Section 2.4, “Project Description,” but with the trail extension alignment lying nearer to and along the bank of the San Joaquin River.

In Alternative 3, the trail extension would be aligned closer to the River’s edge (around the O Pond) in the more southerly (downstream) portion of the site, and would remain as proposed by the project in the

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

northerly (upstream) portion of the site. An observation platform or viewing deck would be constructed on the trail near the O Pond to provide a sightseeing view of the River. A pedestrian bridge or crossing would be constructed over the breach along the berm that separates the O Pond from the River. The observation platform and pedestrian bridge would be designed to accommodate a high flow of 8,000 cfs at a minimum. All other amenities, including the proposed parking lot near Perrin Avenue, landscaping, and restrooms, would be as described for the project. Figure 5-3 presents a conceptual drawing of the River’s Edge Trail Alignment. In total, project components described for Alternative 3 would cover 8.9 miles or 14.1 acres. Table 5.8-1 summarizes Alternative 3 project components by length and area.

5.8.1 Environmental Setting
The geographic location and environmental and regulatory settings for Alternative 3 are the same as stated for the project in Chapter 3 of this DEIR.

Table 5.8-1 Summary of Alternative 3 Project Components Project Component
Alternative 3
Length (miles) Area (acres)
Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 3.3 4.7
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 4.2 4.7
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved) 0 0.8
Perrin Avenue Parking
(unpaved) 0 0.9
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0.3 0.4
Existing Unimproved Hiking Trails 1.1 2.6
Total 8.9 14.1
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016

5.8.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under Alternative 3, as under the project, the trail extension, parking lot, recreation amenities, and people using the trail would be visible during the day from various viewing areas. This visibility would result in a conflict with the unique and scenic riverine resource and would degrade the existing visual quality of the surrounding area. LED lighting in the parking lot would create a new source of glare. The impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Aesthetics and Visual Resources-1 and Aesthetics and Visual Resources-2 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

No additional mitigation is required.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.8.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As stated for the project, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or forestland is located in the project area. No impact on agriculture or forestry resources would occur under Alternative 3.

5.8.4 Air Quality
Air quality modeling for Alternative 3 produced the same results as modeling for the project. The CalEEMod inputs used for the project were also used for this alternative. The CalEEMod runs for the Perrin Avenue parking lot are provided in Appendix C. The air quality impacts of Alternative 3 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.8.5 Biological Resources
Under Alternative 3, the trail extension would be aligned closer to the river’s edge (around the O Pond) than under the project in the more southerly (downstream) portion of the site. In the northerly (upstream) portion of the site, the trail extension would remain as proposed by the project. An observation platform or viewing deck would be constructed on the trail near the O Pond to provide a sightseeing view of the River. A pedestrian bridge or crossing would be constructed over the breach along the berm that separates the O Pond from the River. Construction of the Alternative 3 trail alignment, parking lot, vault toilets, wildlife viewing areas, and recreation amenities would involve site preparation, clearing, grading, installation of new hardscape, and landscaping. These activities would require the presence and operation of heavy equipment (graders, trucks, and pavers), materials such as gravel and asphalt, and a construction work force. Construction impacts would include noise, ground disturbance, and dust generation. Implementation of Alternative 3 could adversely affect candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Biological Resources-1 through Biological Resources-10 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Wildlife Corridors and Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat provides wildlife habitat and movement corridor along the river. A wildlife corridor, habitat corridor, or green corridor is an area of habitat connecting wildlife populations separated by human activities or structures. A corridor provides connectivity for plants and wildlife species to disperse or migrate throughout the landscape.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-3 Alternative 3—River’s Edge Trail Alignment

it
i
8 \
5PA,10 PARK
5TA IRC.A5E
RE5fR00M5
t1Al)ITAT
RE:5TORA T ION
PROJEt-f
RIVER At-t-E55
TRAI L
- t-hUR t- HIL.L. w e
ENTRANt-E TO
!!>LUFF TRA IL
!:>LUFF
fiLUFF

TRA IL- APA
At-t-E.55 TO

EATON TRAIL

FOR PEPS AND
1)1Ke5
·•- RIVERV IEW PR .

At-t-E"> ro
!)LUFF TRA IL
,_ Vll!WINI::> ARl!A
PE.PE.5TRIAN
TRAIL
e:MeRe.eNt-Y ,
MAINTENANC.E.

ANP PRIVATE
At-t-f55 ROAD
ONLY
NON-nAMMAf!>L e

EVER&REEN
TREE t'>UFFER
-r- ;;;~i
f"Zi" • '\'!~~~}
~i~ .. 1~.:~~~~~~:l; :,,i;,~~q~~?~!i ,.1:, ~ .. & "'.., ~ C ..(' :! :t;:I' ~ii,,~~~!:~ ~ ~ ~~J:>11~ .. sil ~ ~~ii.r=ititl~i I
,..,, ~rat l
j i : ~ ~ " ..

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Under Alternative 3, native riparian vegetation would be removed along the river’s edge and possibly in other construction areas. As a result, food, nesting habitat, and cover for upland wildlife and riparian corridor connectivity would be lost. Wildlife species would avoid the area, thus adversely affecting species whose life cycles are closely tied to the riparian environment. Permanent fill would be used in constructing the pedestrian bridge or crossing and the viewing platform. These activities would increase sediment, thus affecting water quality and permanently filling other waters of the United States. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 3–Biological Resources-11
The Conservancy shall implement the following mitigation measures:
• Riparian vegetation shall be removed only if necessary; vegetation outside the construction areas shall not be removed.
• Trees that are removed shall be replaced. The mitigation replacement ratio shall meet the standard established by CDFW. Replacement trees shall be grown from on-site cuttings, or if obtained from a native plant nursery, shall be locally adapted ecotypes of native tree or shrub species.
• Riparian habitat shall be avoided during construction to the maximum extent possible. • The Conservancy shall coordinate with USACE and CDFW and shall implement all permit requirements.
• The Conservancy shall implement BMPs BIO-2, GEO-1, and HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-4.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Alt. 3–Biological Resources-11 would reduce the impact of native vegetation removal to less than significant because riparian habitat would be avoided during construction, and trees that are removed would be replaced to the maximum extent possible. No additional mitigation is required.

Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinances
No local ordinances protecting wildlife or plant species and no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans are applicable to the project area. However, the Parkway Master Plan includes design policies for new facilities and trails and policies to protect riparian and wetland habitat and wildlife corridors.
o Design Policy 5.6-1(b): The Conservancy shall include the following design policies for future Parkway development activities:

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

• New facilities shall be sited in restored or previously developed areas. Visitor overlooks and viewing areas shall be located to avoid intrusion into sensitive habitat areas and to avoid habitat fragmentation.
• Whenever feasible, route trails on the outside edges of habitat areas, rather than through the center of mature riparian stands.
o Policy NP1: Provide a minimum width for the wildlife corridor of 200 feet on both sides of the river. Acquire a wider corridor whenever possible. Provide a buffer width wider than 150 feet whenever more intensive uses on adjacent lands exist or are planned. o Policy NRD1.5: Seek to establish a continuous corridor of riparian vegetation on both sides of the river to provide for the movement and migration of wildlife, as well as the restoration and improvement of in-stream shaded habitat. o Policy RP7.: Prescribes that a buffer of 150 feet be established between the riparian corridor of the edge of the existing riparian habitat and the planned primary Parkway multipurpose trail. However, where the 150-foot buffer is not feasible, an offsetting riparian corridor on the opposite bank may be considered. o Policy Buffer 12.: A buffer of 150 feet shall be established between the riparian corridor of the edge of the existing riparian habitat and the planned primary Parkway multipurpose trail. However, where the 150-foot buffer is not feasible, an offsetting corridor on the opposite bank may be considered.

Alternative 3 also conflicts with the policies of the Parkway Master Plan to protect the riparian corridor.

Because of these policy conflicts, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 3–Biological Resources-12
The Alternative 3 trail alignment shall be moved away from the River’s edge consistent with the objectives of the proposed project and in accordance with the policies and buffer established by the Parkway Master Plan.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Alternative 3 would require a discharge of fill to waters of the United States to construct a crossing of a breach on the riverward bank of the O Pond. Such discharges are regulated by Sections 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, requiring permits from USACE. Implementation of BMPs BIO-2, BIO-3, HYDRO-1, HYDRO-2, and HYDRO-3 before any construction would minimize impacts on waters of the United States.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

The narrow berm around the O Pond makes infeasible the setback required by the above mitigation measure, which is intended to meet the policies and buffer established in the Parkway Master Plan.

Alternative 3 conflicts with the objectives and policies of the Parkway Master Plan. Therefore, this would be an unavoidable significant impact.

5.8.6 Cultural Resources
As stated for the project, no historic resources are present in the area. The location of the trail extension alignment under Alternative 3 would avoid the recorded archaeological resource and Perrin Ditch as described for the project in Section 3.6, “Cultural Resources.” However, historic Native American use is known to occur along the River (Appendix E). Therefore, greater potential exists to uncover cultural resources and human remains during construction under Alternative 3 than under the project. This impact would be potentially significant. The cultural resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 3. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.8.7 Geology and Soils
Impacts from exposure to seismic events, unstable geological units, and expansive soils under Alternative 3 would be similar to impacts of the project. However, the ground-disturbing activities of Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than those of the project (Table 5.8-2). With the addition of clearing, grading, and excavation activities to construct the new parking lot and road, construction for Alternative 3 would remove more riparian vegetation cover along the River and induce more soil erosion than construction for the project. This impact would be potentially significant. The geology and soils BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 3.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Table 5.8-2 Acres of Land Disturbed—Project vs. Alternative 3 Project Component
Proposed Project Alternative 3
Length (miles) Size (acres) Length (miles) Size (acres) Paved Multiuse Trail 2.4 3.5 3.3 4.7
Unpaved Multiuse Trail 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.7
Perrin Avenue Parking—paved 0 0.8 0 0.8
Perrin Avenue Parking—unpaved 0 0.9 0 0.9
Bluff Trail 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4
Added Parking NA NA NA NA
Existing Hiking Paths 1.8 1.3 1.1 2.6
Total 7.6 10.5 8.9 14.1
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.8.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions modeling for Alternative 3 produced the same results as modeling for the project. The CalEEMod inputs used for the project were also used for this alternative. The CalEEMod run for the Perrin Avenue parking lot can be found in Appendix C. The impacts of Alternative 3 related to GHG emissions would be the same as the impacts of the proposed project: all GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.8.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The impacts of Alternative 3 from routine transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials, along with the potential for accidental spills, would be similar to those of the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

The additional facilities proposed under Alternative 3 would be located within the same overall project site as the project’s facilities; therefore, like the project, this alternative would have no impact related to emissions of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school or related to hazards from airports and airstrips.

Alternative 3 would provide appropriate emergency-vehicle access (fire, police, and ambulance) at both the West Riverview Drive and Perrin Avenue entrances. These access points would also provide additional emergency egress for members of the public using the trail extension. Construction activity would occur only within the project site and would not block or reduce access to city streets. Therefore, like the project, Alternative 3 would have no impact related to interference with emergency response and/or evacuation plans.

Alternative 3 would entail constructing additional facilities and a longer trail extension relative to the project; therefore, the potential for wildland fire hazards from sparks emitted by construction equipment would be slightly greater than the project’s wildland fire hazard. Under this alternative, the trail alignment would be in an area of natural vegetation adjacent to the River. Moreover, the project area is composed of nonnative upland grass species. The eastern half of the project site has been zoned as a moderate fire hazard and the western half is unzoned (CAL FIRE 2007). The impact would be potentially significant, but implementation of Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 through Hazards and Hazardous Materials-6 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant because the Conservancy would provide appropriate emergency access and signage, prohibit open burning, and the use of barbeque grills, and would perform annual and periodic fire prevention activities. No additional mitigation is required.

The Alternative 3 trail extension and associated facilities would not be located on a hazardous materials site that is part of the Cortese List. Thus, as under the project, the impact of Alternative 3 related to

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

potential exposure of construction workers and the public from known hazardous materials would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

As under the proposed project, plant species and prevailing winds may constitute a fire hazard and expose people or property to a significant wildland fire risk under Alternative 3. This alternative consists of a different trail extension alignment than the project, located closer to the River’s edge in an area of natural vegetation. A segment of the tail (near the O Pond) would have open water on both sides, creating a fire break for that short segment. Equipment used on the project site for trail construction and ongoing maintenance could emit sparks, which could increase the wildland fire hazard. A wildfire could be inadvertently ignited during recreational use of the trail and its amenities.

Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. The hazards and hazardous materials BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 3. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 through Hazards and Hazardous Materials-6 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

5.8.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Temporary Impacts. Alternative 3 would involve construction along an alternative trail extension route in addition to construction of the facilities described for the project. Table 5.8-2 presents the area of disturbance for paved and unpaved surfaces. The construction activities under Alternative 3 could affect water quality because exposed soils could erode and be transported in stormwater runoff. In addition, short-term construction activities could generate water pollutants, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids. These impacts would be potentially significant.

Construction of the pedestrian bridge and viewing area could discharge fill to waters of the United States.

This temporary impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 3–Hydrology and Water Quality-10 The Conservancy shall comply with all Phase I NPDES stormwater regulations for major project construction activities. In particular, a project-grading plan shall include drainage and erosion control plans to minimize impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading. This plan shall conform to all standards required by CDFW, the Central Valley RWQCB, the SWRCB, and USACE. The plan shall include at least the following procedures:
 restricting grading to the dry season;

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

 protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion, using such techniques as erosion control matting and hydroseeding;
 protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from sedimentation;  using silt fencing and hay bales to retain sediment on the project site;  using temporary water conveyance and water diversion structures to eliminate runoff; and  Implementing any other suitable measures outlined by State and federal agencies.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Compliance with the NPDES program would ensure stormwater pollutants would not substantially degrade water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Alternative Alt. 3–Hydrology and Water Quality-10 would reduce temporary impacts on water quality to less than significant by reducing runoff.

Long-Term Impacts. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would generate runoff from the paved trail; however, for the part of the trail confined to the berm along the O Pond, the runoff could not be directed to a bioswale for treatment before discharge to the River. The untreated discharge would be greater under Alternative 3 than under the project, but would be a negligible contribution of pollutants to the River. The long-term impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Groundwater
Temporary Impacts. Construction activities for the project and Alternative 3 would be similar; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 3 on groundwater (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new impervious/paved surfaces associated with Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than that of the project (see Table 5.8-3 and Table 3.10-1 in Chapter 3). However, the increase in impervious/paved surface proposed is very small relative to the total portion of the project site, and this increase would not measurably affect recharge to the local groundwater basin. Operations under Alternative 3 would not substantially increase groundwater demands, and existing supplies provided for fire suppression are expected to be adequate to serve the site under Alternative 3 without lowering groundwater levels. The long-term impact on groundwater would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Drainage
Table 5.8-3 Project Components of Alternative 3 within the 100-Year Floodplain and Designated Floodway
Project Component
100-Year Floodplain Designated Floodway
Length (miles) Area (acres) Length (miles) Area (acres) Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.4
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 2.3 2.8 1.9 1.2
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking
(unpaved) 0 0 0 0
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Existing Unimproved Hiking Trails 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.7
Total 5.4 6.6 3.9 3.3
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016
Long-Term Impacts. Placing impervious/paved surfaces and other project components adjacent to or within the riverbank, designated floodway, and 100-year floodplain and on the steep bluffs under Alternative 3 could contribute to hydromodification processes and associated water quality impacts. Table

5.8-3 presents the portion of Alternative 3 located within the riverbank, designated floodway, and floodplain. Modifications of the bluffs would be the same under Alternative 3 as under the project. One mile of impervious/paved surfaces would encroach into the designated floodway under Alternative 3. The total area of impervious/paved and hard-packed surfaces within the 100-year floodplain would be slightly greater under Alternative 3 than under the project. The area of flood zone would differ slightly, but implementation of project design features, BMPs, and Parkway Master Plan policies and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the long-term impacts of Alternative 3 on drainage (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Runoff. For the part of the trail confined to the berm along the O Pond, the runoff could not be directed to a bioswale for treatment before discharge to the River. The untreated discharge would be greater than

I
Temporary Impacts. Like the project, Alternative 3 would require grading, moving soil, and placing structures on steep slopes and within flood zones, which could alter drainage courses and runoff patterns relative to existing conditions. The total area of disturbance within the designated floodway for Alternative 3 would be smaller compared to the area of disturbance for the project (see Table 5.8-3 and Table 3.10-1 in Chapter 3); however, Alternative 3 would place the trail extension and associated surfaces in the 100- year floodplain. Table 5.8-3 shows the disturbed area for Alternative 3 within the 100-year floodplain. The area of disturbance would differ slightly, but the construction activities for the project and Alternative 3 would be similar, and the BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 3 on drainage (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives under the project, but would be a negligible contribution of pollutants to the river. Temporary and long- term impacts of Alternative 3 on runoff would be similar to those described for the project and would be potentially significant. The water quality and geology BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 3. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4 and Hydrology and Water Quality-5 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Floodway and 100-Year Floodplain Hazard Area. Table 5.8-3 summarizes the components of Alternative 3 that would affect land within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Under this alternative, a total of 6.6 acres within the 100-year floodplain would be affected by construction-related activities, about 2 acres more than under the proposed project (Table 3.10-1). Construction of both paved and unpaved trails within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Overall, impacts of Alternative 3 related to the construction and placement of structures within the designated floodway and the 100-year floodplain would be greater than the impacts of the project and would be a potentially significant impact.

However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4 and Hydrology and Water Quality-5 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Exposure of People or Structures to Flooding. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 3 regarding exposure of people or structures to flooding would be similar to those described for the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 3 regarding the potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be similar to those described for the project. No impact would occur related to potential for a seiche or tsunami, and the impact related to mudflow potential would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.8.11 Land Use and Planning
Similar to the project, Alternative 3 would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.

However, the trail alignment would conflict with riparian protection and buffer policies in the Parkway Master Plan (see Section 5.8.5). This impact would be potentially significant. The narrow berm around the O Pond precludes the setback from meeting the policies and buffer established in the Parkway Master Plan. Therefore, the potential impact of Alternative 3 would be an unavoidable significant impact.

5.8.12 Mineral Resources
Like the project, Alternative 3 would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

I
i

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.8.13 Noise
Construction activities under Alternative 3 would cause a short-term temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Noise levels could exceed ambient noise standards established by the City of Fresno for residential areas. The impact of noise levels exceeding 55 dBA, even temporarily, would be significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

5.8.14 Population and Housing
Like the project, Alternative 3 would not induce substantial population growth or displace a substantial number of housing. No impact would occur.

5.8.15 Public Services
Like the project, Alternative 3 would not alter existing public service ratios, response times, or performance standards for fire or police protection and would not induce population growth or demand for new school facilities. No impact would occur.

5.8.16 Recreation
Impacts of Alternative 3 on recreation would be similar to those described for the project by increasing visitor use of a regional park or recreation area. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.8.17 Transportation
Alternative 3 would result in the same LOS as the proposed project. All roadway segments under this alternative would have sufficient capacity to accommodate added traffic and still operate at acceptable LOS. In addition, VMT would be the same as under the project. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.8.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Like the project, Alternative 3 would not affect utility infrastructure or services, such as water supply, solid waste, wastewater, or power supply. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.8.19 Cumulative Impacts
Sections 15126 and 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines state that EIRs are to consider the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as well as cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR and other projects causing related impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[a]).

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Land within the River corridor is primarily designated for flood control and open space–related use and most of the bluff and uplands are built out. As shown in Table 4.1-1, “Future and Related Projects,” opportunities for new development are limited to bridge improvements, River enhancement, and related restoration activities. One potential project of note is the Fresno Parks Master Plan, called Vision 2050, which intends to increase public access to the River trail by promoting public awareness, expanding educational programs, and creating new access points to enhance recreational opportunities aligned with those of the proposed project and Alternative 3.

As described previously, with implementation of BMPs and application of proposed mitigation measures (e.g., for biological resources and aesthetic and visual resources), all potentially significant environmental impacts of the project would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts viewed independently (Chapter 3). The proposed project also would not have an incremental effect that is cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with other projects causing related impacts in the study area (Chapter 4).

As under the proposed project, many impacts associated with Alternative 3 could be avoided or reduced by applying BMPs and implementing mitigation measures. However, this alternative conflicts with policies of the Parkway Master Plan that establish required setbacks from natural resources to avoid impacts.

Under Alternative 3, biological resources within the River corridor could be exposed to physical impacts including noise, increased vehicle emissions, debris, and light/glare. When viewed in combination with increased human activity along the River corridor proposed by the draft Fresno Parks Master Plan, Alternative 3 may have an incremental effect that is cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

5.8.20 Environmental Justice Considerations
As described in Section 4.2, “Environmental Justice—Disadvantaged Communities,” two disadvantaged community census tracts are located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Access to the River’s Edge Trail alignment and recreation amenities along the River would benefit individuals, improving quality of life and the community. However, access to the trail extension and recreation amenities would be provided by a single access point, the Perrin Avenue entrance. The location would benefit residents in disadvantaged community Census Tract 6039001000 and Madera County residents traveling to the project area via SR

41. However, travel to this entrance would require residents of the nearby disadvantaged community Census Tract 6019004404, and more broadly, residents of Fresno to travel north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East Frontage Road, also known as Blackstone Avenue, a 180-degree reverse in direction. Alternative 3 does not address limited public access to the River for residents of the nearby disadvantaged community (Census Tract 6019004404) and for residents

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

of the Fresno metropolitan area. The impact on disadvantaged communities would be an unavoidable significant impact. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact.

As discussed in Section 4.8 in Chapter 4 of this EIR, the proposed project would cause no significant adverse environmental impacts and does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities. Alternative 3 proposes a trail alignment that would travel closer to the River bottom, but would retain the parking conceived for the proposed project.

This alternative would result in impacts similar to those of the proposed project.

For air quality, cConstruction-related and operational emissions of air pollutants would be are the same under Alternative 3 as under the proposed project, and would be less than significant with no mitigation required. This alternative would also results in a similar temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to because of the additional construction required for the added roadway, parking lot, and facilities, but this impact is would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with Mitigation Measure Noise-1. Overall, based on the environmental impacts analysis for Alternative 3, this alternative does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities.

5.9 Alternative 4: No Parking
Alternative 4 includes the trail extension as described in Section 2.4, “Project Description”; however, no public vehicle entrance to the project site or on-site parking would be provided.

The Perrin Avenue parking lot would not be constructed under Alternative 4. The trail extension would follow the same alignment as described for the project. Public access via the Perrin Avenue entrance would be walk-in/bicycle-in only. Walk-in/bicycle-in access would also be available from the Bluff Trail and Spano Park. At the northern end of the site, access to the trail extension would be provided at the Perrin Avenue undercrossing of SR 41. An emergency and service gate would provide access to the trail extension for first responders and maintenance staff. A two-vault ADA-accessible restroom, a drinking fountain, and a small pet station would be provided at both the Perrin Avenue entrance and near Spano

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Park. If feasible, three fire hydrants would be located along the trail extension: at the Perrin Avenue entrance, near a parcel of private property, and near the toe of Spano Park. The Spano Park access and bicycle guides may be constructed on the steep slope of the bluffs. Existing unimproved hiking paths to the River would be connected to the trail extension. These paths may be widened up to 6 feet and overlain with permeable material such as decomposed gravel. Figure 5-4 presents a conceptual drawing of the No Parking Alternative. In total, project components described for Alternative 4 would cover approximately 7.5 miles or 8.7 acres. Table 5.9-1 summarizes Alternative 4 project components by length and area.

Table 5.9-1 Summary of Alternative 4 Project Components Project Component
Alternative 4
Length (miles) Area (acres)
Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 2.3 3.4
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 3.1 3.6
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved)
(unpaved)
0 0
0 0
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0.3 0.4
Existing Unimproved Hiking Trails 1.8 1.3
Total 7.5 8.7
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016

5.9.1 Environmental Setting
The geographic location and environmental and regulatory settings for Alternative 4 are the same as stated for the project in Chapter 3 of this DEIR.

5.9.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under Alternative 4, as under the project, the trail extension, recreation amenities, and people using the trail would be visible during the day from various viewing areas. This visibility would result in a conflict with the unique and scenic riverine resource and would degrade the existing visual quality of the surrounding area. The impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Aesthetics and Visual Resources-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-4 No Parking Alternative

IL
.J " <I\ 1/1 1/1 IL < c,. l..l;f!f.lilZ z 1/1 ::, < z .J z LU <I\ . IIJUJ < 1/1 LU Sl IU ..J >I'.~ s. - < ILi r -f1'Aiqt;. ei,et,t,e;t,
~< "'
IU z >,-.,,_~ ..,
" r "' '!;;Iii <~O::'IJl < .., ~ ~Z<~
" .., z l l""ft mPfl.ANT
" >-"' .., ... c,. ._ c,. .., z< > .., z ILi e pi:;r ~r...,r~ < ,!) UJ < ... "'._ < 1.UZ~\f'I < l1J IL '->< c,.Z <1/1 IU C PAU IP-11:1 P'AY siArlOK ILi<> ~ 11.1 <~j IL~ ',j\ Zn._ lfl ,!) lU ll.. 'I\ I u&nr ,o...e:s ,z ~~~ ~~~
Cl'- tU >-~::, ~=c ~:::ea:::t 1U~D, -.) ..J •- 1 'fWQ-,tAI,. ~1r ~ .IIPI- re.lU,E Ol~ sco.Jr.'. _J~'-J.<'C)- ::i=<z ~ z P"ltK EMTR.AtuE Sl&N ll.."' >,=Ill rr.'.ll.. !Oi..,_<ILJLitL. tu.:l <-< ~ @lte61.UT'Oft'I' '!!ll!,H,A6c:

I I (DitU~PKt:.fNe. '!l:IE:"~Mii!
[D~"'"er)'/WAll!Nfffl' elO'rr~f::I~
(!JD'ft!C.T~AI./ IPti-~MliflCN.-. 5~"-8!.

S \ \ .I U \ tl l l I ',
lr~(;: 7 RIVER WEST FRESNO, , · - ·
\.0~ . . . PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 4 - NO PARKING LEl'IIS S. EATON TRAIL ~11{---:-' EXTE!\'SION PRO ]ECT Ulll k ll/ \>I < ',\\ <\
I ,10 • ,,,. . ,,,
A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Long-Term Impacts. Placing impervious/paved surfaces and other project components adjacent to or within the designated floodway and 100-year floodplain and on the steep bluffs could contribute to hydromodification processes and associated water quality impacts. Modifications of the bluffs would be the same under Alternative 2 4 as under the project. No impervious/paved surfaces would encroach into the designated floodway under Alternative 2 4. The total area of impervious/paved and hard-packed surfaces within the 100-year floodplain would be slightly greater under Alternative 2 4 than under the project. Although the area of flood zone would differ slightly, implementation of project design features, BMPs, and Parkway Master Plan policies and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the long-term impacts of Alternative 4 on drainage would be similar to those described above for the project, and would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4, Hydrology and Water Quality-5, and Hydrology and Water Quality-6 would reduce the long-term impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.9.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As stated for the project, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or forestland is located in the project area. No impact on agriculture or forestry resources would occur under Alternative 4.

5.9.4 Air Quality
Alternative 4 includes construction of only the 3.5-mile trail extension, with no construction of a parking lot. However, the trail and recreational amenities described in the proposed project would be built. This alternative is estimated to generate fewer vehicle trips to the project site and reduce emissions, because the public would need to find parking on adjacent streets.

As shown in Table 5.9-2 and Table 5.9-3, Alternative 4 would generate slightly less construction emissions than the project. This alternative would generate less operational emissions because no dedicated parking would be provided. The CalEEMod results for Alternative 4 can be found in Appendix C.

All air quality impacts of Alternative 4 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I
11 1
Ill
1111
1 PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.9-2 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Construction Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 4 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Project 1.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Alternative 4 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016
Table 5.9-3 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 4 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Project 2.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.1
Alternative 4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

1 PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers.

Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016

5.9.5 Biological Resources
Alternative 4 would result in slightly less ground disturbance, noise generation, and vegetation removal than the project. Impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species or their habitats would be potentially significant. The biological resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 4. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Biological Resources-1 (Special-Status Plant Species) through Biological Resources-10 (Wildlife Movement) would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.9.6 Cultural Resources
As stated for the project, no historic resources are present in the area. Alternative 4 would disturb substantially less surface area than the project and would have less potential to uncover cultural or paleontological resources during construction. However, discovery of cultural resources and human remains during construction cannot be definitely ruled out. This impact would be potentially significant.

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

The cultural resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 4. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.9.7 Geology and Soils
Impacts from exposure to seismic events, unstable geological units, and expansive soils would be the same under Alternative 4 as under the project. However, clearing, grading, and excavation activities for construction of the trail extension alignment would remove less vegetative cover and induce less soil erosion than under the project. The ground-disturbing activities of Alternative 4 would be less than those of the project (Table 5.9- 4). However, construction would result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The impact would be potentially significant. The geology and soils BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 4. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Table 5.9-4 Acres of Land Disturbed—Project vs. Alternative 4 Project Component
Proposed Project Alternative 4
Length (miles) Size (acres) Length (miles) Size (acres) Paved Multiuse Trail 2.4 3.5 2.4 3.5
Unpaved Multiuse Trail 3.14 3.6 3.1 3.6
Perrin Avenue Parking—Paved 0 0.8 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking—Unpaved 0 0.9 0 0
Bluff Trail 0.36 0.5 0.3 0.4
Added Parking NA NA NA NA
Existing Hiking Paths 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.3
Total 7.6 10.5 7.6 8.8
Note: NA = not applicable
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016

5.9.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 4 includes construction of only the 3.5-mile trail extension and recreational amenities, with no dedicated parking. This alternative is estimated to generate fewer vehicle trips to the project site and reduce emissions, because the public would need to find parking on adjacent streets.

Alternative 4 would generate less construction emissions of GHGs than the project (Table 5.9-5). Less than 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) of operational GHG emissions would be generated by this alternative because no parking lot would be constructed. The CalEEMod results for the No Parking Alternative can be found in Appendix C.

I
i
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

All impacts of Alternative 4 related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 5.9-5 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 4 Amortized
Construction
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Total Construction
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Total Operational
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Project 192 6 501
Alternative 4 137 5 0
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016

5.9.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The impacts of Alternative 4 from routine transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials, along with the potential for accidental spills, would be similar to those of the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

The facilities proposed under Alternative 4 would be located within the same overall project site as the project’s facilities; therefore, similar to the project, this alternative would have no impact related to emissions of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school or related to hazards from airports and airstrips.

Alternative 4 would provide appropriate emergency-vehicle access (fire, police, and ambulance) at both the West Riverview Drive and Perrin Avenue entrances. These access points would also provide additional emergency egress for members of the public using the trail extension. Construction activity would occur only within the project site and would not block or reduce access to city streets. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative 4 would have no impact related to interference with emergency response and/or evacuation plans.

Alternative 4 would entail constructing somewhat fewer facilities than would be constructed for the project, because no on-site parking would be provided. Therefore, the potential for wildland fire hazards from sparks emitted by construction equipment would be slightly less. However, this impact would be potentially significant. The hazards and hazardous materials BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 4. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 through Hazards and Hazardous Materials-6 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

The Alternative 4 trail extension and associated facilities would not be located on a hazardous materials site that is part of the Cortese List. Thus, as under the project, the impact of Alternative 4 related to

I
i
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

potential exposure of construction workers and the public from known hazardous materials would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.9.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Temporary Impacts. Construction activities for the project and Alternative 4 would be similar; however, the area of disturbance under Alternative 4 would be less than that of the project. Nonetheless, construction would result in potentially significant impacts. BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same under both alternatives; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 4 on water quality (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new impervious/paved surfaces and parking associated with Alternative 4 would be less than under the project, but Alternative 4 would have the same uses. Long-term impacts would be potentially significant. The BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same under both alternatives; therefore, the long-term impacts of Alternative 4 on water quality (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant.

Groundwater
Temporary Impacts. Construction activities for the project and Alternative 4 would be similar; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 4 on groundwater (similar to those described above for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new impervious/paved surfaces associated with Alternative 4 would be less than that of the project (Table 5.9-4). The percentage of impervious/paved surface proposed is very small relative to the total portion of the project site, and this new impervious area would not measurably affect recharge to the local groundwater basin. Operations under Alternative 4 would not substantially increase groundwater demands, and existing supplies provided for fire suppression are expected to be adequate to serve the site under Alternative 4 without lowering groundwater levels. The long-term impact on groundwater would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Drainage
Table 5.9-6 presents Alternative 4 components within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway.

Table 5.9-6 100-Year Floodplain and Floodway Alternative 4 Components Project Component
100-Year Floodplain Designated Floodway
Length (miles) Area (acres) Length (miles) Area (acres) Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 1.1 1.6 0 0
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 1.3 1.7 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved)
(unpaved)
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Unimproved Hiking Trails 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.0
Total 4.2 4.7 1.4 1.0
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016
Temporary Impacts. Similar to the project, Alternative 4 would require grading, moving soil, and placing structures on steep slopes and within flood zones, which could alter drainage courses and runoff patterns relative to existing conditions. The total area of disturbance within the designated floodway under Alternative 4 would be similar to the total under the project, and the area of 100-year floodplain disturbance would be less than that of the project (see Table 5.9-6 and Table 3.10-1 in Chapter 3). The area of disturbance would differ slightly, but the construction activities for the project and Alternative 4 would be similar. The BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 4 on drainage (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.9-6 and Table 3.10-1 in Chapter 3). The area of flood zone would differ slightly, but implementation of project design features, BMPs, and Parkway Master Plan policies and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the long-term impacts of Alternative 4 on drainage (similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project) would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4, Hydrology and Water Quality-5, and Hydrology and Water Quality-6 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Runoff. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 4 on runoff would be similar to those described for the project; however, under this alternative, there would be less potential than under the project for construction impacts related to exceedance of stormwater drainage capacity and polluted runoff. Because Alternative 4 would not include the parking lot(s), drainage and treatment of polluted water from these impervious/paved surfaces would not be necessary. However, impacts from runoff during constructing of the Trail would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality-7 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Floodway and 100-Year Floodplain Hazard Area. Table 5.9-6 summarizes project components under Alternative 4 that would affect land within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Under Alternative 4, a total of 4.7 acres within the 100-year floodplain would be affected. Construction of both paved and unpaved areas would occur within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Overall, impacts of Alternative 4 related to the construction and placement of structures within the designated floodway and the 100-year floodplain would be similar to the impacts of the project and would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality-9 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Exposure of People or Structures to Flooding. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 4 regarding exposure of people or structures to flooding would be similar to those described for the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 4 regarding the potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be similar to those described for the project. No impact would occur related to potential for a seiche or tsunami, and the impact related to mudflow potential would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.9.11 Land Use and Planning
Similar to the project, Alternative 4 would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy. The project would not conflict with Parkway Master Plan or City land use policies or regulations. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.9.12 Mineral Resources
Similar to the project, Alternative 4 would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

5.9.13 Noise
Construction activities under Alternative 4 would cause a short-term temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Noise levels could exceed ambient noise standards established by the City of Fresno for

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

residential areas. The impact of noise levels exceeding 55 dBA, even temporarily, would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.9.14 Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative 4 would not induce substantial population growth or displace a substantial number of housing. No impact would occur.

5.9.15 Public Services
Similar to the project, Alternative 4 would not alter existing public service ratios, response times, or performance standards for fire or police protection and would not induce population growth or demand for new school facilities. No impact would occur.

5.9.16 Recreation
Under Alternative 4, access to the site would be available via walk-in/bicycle-in pedestrian and bicycle only through Perrin Avenue and West Riverview Drive. Visitors to the trail extension who travel by car would need to park their cars near the project area entrance on the roadway along Perrin Avenue and Blackstone Avenue, or along the residential streets in the neighborhood near the entrance to the Bluff Trail. Some vehicles may park at Woodward Park; visitors would walk or bicycle bike to the Perrin Avenue entrance. No parking or loading or unloading of horses would occur under this alternative. All other recreation amenities described for the proposed project would be constructed.

The Conservancy’s Alternative 4 would not be consistent with adopted policies in the Parkway Master Plan intended to reduce problems that might be generated by off-site visitor parking. Potential issues include conflicting vehicle movements along neighborhood streets and disruption caused by trail users seeking parking to access the trail extension, which could lead to noise and traffic congestion. Alternative 4 also conflicts with Parkway Master Plan includes the following policy relating to adequate provision of on-site parking Policy RPP1, which states:
o Policy RPP1: Provide sufficient on-site parking at each recreational facility for the desired usage level during peak periods and to meet the parking recommendations of the affected local jurisdiction.

Alternative 4 would not be consistent with adopted policies.

Further, this alternative would preclude access for members of the public who are less mobile, as otherwise accommodated through compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although there is parking at Spano Park, Alternative 4 would preclude ADA-compliant access because the entrance to the trail and recreation amenities at Spano Park would be too steep to meet ADA requirements. Similarly,

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

access to the Bluff Trail and to the project site would be too steep to meet ADA requirements, and access from Woodward Park on the Eaton Trail would be too steep and would require a long travel distance.

However, ADA-compliant access to the proposed trail and recreation amenities could be made available at the Perrin Avenue entrance. Currently parking along Perrin Avenue is street side parking and no ADA- restricted parking is available. Because of the potential for visitors to create noise and traffic congestion during peak periods while searching for parking, and because of the lack of accessible parking, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 4–Recreation-1
The Conservancy shall provide a limited number of ADA-placard parking spaces at the Perrin Avenue entrance. The accessible parking and passenger loading spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel to the trail entrance. The parking spaces and passenger loading area shall be striping striped in a color that contrasts with the surface of the parking area. Colors such as blue and white are the preferred colors. The parking spaces and passenger loading area shall be identified with disabled/ADA-compliant parking signage.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Alt. 4–Recreation-1 would reduce but not eliminate the impact associated with Alternative 4 to less than significant because the Conservancy would provide accessible parking spaces and passenger loading spaces and provide access to the trail and recreational amenities via at the Perrin Avenue entrance. No additional mitigation is required.; however, because adequate on-site parking is a policy in the Parkway Master Plan, and general users traveling by motor vehicle to the trail extension would also require parking, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

5.9.17 Transportation
Alternative 4 would result in the same LOS as the proposed project. All roadway segments under this alternative would have sufficient capacity to accommodate added traffic and still operate at acceptable LOS. In addition, VMT under this alternative would be similar to VMT under the project. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.9.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Similar to the project, Alternative 4 would not affect utility infrastructure or services, such as water supply, solid waste, wastewater, or power supply. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

I I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.9.19 Cumulative Impacts
Sections 15126 and 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines state that EIRs are to consider the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as well as cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR and other projects causing related impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[a]).

Land within the River corridor is primarily designated for flood control and open space–related uses and most of the bluff and uplands are built out. As shown in Table 4.1-1, “Future and Related Projects,” opportunities for new development are limited to bridge improvements, River enhancement, and related restoration activities. One potential cumulative project of note is the Fresno Parks Master Plan, called Vision 2050, which intends to increase public access to the River trail by promoting public awareness, expanding educational programs, and creating new access points to enhance recreational opportunities aligned with those of the proposed project and Alternative 4.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have an incremental effect that is cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with other projects causing related impacts in the study area (Chapter 4).

Like the proposed project, Alternative 4 would not have an incremental effect that is cumulatively considerable for any study topic other than land use, because all environmental impacts would be either less than significant or reduced to less-than-significant levels with imposition of mitigation measures.

Alternative 4 would create an inconsistency with policies of the Parkway Master Plan related to providing parking sufficient for the desired level of usage during peak hours, because no parking would be included as part of this alternative. This inconsistency may lead to neighborhood disruption caused by the noise and traffic generated by trail users seeking parking along residential streets. Users of the newly constructed trail segment would either travel to the Perrin lot or seek to park on neighboring streets or in commercial lots, which could create conflicts with residents and businesses competing for parking space.

Alternative 4’s incremental contribution would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant unavoidable impact.

5.9.20 Environmental Justice Considerations
As described in Section 4.2, “Environmental Justice—Disadvantaged Communities,” two disadvantaged census tracts are located within 1.0 mile of the proposed project area. Access to the trail extension and recreation amenities would be provided by a single access point, the Perrin Avenue entrance. No parking would be provided. Travel to this entrance would require residents of nearby Census Tract 6039001000, Madera County, and disadvantaged community Census Tract 6019004404, and more broadly, residents

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

of Fresno to travel north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East Frontage Road, also known as Blackstone Avenue, a 180-degree reverse in direction. This would increase VMT by

8.3 miles and increase the generation of vehicular emissions. This would be an unavoidable significant impact on a nearby disadvantaged community or census tract, and more broadly, on the residents of Fresno. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact.

As discussed in Section 4.2 in Chapter 4 of this EIR, the proposed project would cause no significant adverse environmental impacts and does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities. Alternative 4 proposes to construct the trail extension as described for the proposed project, but no public vehicle entrance to the site or on-site parking would be provided. Alternative 4 would result in fewer impacts than identified for the proposed project.

Construction-related and operational emissions of air pollutants would be slightly less under Alternative 4 than under the proposed project. This alternative would also reduce short-term and temporary increases in ambient noise levels because no roadway, parking lot, and facilities, would be constructed, thus requiring less construction activity. Overall, based on the environmental impacts analysis for Alternative 4, this alternative does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities.

As discussed in Section 4.2 in Chapter 4, residents of disadvantaged communities would likely access the project site primarily via private vehicle because transit options are limited and most disadvantaged communities in Fresno are not within walking or bicycle distance of the project site. The proposed entrance at Perrin Avenue is near a currently used informal vehicular access point at the gate of the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail, which this project would extend down River to the west. The proposed project would improve vehicular access to the River Parkway trail system with this proposed 50-space parking lot; however, reaching that access point from the Fresno side would require traveling north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East frontage road (Blackstone Avenue).

Removal of the parking lot and access point at Perrin Avenue, as proposed by Alternative 4, would reduce access to the project site for disadvantaged communities by limiting access to the trail network from surface roadways near the site.

5.10 Alternative 5: Palm and Nees Access
Alternative 5 includes the project as described in Section 2.4, “Project Description,” plus a public vehicle entrance and parking and public access to the trail extension through adjacent privately owned property near the intersection of Palm and Nees avenues. Alternative 5 was developed to address limited public access to the River for residents of nearby disadvantaged communities, and more broadly for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, because of the travel distance to the proposed Perrin Avenue parking area.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

As discussed in Section 4.2, “Environmental Justice Considerations,”—Disadvantaged Communities,” providing recreational opportunities along the River is an important benefit of the project to nearby disadvantaged communities, and providing adequate convenient vehicular access points is important to reducing barriers to equitable access to the benefits of the project.

In this alternative, the existing trail would be extended downriver from the end of the proposed trail extension near the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) stormwater basin. Trail design would remain the same as described for the project. Public vehicle access to the River would be provided from the intersection of Palm and Nees avenues via improvements constructed on the existing paved private road (herein identified as the “outermost road”). A 40-stall parking lot would be constructed at the end of a two-way paved vehicle access road. A physically separated pedestrian path and/or bikeway would parallel the paved road. The paved road would lead to a turnaround near the parking lot. The turnaround would be designed to accommodate the turning radius of a Fresno Fire Department fire truck.

Recreational amenities such as a two-vault-toilet ADA-compliant restroom, landscaping, lighting, and picnic tables would be added near the parking lot. The trail extension would extend from the project site along the riverbank and end at the turnaround. Access to the parking lot would be managed by a vehicle control gate, or traffic bollards and a fee entrance station.

Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 present conceptual drawings of Alternative 5 and the proposed parking area.

Some of the proposed features would be located on State sovereign lands. Although there are limited public-access easements on the private access roads, the underlying land is privately owned.

Other vehicle routes and public access, identified as Routes 5a, 5b, and 5c, were considered for Alternative 5. Each possible route was intended to meet the Conservancy’s public-access objectives and provide equivalent public vehicle access and parking, public-use amenities, and pedestrian trail connections. Road feasibility studies (e.g., alignments, slopes, grading, soils, topography), review of land use and waste disposal history and investigations, and a Phase 1 hazardous-materials site assessment were conducted to assess any significant engineering constraints, risks to public health and safety, or environmental liabilities. From the standpoint of considering reasonable alternatives pursuant to CEQA, based on the feasibility studies, each of these routes would be expected to have more significant impacts than the proposed Alternative 5. These are important limiting factors related to the selection of any route in the vicinity of Palm and Nees avenues. The basis for eliminating Routes 5a–5c and discussing the preferred Alternative 5 route further in the DEIR is described in Appendix F and Appendix I and summarized below.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-5 Alternative 5—Palm and Nees Access

it
i
~'f; ·p;\lm\,_£P\201$\I/.M.~5g;,_$JciC_u,,- .·5l.:JL~lr~9rJL~-'M-:i:.-cs\9·o_CJu)\V..f,lig~t~ 1-ilJ'J,r.. 1{11'" !.IY_HAl10)\,tJt 5\t,liti•n-;itfil! ~l - t.kftf1 Md1. .. d1r1j fe\\ .... \\
,. \\
~

POTENTIAL

TIE- IN TO
bENEFUL PLAN
REfllONAL TRAIL
PALM/NEE$ AVE.

PARK IN0 LOT .
!a\EE ENbLARbEP
PL"N
ALTERN,..TIVE 5

PROPOSEP
PROJEt.T
~OUNPARY
P,'1LM/NEE5
AVI; At.t.ESS
~W,..NO PARK
STA IR,:;ASE
nooPPLAIN
LINE
- HA!'>IT"T

RESTORATION
PROJE.,:; T
RIVER Ac;t,ESS
TRAIL

PROJEC-T
!'>OUNPARY
C-HURvHILL "VE.

ENTRANt.E T O
- !>LUFF TRAIL
- P1,:;N1,:; AREA
WITH NArURAL
5HAPE.

EXIS flN(:, i>LUrF
TRAIL

VIEW DEC,K

WITH NATURAL
SHAD!;
MAl'>IT AT

RESTORAT ION
PROJEt.TS
!'>LUFF

TRAIL-ADA
At-t.1:55 T O

EATON TRA IL

FOR PEPS ANP
!'>IKE5
RIVERVll:W DR.
,- AC,C,ES TO
!'>LUFF TRAIL
VIEWINb AREA
RIVER AC-C-E5.S
TRA IL

PEDESTR IAN
TRAIL
EMER&ENt.Y.

MAINTEN ANt.E

ANP PRIVATE
A(,t,fS5 fWAP
ONLY
Nt'N - FLAMMA l>LE.

EVERhREEN
1/EbETAilON
l'>UFFER
!l- FT
E£?UE5TRIAN
TRAIL
,_ It-FT LEW IS 5.

EATON TRAIL
l - FT
TRA IL

SHOULDER
RIVER At.C-ESS
TRAIL
PU!'>Llt. VEHIC-LE
At.C-EG5

PERRIN AVENUE
PARKIN0 LOT,
5EE ENLARE>ED
PLIIN
.
1 l l ll sss13r;ii - o• - •i
Ji UP ql2F~F -c,:l:--.:~~li:f?i?..,~111 ~
1 i~Ud,:11~~,;:-~ll n z~:t:~,:i-1 h-i:i""'l,1-%
~!jt; ~ ..c;,IJ,~ft;
:~it~I~;:.~ ~., !: ti i 0, ~ :r: >
~;:~~~ilolQ -t
~'f;~i;jl,.~z~ ~
;~~I! i
~ ~ l ~
~ ll-
!........I_ EXl6 T. FENt.E
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-6 Palm/Nees Private Access Road Parking Lot

it
i
~
i!
"' ~
~
15 ~ ~
~ .,, . "' ~ n
i g
~
I
~
~
Q
q
e!
.s
~
~
z=
---
I
I
\
/·
ALTERNATIVE 5

PROJEC,T
f>PUNDARY
~ - -f-- · -~j- EME'.Rf.>ENVi
YEHie-LE

TURNARPUND
- FIRE HYDRANT
- TW O-VAU LT

REGTROOM WITH
rouNTA ING \

DR INK IN&
~ __,/ \ \\~ " PARK IN0 PAY
t,_.. - \ "·~ \ , - 5 TA TION-PARKINb
-- · ' FEE WILL f,E
r"
\ l .:,HAR0 ED
~ \ PET GTATION
~ 2FT TRA IL

SHOULDER
- liFT LEWIG $,

EATON TR AIL
- e,rr EqUEG rR IAN
TRAIL
- FLOODPLAIN L INE.
- ALTERNATIVE 5
PRPJE C-r
e,ouNDARY
-----t- SFT PEDEGTRl,-.N
TRAIL
PALM/NEES AVE.

At,t-E55 ROAD
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

In total, project components described for Alternative 5 would cover approximately 9.5 miles or 13.6 acres. Table 5.10-1 summarizes Alternative 5 project components by length and area.

Table 5.10-1 Summary of Alternative 5 Project Components Project Component
Alternative 5
Length (miles) Area (acres)
Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 2.7 3.9
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 3.7 4.3
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved) 0 0.8
Perrin Avenue Parking
(unpaved) 0 0.9
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0.3 0.4
Existing Unimproved Hiking Trails 2.6 2.6
Trail Extension (paved) 0.2 0.1
Palm-Nees Parking 0 0.6
Total 9.5 13.6
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016
Route 5a. For Route 5a, access would be provided by improving two existing private access roads as depicted in the conceptual drawing shown in Figure 5-7. For this route, each road would provide one-way vehicle traffic to a parking lot in the River bottom. The proposed trail extension would terminate at the new parking area and would lead to the project staircase to Spano Park. The outermost road, West Nees Avenue, is an existing paved private road that connects with the intersection of Palm and Nees avenues and continues downslope toward the River bottom, where it meets an existing dirt road. The dirt road parallels the River and continues toward a vacant private parcel where a proposed 40-space parking lot would be constructed. The innermost road is a dirt road that parallels the outermost road and proceeds toward the proposed parking lot. Both roads would be used for one-way traffic to comply with the Fresno Fire Department’s roadway width of 15 feet. About 2,200 feet of retaining walls would be constructed along both roads to stabilize the bluff face and underlying fill material. This route is significantly constrained and has been determined to be largely infeasible for the following reasons:
• Environmental contaminants of concern are present at sites associated with the access roads and parking area (see Appendix F, which includes Figure 5-8, a map of past disposal operations).

The innermost road would lie on and cut into fill material containing organic wastes. Extensive engineered retaining walls for both roadways would be necessary to attempt to stabilize these materials. The parking area would lie on fill and disposed construction debris. Furthermore, regulatory agencies might require cleanup measures to develop the roads and parking in these areas.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

• The narrow width of the outermost road at the riverbank would preclude extending the multipurpose trail to the Palm/Nees area; this would conflict with the objectives of the project (see Section 2.2, “Project Objectives”) and would create a potential vehicle/pedestrian hazard (a safety issue), because pedestrians would likely use the roadways in any case. • The outermost road at the riverbank could not be widened to accommodate both a road and the trail, because fill would have to be deposited in the regulated floodway and waters of the United States on the riverward side, and construction would have to cut into the unconsolidated fill and organic waste materials on the bluff side.
• The route would conflict with grading standards as described in Article 14 of the Bluff Protection Overlay District (City of Fresno 2015). Section 15-1407 of the Citywide Development Code dated March 31, 2015 (Bluff Protection Overlay District) states: “No grading or modification of the existing landscape or alteration of existing topography or construction of any structures shall be permitted on the bluff face or air space above it.”
• The private landowner’s plans for future development may pose constraints.

Route 5b. For Route 5b, access would be provided by constructing a road from the cul-de-sac at Palm Avenue north of Nees Avenue, as depicted in a conceptual drawing shown in Figure 5-9. The road, with two 15-foot travel lanes, would be constructed with a 10% gradient and would proceed across the bluff face downgradient toward the River bottom and then around the FMFCD basin. The proposed road would end at a proposed 40-space parking lot in the same location as for Route 5a. The proposed trail would terminate at the new parking area, along with the proposed trail to the staircase to Spano Park. About 700 feet of retaining wall would be constructed along the road to stabilize the bluff face and underlying fill and organic wastes. This route is significantly constrained and has been determined to be largely infeasible for the following reasons:
• Environmental contaminants of concern are present at sites associated with the access road and the parking area (see Route 5a and Appendix F).
• The route would conflict with grading standards as described in Article 14 of the Bluff Protection Overlay District (City of Fresno 2015). Section 15-1407 of the Citywide Development Code dated March 31, 2015 (Bluff Protection Overlay District) states: “No grading or modification of the existing landscape or alteration of existing topography or construction of any structures shall be permitted on the bluff face or air space above it.”
• The private landowner’s plans for future development may pose constraints.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-7 Proposed Alternative Routes: Route 5a

~
<I
~
z:

I,
" " e
~
~
is
" 1
~
i:
li
~
= ~
J.J
Legend
D Parcel Boundary
0 Route5a
- - ,
L _ .. Township, Range, and Section
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' .J
-
A:COM
N
A
400
,,
, . AEX, Getmap 1!31>. swisstopo, a ~ ornmunity
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-8 Landfill Sites

D Parcel Boundary
- - ,
L _ .., Township , Range, and Section
Landfill Site
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il I
~
~
r
il
~
5 ~
i
~
~
t :;
A:COM
Former
Utilities Dis
Dispos
0 - - -- - - - - - - - - - -_,_
I
' I
j
Calcott Landfill
, AEX , Getmap P,lllg}Ae ogri ,
A
200
I
Feet
400
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
0 San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-9 Proposed Alternative Routes: Route 5b

~ .,.,
~
~
~
z :,;
~
11 ~ ii Ir
!?:
0 ,l:

I-
w
~
i
&
iii
ia
i=
g .. w
Legend
c::J Parcel Boundary
D Proposed Route
L = ~ Township, Range, and Section
7 I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
)
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A:COM
N
200 400
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Route 5c. For Route 5c, access would be provided by constructing a paved road from the corner of West Alluvial and North Harrison Avenues, as depicted in a conceptual drawing shown in Figure 5-10. The proposed road would proceed across a vacant parcel of land toward the top of the bluff. The road would end at a proposed 40-space parking lot near the bluff face. From the parking lot, an ADA-compatible access trail would be constructed down the bluff face to the river bottom. This route is significantly constrained and has been determined to be largely infeasible for the following reasons:
• Environmental contaminants of concern are present. In this instance, the area affected by the road alignment, parking area, and trail have been affected by the disposal of organic wastes (see Appendix F).
• The route would conflict with grading standards as described in Article 14 of the Bluff Protection Overlay District (City of Fresno 2015). Section 15-1407 of the Citywide Development Code dated March 31, 2015 (Bluff Protection Overlay District) states: “No grading or modification of the existing landscape or alteration of existing topography or construction of any structures shall be permitted on the bluff face or air space above it.”
The private landowner’s plans for future development may pose constraints.

5.10.1 Environmental Setting
Alternative 5 is located along the San Joaquin River east of Spano Park, within the city limits of Fresno.

The study area for this alternative is generally delineated on the north by the River and on the south and east by commercially developed parcels on the plateau above the steep river bluff, including the Park Place Shopping Center and the Palm Bluffs Corporate Center. Residential development is located on the plateau northeast and southwest of the study area. Most of the study area for Alternative 5 consists of open space.

The area encompasses about 65 acres on 10 parcels of land, all of which are privately owned.

Table 5.10-2 identifies the individual parcels, their sizes, land uses and zoning, and owner names, and Figure 5-11 shows the parcels. There are two private-access roads, on which State and local agencies have certain public-access easements. These roads are referred to as the “gravel haul roads.” The area is located adjacent to the end of the proposed trail extension and has been identified in the Parkway Master Plan and the City’s General Plan 2025 as a potential River access point.

Alternative 5 also includes the project, as described in Section 2.4, “Project Description.” Therefore, the setting for this alternative is the same as described in Chapter 3.

The improvements proposed for Alternative 5 would lie within or immediately adjacent to the parcels listed in Table 5.10-2 and shown in Figure 5-11.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.10-2 Alternative 5 Parcels, Sizes, Land Uses, and Owner(s) Assessor’s
Parcel Number Acreage
Existing Land Use
Description
Planned Land Use
Description Zoning Owner
40203063S 11.61 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Multiuse AE-5 SOB Enterprises 40203067S 4.52 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Multiuse AE-5 SOB Enterprises 40203043 1.19 Vacant Commercial/Special SPLIT: AE-5
and AE-20
SOB Enterprises
40203070 3.06 Vacant Commercial/Special SPLIT: AE-5
and AE-20
SOB Enterprises
40553085 11.66 Office/Commercial Commercial/Office C-2 Park Place 40534019S 0.70 Vacant Open Space/Multiuse AE-20 SOB Enterprises 40534018S 0.76 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Ponding Basin AE-20 SOB Enterprises 40203064S 10.94 Vacant Open Space/Multiuse AE-20 SOB Enterprises 40534004 11.89 Vacant Commercial/Office C-P C&A Farms, LLC; North Palm Partners
40534017S 8.75 Vacant Open Space/Multiuse AE-20 SOB Enterprises Total Acres 65.08
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016

5.10.1.1 Past Land Use
From the early 1940s to mid-1970s, several locations on the Alternative 5 parcels were used for open dumps and landfills. The earliest landfilling is associated with the U.S. Army’s Camp Pinedale in 1942; landfilling continued to 1947, when the base was closed. A sewage treatment plant and associated ponds were built in 1943 to serve the Army camp. In 1962, Pinedale Utility District took over the treatment plant and began landfilling or allowed landfilling by Kepco until 1977, when the plant was closed.

Areas in the Alternative 5 study area have been used for the disposal of concrete, asphalt, and construction and demolition wastes. Additional landfilling activities of organic wastes (domestic garbage) took place at the former Pinedale Dump (also known as Kepco Pinedale Landfill) along the bluffs of the subject property. The majority of the former Pinedale Dump exists near Palm Avenue and West Nees Avenue, and portions have been more deeply buried, reworked, or remediated.

Figure 5-8 depicts the approximate location of the various disposal sites. The illustrated boundaries are approximate and are based on a review of data provided from a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F).

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-10 Proposed Alternative Routes: Alternative Route 5c

A:COM
Legend
CJ Parcel Boundary
C] Alternative Route 5c
- - , L _ _. Township, Range, and Section
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
L
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-11 Map of Parcels within Alternative 5 Area

40534004
A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I

Based on historical information, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and the County of Fresno Public Health Department, Environmental Health Division, now consider the Kepco landfill, the adjacent A. R. Richer landfill, Calcot landfill, Spano River Ranch landfill, and Pinedale Utility District landfill to be one landfill site. Other names for this landfill area include Kepley Dump, Pinedale Dump, Spano Dump, and Spano River Ranch Landfill Cell. According to the Solid Waste Information System database maintained by CalRecycle, the landfill was known as the Kepco Pinedale Landfill, a Class II landfill, and its regulatory status was “permitted” and operational status was “closed” (Appendix F).

Photographs 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 show landfill activities and the types of wastes accepted. Waste material ranges from commercial deposits of concrete to household debris including vegetation, wood, paper, cardboard, metals, and barrels with unknown contents. Waste and fill material from these landfill sites added to and expanded the bluffs. Photograph 5-3 shows the extended bluffs overlooking the River.

Figure 5-12 is a conceptual view of the change in the boundary of the top of the bluffs from before 1940 to 2007. The depiction of the boundary change was made by comparing a pre-1940 edition of the Fresno North Topographic Quadrangle with the 2012 revision. The maps and photographs show that the composition of some of the parcels within the Alternative 5 study area are composed of unconsolidated wastes and fill.

Of the routes and configurations considered for Alternative 5, the proposed locations, alignments, and conceptual site plan are designed to avoid disturbing areas documented to contain unremediated wastes and unconsolidated fill to a greater extent than Routes 5a–5c as presented above. The potential impacts of Alternative 5 associated with hazards and hazardous materials are analyzed in Section

5.10.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.”

A:COM
Photograph 5-1 View facing toward the south. The area in the foreground is the toe of the bluff.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I

Photograph 5-2 View facing toward the north (facing upstream of the distant San Joaquin River).

Photograph 5-3 View looking across the San Joaquin River.

The individuals are believed to be standing on Parcel 40203067S.

A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Figure 5-12 Conceptual Illustrations Comparing Current Bluff Crest with Original Bluff Crest

- current Bluff Crest
- original Bluff Crest
- - 7
L _ .., Township, Range, and Section
N
A
200
Feet
A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

A..=t'OM

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

5.10.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Alternative 5 would result in construction of an additional parking lot and recreational amenities. These additional features and the features associated with the project would be most visible to tenants in commercial buildings; however, some improvements would also be visible to homeowners with residences on the bluffs. This alternative would alter the view of the River. The long-term presence of the additional parking lot, with an associated increase in visitor use, would affect sensitive viewer groups and would conflict with the existing visual character of the area. LED lighting in the parking lot would create a new source of glare. The impact would be potentially significant; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures Aesthetics and Visual Resources-1 and Aesthetics and Visual Resources-2 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.10.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As stated for the project, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or forestland is present in the project area. No impact on agriculture and forestry resources would occur under Alternative 5.

5.10.4 Air Quality
Alternative 5 includes construction of the project and an additional public vehicle entrance and parking lot off Palm and Nees avenues. Air pollutant emissions were calculated using construction of a 3.5-mile multipurpose trail extension, the Perrin Avenue parking lot, and a parking lot off Palm and Nees avenues as inputs. The Perrin Avenue parking lot is estimated to be 2.23 acres and the Palm and Nees parking lot is calculated to be 1.18 acres. With construction of the Perrin Avenue parking lot, an assumed 1,000 square feet of recreational amenities and a restroom would be constructed. This alternative is estimated to generate 558 daily trips.

As shown in Table 5.10-3 and Table 5.10-4, this alternative would generate only slightly more construction-related and operational emissions than the project. Alternative 5 would reduce VMT by each visitor to the project area from the Fresno metropolitan area; however, it is assumed that total operational emissions would be greater because public vehicle access and parking would increase and become more convenient. The CalEEMod results for the Perrin Avenue parking lot and the Palm and Nees parking lot can be found in Appendix C. All air quality impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

1 PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers. 1 PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.10-3 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Construction Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 5 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Project 1.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Alternative 5 1.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

X = oxides of sulfur
Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016
Table 5.10-4 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 5 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Project 2.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.1
Alternative 5 4.3 1.2 2.3 0.0 0.6 0.2
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

X = oxides of sulfur
Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016

5.10.5 Biological Resources
This section describes the habitat conditions and species observed on the day of the biological resources survey for Alternative 5. On September 22, 2015, a reconnaissance-level biological field survey was performed on about 62 acres of land within the Alternative 5 project area. Before this survey, this area had not been surveyed for biological resources. However, two previous surveys had been conducted on the adjacent project site. The results of all biological surveys are provided in Appendix D of this DEIR.

Disturbed annual grassland, defined as dominated by nonnative, annual upland grass species, occupies approximately 30 acres (84%) of the project site. The grassland also includes scattered woody vegetation, including tobacco brush (Ceanothus velutinus), blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), and willow (Salix). During the survey, evidence of desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) was spotted. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and common raven (Corvus corax) were

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

observed in or over grassland habitat. Red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) were seen flying above the site, as were cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), black phoebe, and mourning dove.

Large sections of the grassland had been recently burned, exposing a network of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows along the hillside. Because these burrows occur along the hillside, they would not affect trail construction or use. However, ground squirrel burrows provide potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Burrowing owls have been observed within 1 mile of the project site (D. Young, personal observation). However, no evidence of habitation of burrows by burrowing owls was noted during the reconnaissance survey. Some burrows were the correct size for foxes and coyotes, although no tracks or scat were found to indicate an active burrow.

A
quatic habitat, the San Joaquin River, occupies approximately 3 acres (7%) of the project site.

Species observed include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), American coot (Fulica americana), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), and tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor).

Riparian habitat occupies approximately 2 acres, 6% of the project site. The vegetation is a mix of native and nonnative species. Species include rattlebox (Sesbania punicea), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea).

A variety of species were observed in the riparian area; although this area occupies less than 6% of the project site, it shelters the most abundant diversity of species. Species observed included western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), red-tailed hawk, California quail (Callipepla californica), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), and Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii). Scat from desert cottontail was also observed.

North of the site across the River (in Madera County) is a diverse riparian area with ample nesting opportunities. California quail could be heard and waterfowl were seen moving in and out of this area.

There are no federally listed or State-listed endangered or threatened plant species have the potential to occur on the Alternative 5 project site (see the 2011 Lewis Eaton Trail Biotic Study and the 2014 Biological Resources Report Update in Appendix D). Various special-status wildlife species occur in Fresno and Madera counties and the project vicinity, but those species were determined to be absent from the project site because the site is outside of the known range of the species, no suitable habitat occurs on the project site, and/or recent species occurrence records are lacking in the site vicinity. Since 2011, there have been no changes to the site or the species observed that would affect this determination. The 2015 survey found no changes to this finding and updated the status of four species.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

The Alternative 5 study area is adjacent to areas previously surveyed and has plant species that do not differ from those covered in earlier reports. No federally listed or State-listed endangered or threatened plant species have the potential to occur in the Alternative 5 area. Special-status wildlife species occur within 5 miles of the Alternative 5 site; however, they were determined to be absent because the site is outside of the known range of the species, no suitable habitat occurs on the project site, and/or recent species occurrence records are lacking in the site vicinity.

Although no special-status wildlife species are currently present at the Alternative 5 site, the potential exists for some of these species to be present at a future time. All native nongame birds are protected under the federal MBTA, which prohibits the take of birds and destruction of their nests and eggs. Nesting raptors are present in the vicinity of the site, and previous surveys have identified red-tailed hawks and an osprey nesting within a mile of the site. During the 2015 survey, an osprey and red-tailed hawk were observed flying over the site. Raptors are protected under the MBTA and could affect work at this site.

No occurrences of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) are currently recorded within 5 miles of the Alternative 5 site; however, this project is within the species’ California range and habitat is present.

Some potential burrows were observed on but evidence that would indicate an active burrow (Appendix D). San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is currently absent from the site, but the area is within its range.

Similar to the project, potential impacts of Alternative 5 on plant and animal species would be significant.

The biological resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 5. In addition, Mitigation Measures Biological Resources-1 (Special- Status Plant Species) through Biological Resources-10 (Wildlife Movement) would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.10.6 Cultural Resources
A pedestrian survey of the Alternative 5 project area was conducted in October 2015. Survey results are presented in the Phase II Archaeological Survey Report (Appendix E). The investigation identified no historical resources in the area. Remnants of Perrin Ditch are present; however, the ditch was evaluated previously and is ineligible for the CRHR. Aside from a few small fragments of historic ceramics and concrete that lacked association or context, no cultural resources were found during the pedestrian survey.

Impacts of Alternative 5 on cultural resources would be similar to those of the project. No historic resources are present in the area. However, historic Native American use is known to have occurred along the San Joaquin River. Therefore, a greater potential exists than under the project to uncover cultural resources or human remains along the river during construction of the Alternative 5 trail extension, parking lot, and turnaround. The impacts would be potentially significant. The cultural

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources-1 and Cultural Resources-2 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

5.10.7 Geology and Soils
According to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, the soils of the Alternative 5 project area are the same as described for the project: Grangeville fine sandy loam, Hesperia sandy loam, Tujunga, and Riverwash (NRCS 2014).

Potential impacts of Alternative 5 on geology and soils would be significant, the same as described for the project and would be potentially significant. The geology BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 5. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.10.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 5 includes the construction of the project and an additional parking lot off Palm Avenue and Nees Avenue. GHG emissions were calculated using construction of the multipurpose trail extension, the Perrin Avenue parking lot, and a parking lot off Palm Avenue and Nees Avenue as inputs. The Perrin Avenue parking lot is estimated to be 1.7 acres and the Palm and Nees parking lot is calculated to be 0.6 acre. With construction of the Perrin Avenue parking lot, an assumed 1,000 square feet of recreational amenities and a restroom would be constructed. This alternative is estimated to generate 558 daily trips.

This alternative would generate slightly more construction-related and operational emissions than the project (Table 5.10-5). Alternative 5 would reduce VMT by each visitor to the project area from the Fresno metropolitan area; however, it is assumed that total operational emissions, including GHG emissions, would be greater because public vehicle access and parking would increase and would be more convenient. The emissions would not approach any adopted or recommended thresholds. CalEEMod results for the Perrin Avenue parking lot and the Palm and Nees parking lot can be found in Appendix C.

All impacts of Alternative 5 related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

Table 5.10-5 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Project vs. Alternative 5 Total Construction
Emissions (MTCO2e)
Amortized
Construction
Emissions (MTCO2e)
Total Operational
Emissions (MTCO2e)
Project 192 6 501
Alternative 5 192 6 735
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2016

5.10.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts of Alternative 5 from routine transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials, along with the potential for accidental spills, would be similar to those of the project and would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

The additional facilities proposed under Alternative 5 would be located west of the project site, but would still be approximately 0.60 mile from Nelson Elementary School, 3.1 miles from the Sierra Skypark airport, and 2.45 miles from the heliport at Valley Children’s Hospital. Therefore, like the project, Alternative 5 would have no impact related to emissions of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school or related to hazards from airports and airstrips.

Alternative 5 would provide appropriate emergency-vehicle access (fire, police, and ambulance) via a paved road from the Palm and Nees avenues entrance onto the project site, including the additional parking lot. This road would also provide additional emergency egress for members of the public using the trail. The West Riverview Drive and Perrin Avenue entrances would also provide access for emergency vehicles. The trail leading form the Alternative 5 site to the trail extension would accommodate emergency response vehicles. Construction activity would occur only within the project site and would not block or reduce access to city streets. Therefore, like the project, Alternative 5 would have no impact related to interference with emergency response and/or evacuation plans.

Because Alternative 5 would entail construction of additional recreation facilities, the potential for wildland fire hazards from sparks emitted by construction equipment would be greater than the project’s wildland fire hazard, and the impact would be potentially significant. The hazards and hazardous materials BMPs identified in Section 2.5.1 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 5. Implementing Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 through Hazards and Hazardous Materials-6 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

The existing paved roadway that would be used for the Palm and Nees Avenue access is 21 feet wide, which may be enough to meet the minimum standards required by the City of Fresno for emergency- vehicle access. However, this alternative would also entail constructing a paved, 5-foot-wide

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

pedestrian/bicycle access path alongside the existing road. This path would connect the trail to existing city streets for pedestrians and bicyclists, and would provide trail access for members of the public who may park along the top of the bluffs (e.g., in the parking area at Spano Park) when the proposed new parking lot at the base of the trail is full. Under Alternative 5, the additional paved pedestrian/bicycle path would be constructed within deposits associated with the former Kepco Pinedale Landfill. The proposed new parking lot at the foot of the bluffs could also be constructed within these deposits from the former landfill.

As discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F), an open dump and landfill on the Alternative 5 project site was operating under the name Kepco in the 1950s. Class II and Class III waste materials were placed in natural depressions and drainages from the 1950s to 1978. The exact boundaries of the Kepco landfill are difficult to determine. Anecdotal reports suggest that several locations were used somewhat indiscriminately in the 1950s and 1960s. Waste accepted at these landfills included concrete and brick construction debris and garbage. Paint and degreaser sludge were also deposited into the Kepco Pinedale Landfill. This sludge contained metallic pigments, volatile aliphatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, esters, and ketones. Waste also included household and commercial refuse, garbage, other decomposable organic material, scrap metals, and solid inert materials. These materials have been intermixed with layers of soil, and they reportedly extend to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet below the ground surface. In addition, construction debris has been dumped on the surface.

Previous tests concluded that groundwater quality has not been adversely affected by the landfill activities, with the exception of the deposit of Freon-12 into the landfill (Appendix F). Gas monitoring wells have detected the presence of methane gas, a gas generated by decomposing wastes, at levels above the lower explosive limit.
23 Two underground fires were observed in the 1990s at nearby locations east and south of the proposed parking lot, at the foot of the existing paved access road. Soil vapor samples collected from within the landfill area have indicated the presence of several volatile organic compounds, such as vinyl chloride and benzene, at levels above the respective human health screening levels (OEHHA 2010).

Postclosure plans must be prepared before disposal areas can be converted to other uses. A postclosure plan was never prepared for the unregulated landfill activities on and near the Alternative 5 site. The presence of the known contaminants in the Kepco Pinedale Landfill represents a Recognized Environmental Condition. Constructing a paved pedestrian/bicycle pathway along the existing road through the landfill, and a new parking lot at the base of the road, under Alternative 5 could expose construction workers and members of the public to hazardous materials (gases such as methane and The lower explosive limit is the lowest concentration (percentage) of a gas or a vapor in air capable of producing a flash of fire in presence of an ignition source (arc, flame, or heat). 23 San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

Page 5 ends

volatile organic compounds such as vinyl chloride and benzene). Furthermore, construction activities at the former landfill could disturb drainage patterns or disturb cover, which could cause or allow the landfill materials to become wet. Over time, this condition would increase the potential for the presence of explosive and flammable gases and possible leachate movement and accumulation. Additionally, disturbed landfill soils could become mobilized, causing potential human health and pollution issues.

Construction across the bluff face, potentially through the landfill materials, also presents a potential hazard from unstable soils that may be unsuitable for use as a base material. Therefore, the impact of Alternative 5 from hazards related to project construction and operation within a Cortese-listed site would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-7 Before the acquisition of any public land or the final design of planned improvements, a licensed environmental professional shall be retained to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment at the locations of the proposed paved pedestrian/bicycle path (adjacent to the existing access road) and new parking area and associated facilities (at the base of the existing access road). Testing shall include sampling of soil and groundwater for constituents of concern such as volatile organic compounds, along with vapor monitoring for ambient air emissions of constituents such as methane.

Laboratory results shall be presented and summarized in a report, which shall be submitted to the County of Fresno Department of Public Health. The report shall recommend specific remedial activities and any project design features that are necessary to assure human and environmental health and safety with the implementation of Alternative 5. (For example, installing a concrete-lined drainage ditch adjacent to the paved pathway next to the access road may be necessary to prevent potentially explosive gases from forming as stormwater runoff interacts with landfill materials, and to prevent runoff from transporting landfill leachate materials into the San Joaquin River.) All remedial actions recommended in the report or required by regulatory agencies shall be implemented before the start of any earthmoving or ground-disturbing activities within the Alternative 5 project site.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-8 Before the start of any earthmoving activities at the Alternative 5 project site, a postclosure land use plan shall be prepared in compliance with 27 CCR Sections 20950–21420. As required by Section 21190, the postclosure land use shall be designed and maintained to:
• protect public health and safety and prevent damage to structures, roads, utilities, and gas monitoring and control systems;
• prevent public contact with waste, landfill gas, and leachate; and • prevent landfill gas explosions.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives The land use plan shall be submitted to the County of Fresno Department of Public Health and the Central Valley RWQCB for review and approval.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-9 A worker health and safety plan shall be prepared before the start of construction activities within the Alternative 5 project site. The plan shall identify, at a minimum:
• the potential types of contaminants that could be encountered during construction activity; • all appropriate equipment and procedures to be used during project activities to protect workers, public health, and the environment;
• emergency response procedures;
• the most direct route to the nearest hospitals; and
• an on-site safety officer.

The plan shall describe actions to be taken should hazardous materials be encountered during construction, including protocols for handling hazardous materials and preventing their spread, and procedures for notifying local and/or State regulatory agencies in case of an emergency. The plan shall specify that if evidence of hazardous materials contamination is observed or suspected during site preparation or construction through either obvious or implied measures (i.e., stained or odorous soil or groundwater), construction activities shall immediately cease in the area of the find. A qualified hazardous materials specialist shall assess the site and collect and analyze soil and/or groundwater samples, if needed. If the samples identify contaminants, the Conservancy shall employ measures in accordance with federal and State regulations, or shall coordinate with the landowner or other responsible party to employ such measures, before construction activities can resume at the site.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 Consistent with State of California procedures and in conjunction with the Conservancy’s real property acquisition process, the Conservancy shall obtain the following:
• A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by a licensed environmental professional and performed to ASTM International (ASTM) standards (ASTM E1903-11) at the locations of the proposed paved pedestrian/bicycle path (adjacent to the existing access road) and new parking area and associated facilities (at the base of the existing access road). Testing shall include sampling of soil and groundwater for constituents of concern such as volatile organic compounds, along with vapor monitoring for ambient air emissions of constituents such as methane.

Laboratory results shall be presented and summarized in a report, which shall be submitted to the County of Fresno Department of Public Health. The report shall recommend specific additional

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives site investigation needs if appropriate, remedial activities to clean up the property, and any project design features necessary to assure human and environmental health and safety with implementation of Alternative 5.
• Any further site investigations recommended as part of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
• A postclosure land use plan prepared in compliance with 27 CCR Sections 20950–21420. As required by Section 21190, the postclosure land use plan shall be designed and maintained to:
o protect public health and safety and prevent damage to structures, roads, utilities, and gas monitoring and control systems;
o prevent public contact with waste, landfill gas, and leachate; and o prevent landfill gas explosions.

The postclosure land use plan shall be submitted to the County of Fresno Department of Public Health and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for review and approval. Upon approval, the plan shall be implemented before the Conservancy acquires the land for the Parkway project.

After real property acquisition, and in conjunction with final design of Alternative 5, the Conservancy shall develop the design to avoid or minimize locating the planned pedestrian/bicycle path, proposed parking lot, and amenities on the landfill material and shall ensure consistency with the approved postclosure land use plan.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-2 A worker health and safety plan shall be prepared before the start of construction activities on the Alternative 5B 5 project site. The plan shall identify, at a minimum:
• the potential types of contaminants that could be encountered during construction activity; • all appropriate equipment and procedures to be used during project activities to protect workers, public health, and the environment;
• emergency response procedures;
• the most direct route to the nearest hospitals; and
• an on-site safety officer.

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives shall specify that if evidence of hazardous materials contamination is observed or suspected during site preparation or construction through either obvious or implied measures (i.e., stained or odorous soil or groundwater), construction activities shall immediately cease in the area of the find. A qualified hazardous materials specialist shall assess the site and collect and analyze soil and/or groundwater samples, if needed. If the samples identify contaminants, the Conservancy shall employ measures in accordance with federal and State regulations, or shall coordinate with the landowner or other responsible party to employ such measures, before construction activities can resume at the site.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-7, Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-8, and Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-9 Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 and Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-2 would reduce the potential impact related to human health and environmental hazards from construction at the former Kepco Pinedale Landfill to less than significant because any necessary remedial activities would occur before the start of earthmoving activities property was acquired for public use; a worker health and safety plan would be implemented should contaminated soil or groundwater be encountered; and a postclosure land use plan approved by regulatory agencies would be implemented. No additional mitigation is required.

5.10.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Temporary Impacts. For Alternative 5, an extended multiuse trail route, 40-stall parking lot, access road and turnaround, and restrooms would be constructed in addition to the facilities described in Chapter 3 for the project. The BMPs would be the same for this alternative as for the project. The area of disturbance and paved surfaces for Alternative 5 would be greater than that of the project. The Alternative 5 project features are located in an area that was formerly used for the Kepco Pinedale Landfill. A plume of groundwater contaminated with trichloroethylene, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chloroform is situated below the residential development on the bluffs, near the intersection of Nees and Palm avenues. The soils near the groundwater plume may also be contaminated. Disturbing the soil during construction could mobilize sediments laced with contaminants of concern, resulting in a health hazard and a potential source of polluted sediment that could enter receiving waters. Construction near the former landfill could disturb drainage patterns, or could disturb vegetative cover, which could cause or allow the landfill materials to become wet, thereby increasing the potential for possible leachate accumulation over time.

The impact would be potentially significant.

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Water Quality-3 as described for the project would adequately reduce most water quality impacts associated with construction of Alternative 5 to less than significant. However, the potential would remain for water quality impacts associated with construction in areas with possible contamination. The impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hydrology and Water Quality-3a Before any surface-disturbing construction begins, the Conservancy shall implement Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1, 7, requiring completion of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for land adjacent to the alignment of the multiuse trail, parking lot, and the gravel haul road to determine the presence of contaminants of concern. The Phase II investigation shall be completed along the face of the slope adjacent to the trail and gravel haul road alignment. If contaminants of concern are present, the area shall be remediated as recommended in the assessment and as required by regulatory agencies. In addition, the Conservancy shall implement Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-8, requiring preparation of prepare a postclosure land use plan as described in Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hydrology and Water Quality-3a would reduce the potential temporary impact on water quality associated with the former Kepco Pinedale Landfill to less than significant because any necessary remedial activities would occur before the start of earthmoving activities, a worker health and safety plan would be implemented should any contaminated soil or groundwater be encountered, and a postclosure land use plan approved by regulatory agencies would be implemented. No additional mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new impervious/paved surfaces associated with Alternative 5 would add additional surfaces to those of the project (Table 5.10-1). Alternative 5 would provide an additional restroom facility along with the facilities and uses described for the project.

As discussed above for temporary impacts, placing facilities near the former landfill could disturb drainage patterns or disturb cover, which could cause or allow the landfill materials to become wet, thereby increasing the potential for possible leachate movement or accumulation over time. The impact would be potentially significant.

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives 3, and Hydrology and Water Quality-4 as described for the project would adequately reduce long-term water quality impacts of Alternative 5 to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Groundwater
Temporary Impacts. The construction activities for the project and Alternative 5 would be similar; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 5 on groundwater would be similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new impervious/paved surface associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than that of the project (see Table 5.10-6 and Table 3.10-1 in Chapter 3). However, the percentage of impervious/paved surface proposed is very small relative to the total area of the project site, and this increase would not measurably affect recharge to the local groundwater basin. Operations under Alternative 5 would not substantially increase groundwater demands, and existing supplies provided for fire suppression are expected to be adequate to serve the site under Alternative 5 without lowering groundwater levels. The long-term impact on groundwater would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 5.10-6 Project plus Alternative 5 Components within the 100-Year Floodplain and Designated Floodway
Project Component
100-Year Floodplain Designated Floodway
Length (miles) Area (acres) Length (miles) Area (acres) Multiuse Trail
(paved—12 feet wide) 1.4 2.0 0 0
Multiuse Trail
(unpaved—10 feet wide) 1.7 2.1 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking
(unpaved) 0 0 0 0
Bluff Trail
(paved) 0 0 0 0
Hiking Trails 1.8 1.3 0 0
Trail Extension (paved) 0 0 1.4 1.0
Palm-Nees Parking 0 0 0 0.3
Total 4.9 5.4 1.4 1.3
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2016
Drainage
Temporary Impacts. Like the project, Alternative 5 would require grading, moving soil, and placing structures on steep slopes and within flood zones, which could alter drainage courses and runoff patterns from existing conditions. Table 5.10-6 shows that the area of disturbance in the 100-year floodplain and

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives the designated floodway is greater than that of the project (Table 3.10-1). Although the area of disturbance is slightly larger, the construction activities for the project and Alternative 5 would be similar, and the BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 5 would be similar to those described in Chapter 3 for the project. However, during construction of facilities near the former landfill, drainage patterns could be altered and affect the 100- year flood plain and designated floodway, which could contribute further to hydromodification. This temporary impact would be potentially significant.

Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan w
ould be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4, Hydrology and Water Quality-5, and Hydrology and Water Quality-6 as described for the project would reduce the temporary hydromodification impacts from placement of structures in areas of the former landfill to less than significant.

Long-Term Impacts. Placing impervious/paved surfaces and other project components adjacent to or w
ithin the designated floodway and 100-year floodplain and on the steep bluffs could contribute to changes to hydrologic and/or geomorphic processes within the 100-year floodplain or designated floodway. Table 5.10-6 presents the portion of Alternative 5 located within the designated floodway and floodplain. Modifications of the bluffs would be the same under Alternative 5 as under the project.

Portions of the trail at the base of the bluff, the turnaround (as illustrated in Figure 5-6), and the roadway approach encroach into the designated floodway. These surfaces would be hardscaped or paved. The total area of impervious/paved and hard-packed surfaces within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway would be slightly greater under Alternative 5 than under the project. As discussed above for construction, placing facilities near the within the 100-year floodplain, designated floodway, and former landfill could disturb drainage patterns or disturb cover, which could further affect hydrologic and/or geomorphic processes. This impact would be potentially significant.

Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan w
ould be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4, Hydrology and Water Quality-5, Hydrology and Water Quality-6 as described for the project would reduce the long-term hydromodification impacts from placement of structures for Alternative 5 to less than significant.

Runoff. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 5 on runoff would be similar to those described f
or the project. Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan would be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality-7 as described for the project, and Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hydrology and Water Quality-3a as described above would reduce

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives hydromodification impacts from placement of structures for Alternative 5 to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.
100-Year Floodplain and Designated Floodway. Table 5.10-6 summarizes the components of Alternative 5 that would affect land within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Under Alternative 5, a total of 5.4 acres within the 100-year floodplain and 1.3 acres within the designated floodway would be affected, slightly more than under the proposed project (Table 3.10-1). Construction of both paved and unpaved portions of the trail would occur within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Overall, impacts of Alternative 5 would be greater than impacts of the project and would be potentially significant. Portions of the multiuse trail and roundabout would be located within the designated floodway. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality-9 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Exposure of People or Structures to Flooding. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 5 regarding exposure of people or structures would be similar to those described for the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 5 regarding the potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be similar to those described for the project. No impact would occur related to potential for a seiche or tsunami, and the impact related to mudflow potential would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.10.11 Land Use and Planning
Some lands in the Alternative 5 project area are in private ownership; they would need to be acquired by a public agency for Alternative 5 to be implemented. The private-access roads affected by Alternative 5 are encumbered by public-access easements owned by the City of Fresno and the State of California.

These easements provide for public access under specified conditions; to implement Alternative 5, additional easement rights would need to be acquired by a public agency from willing landowners and at mutually agreeable terms.

The California State Lands Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted submerged lands owned by the State; the beds of navigable rivers, streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, inlets, and straits including tidelands and submerged lands; and the beds of navigable rivers (PRC Section 6301). The lands along the River between the ordinary high-water marks are subject to the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission. The proposed uses and improvements are generally consistent with the public-trust uses allowed by the commission.

Alternative 5 would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy. No impact would occur.

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

5.10.12 Mineral Resources
Like the project, Alternative 5 would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

5.10.13 Noise
Construction activities under Alternative 5 would cause a short-term temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Noise levels could exceed ambient noise standards established by the City of Fresno for residential areas. The impact of noise levels exceeding 55 dBA, even temporarily, would be significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

5.10.14 Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative 5 would not induce substantial population growth or displace a substantial number of housing units. No impact would occur.

5.10.15 Public Services
Similar to the project, Alternative 5 would not alter existing public service ratios, response times, or performance standards for fire or police protection and would not induce population growth or demand for new school facilities. No impact would occur.

5.10.16 Recreation
Under Alternative 5, additional parking (40 more spaces) and vehicular visitor access to the trail extension and recreation amenities would be provided through the Palm and Nees Avenue entrance. ADA- compliant access would be provided from the parking area to the trail extension. The alternative would reduce the travel distance for each visitor from the Fresno metropolitan area. Additional access and reduced VMT for visitors from the Fresno metropolitan area would encourage visitor use such as hiking, bicycling, jogging, and picnicking. In particular, tThe Alternative 5 entrance would provide new and enhanced recreation opportunities for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities. T also help reduce barriers for access to recreation opportunities for disadvantaged communities. As under the proposed project, t
he increase in visitor use would not result in substantial damage to or have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

5.10.17 Transportation Traffic
The transportation analysis of Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 5 considers all improvements that are constructed or planned for completion by 2025. Appendix H provides a detailed discussion of the methodology used to determine LOS and VMT as summarized below.

As shown in Table 5.10-7, all study public roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better under Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 5 conditions and no impacts are identified. The transportation analysis of Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 5 conditions considers all improvements that are constructed or planned for completion by 2025. Similar to with-project conditions, all roadway segments under Alternative 5 have sufficient capacity to accommodate added traffic and still operate at acceptable LOS. Appendix H provides a detailed discussion of the methodology used to determine LOS and VMT.

Table 5.10-7 Roadway Segment Analysis Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 5 Conditions
Roadway
Segment 1
Number
of Lanes 2 Direction
ADT 24-
Hour
Volume
(2025) Base plus Alternative 5
Conditions
A.M. Peak
Hour
P.M. Peak
Hour
Vol LOS Vol LOS
1 SR 41 between the Fresno–Madera County line
and Avenue 12 2/D NB
SB 35,998 780
608
B
B
1,165
1,352
B
B
2 SR 41 East Frontage Road (Cobb Road Ranch)
north of Vin Rose Lane 1/U NB
SB 528 31
43 C
C
28 61
C
C
3 Audubon Drive between SR 41 and Palm
Avenue 1/U EB
WB 16,918 393
481
C
C
463
652
C
C
4 Audubon Drive just east of SR 41 2/D EB
WB 15,998 394
493
C
C
462
677
C
C
5 Del Mar Avenue between Audubon Drive and
West Riverview Drive 1/U NB
SB 2,130 33
89 C
C
67 94
C
C
Notes:

Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2016
A supplemental traffic study was prepared to evaluate impacts of the proposed project and alternatives on the project site at two study intersections. A copy of the report is found in Appendix DD H2. The report was prepared consistent with the approach outlined by the City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report
Guidelines (2009).

As shown in Table 5.10-8, intersection No. 1 (Palm Avenue [north-south]/Nees Avenue [east-west]) and intersection No. 2 (Del Mar Avenue [north-south]/Audubon Drive [east-west]) operate at acceptable LOS

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives under current conditions (2017). With the addition of vehicle trips from Alternative 5, operating conditions in the year 2025 Base Conditions would increase delays at intersection No. 2 (Del Mar Avenue [north- south]/Audubon Drive [east-west]), which is forecast to operate below acceptable LOS. However, the contribution to delays at this intersection with construction of Alternative 5 would be less than the 5- second delay utilized by the City of Fresno when evaluating cumulative traffic impacts (see Table 5.10-9).

The impact For this reason, impacts on the Audubon Drive/Del Mar Avenue intersection under Alternative 5
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 5.10-8 Intersection Level of Service Year 2017 Base Condition Intersection Location
Control
Existing (Year 2017)
Condition
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Palm Avenue (NS)/Nees Avenue (EW) TS 29.8 C 31.1 C
2 Del Mar Avenue (NS)/Audubon Drive (EW) SC 20.2 C 28.0 D Notes:

EW = east-west; LOS = level of service; NS = north-south; SC =stop sign controlled; TS = traffic signal Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2017
Table 5.10-9 Intersection Level of Service Year 2025 Plus Alternative 5 Condition Intersection Location
Control
Year 2025 Base Condition Year 2025 Plus
Project Alt. 5 Condition
Significant
Impact?
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Palm Avenue (NS)/
Nees Avenue (EW) TS 59.0 E 67.8 E 56.2 E 65.4 E No
2 Del Mar Avenue (NS)/
Audubon Drive (EW)
SC 33.3 D 65.3 F 33.8 D 66.4 F No
Notes:

Alt. = Alternative; EW = east-west; LOS = level of service; NS = north-south; SC = stop sign controlled; TS = traffic signal Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2017

5.10.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Like the project, Alternative 5 would not alter existing public service ratios, response times, or performance standards for fire or police protection, would not require a significant new water supply, and would not induce population growth or demand for new school facilities. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5.10.19 Cumulative Impacts
Sections 15126 and 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines state that EIRs are to consider the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as well as cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact consists

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR and other projects causing related impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[a]).

The trail alignment proposed under Alternative 5 complies with policies adopted for the protection of natural resources including setbacks established by the Parkway Master Plan and limits on landform alteration established by the City of Fresno Bluff Protection Ordinance. All impacts could be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of BMPs and application of mitigation measures. Alternative 5 would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact.

5.10.20 Environmental Justice Considerations
Disadvantaged Community Census Tract 6019004404 is located about 0.5 mile south of the project area.

Residents of this community, and more broadly, residents of Fresno would be able to access the multiuse trail and recreation amenities via the opportunity provided by the additional parking. Visitors would not have to travel north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then travel south along the SR 41 East Frontage Road, also known as Blackstone Avenue, a 180-degree reverse in direction. Visitors would be able to enter the project area via the existing West Riverview Drive entrance. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

As discussed in Section 4.2 in Chapter 4, the proposed project would cause no significant adverse environmental impacts and does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities. Alternative 5 proposes to construct the proposed project with the addition of a second point of vehicle access at Palm and Nees, which would result in slightly more potential environmental impacts than the proposed project.

Construction-related and operational emissions of air pollutants would be slightly greater under Alternative 5 than under the proposed project, but these impacts would remain less than significant with no mitigation required. This alternative would also result in additional short-term temporary increases in ambient noise levels because of the additional construction required for the added roadway, parking lot,

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives and facilities; however, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with Mitigation Measure Noise-1. Overall, based on the environmental impacts analysis for Alternative 5, this alternative does not have the potential to result in a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on disadvantaged communities.

In terms of socioeconomic effects, this alternative has the potential to increase access to the project site for all residents of Fresno, including those from disadvantaged communities. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this EIR, residents of disadvantaged communities would likely access the project site primarily via private vehicle because transit options to the project site are limited and most disadvantaged communities in Fresno are not within walking or bicycle distance of the project site. The proposed entrance at Perrin Avenue is near a currently used informal vehicular access point at the gate of the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail, which this project would extends down River to the west. The proposed project would improve vehicular access to the Parkway trail system with this proposed 50-space parking lot; however, reaching that access point from the Fresno side would require traveling north along SR 41 to Children’s Boulevard, then south along the SR 41 East frontage road (Blackstone Avenue). Adding another vehicular access point at the existing West Riverview Drive gate and access road, as proposed for Alternative 1 intersection of Palm and Nees avenues, as proposed by Alternative 5, could improve access to the project site for disadvantaged communities by providing a more convenient access point utilizing surface roadways near the site. Not requiring the additional travel up SR 41 may help to reduce barriers to access for disadvantaged communities in Fresno, including central, southeast, and west Fresno, and may help to ensure that the benefits of the project, in terms of equitable access to parks and green spaces, are shared equitably within the community.

5.11 Alternative 5B: North Palm Avenue Access
Alternative 5B includes the proposed project as described in Section 2.4, “Project Description,” plus an additional public vehicle entrance and public access to the trail extension through Spano Park, at the terminus of Palm Avenue north of its intersection with Nees Avenue, as well as parking for 40 vehicles on the floodplain. The parking lot would be located outside of the low-water mark and would not be subject to a lease agreement with the California State Lands Commission. Alternative 5B was developed to provide additional options to address limited public access to the River for residents of nearby disadvantaged communities, and more broadly for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area.

As shown in Figure 5-13, under Alternative 5B, public access would be provided at Perrin Avenue and by a road constructed from the cul-de-sac at Palm Avenue north of Nees Avenue. The road, with two 12-foot travel lanes and a 6-foot shoulder, would be constructed across the bluff face at a 10% gradient to the

Page 5 ends

AECOM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives River bottom, then would proceed in a horseshoe turn around FMFCD stormwater detention basin “DH.”24 A retaining wall would be required to stabilize the slope face along the edge of the roadway. A physically separated pedestrian path would parallel the paved road; bicyclists would share the vehicle travel lane.

The paved road and pedestrian path would lead to a turnaround near a 40-space parking lot. The turnaround would be designed to accommodate the turning radius of a Fresno Fire Department fire truck.

Emergency vehicle access would also be provided via the existing gravel road.

Pedestrians and bicyclists would have two options to access the River from the top of the bluff.

Pedestrians and bicyclists could utilize the 6-foot-wide sidewalk alongside the access road or use a proposed new stairway with bike ramp that would commence from the top of the bluff and at the northwest corner of Spano Park. The parking area, the pedestrian path, and a staircase at Spano Park would all connect to the proposed Lewis S. Eaton Trail extension.

Recreational amenities such as a self-contained vault-toilet ADA-compliant restroom, landscaping, security lighting, and picnic tables would be provided near the parking lot. Although the pedestrian path from the top of the bluff would not be ADA accessible, the proposed parking area would provide for ADA- accessible parking and at-grade access to the proposed trail. The restroom would consist of a prefabricated, ADA-compliant building constructed on a pad elevated above the 100-year floodplain.

Figure 5-14 depicts the planned access point at Palm and Nees Avenues. As shown, access to the parking lot would be managed by a vehicle control gate and a fee entrance station. Traffic bollards or boulders would be installed to prevent vehicles from going off-road. A wooden split-rail or similar style fence would parallel the road and pedestrian path from the cul-de-sac to the parking lot. The parking lot would also be fenced or encircled with boulders. Natural surface walking paths would lead from the parking lot to the River and an adjacent pond. Both walking paths would be fenced. More details are provided in the preliminary engineering design provided in Appendix I, the Palm Bluffs River Access Schematic Design Report (August 2017).
24 The proposed access road geometry generally conforms to City Standard Drawing P-56, “Local Street Cross- Section,” with a few modifications. Those modifications include a continuous cross slope and sidewalk, curb, and gutter on one side only.

Page 5 ends

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Table 5.11-1 summarizes Alternative 5B project components by length and area.

Table 5.11-1 Summary of Alternative 5B Project Components Project Component
Alternative 5B
Length (miles) Area (Acres)
Multiuse Trail (paved—12 feet wide) 2.5 3.5
Multiuse Trail (unpaved—10 feet wide) 3.7 4.3
Access Road – 0.32
Perrin Avenue Parking (Paved) – 2.2
Palm/Nees Ave Parking (Paved) – 1.1
Existing Unimproved Trails 2.6 2.6
Restroom, Picnic Area – 0.03
Total 8.8 14.05
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2017
Construction of Alternative 5B would require modifying the existing storm drainage facilities within the project limits. In addition to construction of new drainage conduit and inlet, an existing box culvert and concrete headwall would need to be modified. A non–Parkway Master Plan inlet and vegetative swale with berms would be constructed to collect runoff from the parking lot and northern segment of the access roadway. The swale is proposed to route around the parking lot before daylighting into the River. The purpose of the berm would be to allow any collected sediments to settle in the swale before the stormwater is released into the River.

For purposes of the analysis, the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Alternative 5B would include the BMPs described in Section 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” of this EIR.

Page 5 ends

< IL Iii ....J II\ IL _J
"'
lj1 Lf.flE.h'.12
::,.© 0.. Ill ::, < z < II\ II\ ILi ,t_ ILi ....J
:,{_~
<:, ILi lLI ., "
- IPA!tt<. ~.:;ti (If( P'At;N!,t:, TADL.I!
;;,, 00:LLI ..... ~ ~
" ""
I ,"e KYPttANr <>l. ILi
" i= II\ <
" "
z <II\ o..o,:m.J,n "
'-' I-
1--~I- " "
ILi • Per ,or 11.r10H o..< < ILi < < < IL o IPAR!f."'6 PAY 6fAfrcH <:::i"
<ILi..: C>.ZILI -< <:," ~ Ll&MT P'Ot.r:ti x:n...l,fl < 1-1- ~ z~ \.-- . ~.J 3::r:C>. ~ I TWb-flAL Sl'l,JT c;.UAlt FeN~ << 00:ILJ\-,!l IU't::~ <i.11\<:::i
"""'"'- ~Tft.Nil,t t.'6N .,_ ... ~>~Z <IUll<
11\11\ Z<JIU >~II\ ,: o<o. (iij Rel!'IU-AT-ORY !tl6HA6C.

INl'~~r!VI: •~M~
A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Figure 5-13 Alternative 5B Alignment

Page 5 ends

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives This page intentionally left blank.

Page 5 ends

it
i
RIVER ,'.C,C,E55
TRAIL
l'LOODPLMN UNE

PET STATION

EMEREIENG-Y

VEHIC,LE

TURNAROUND
SEC..UFtlTY
Llli:>11TiN<:,

SPLIT-RAIL
l'E NG-E
PARK C>ENG,H['_S
AND/OR PIC,Nlt,
TAr.>LE5

TWO-VAULT
RESTROOM WITt1
DRINi<..INE:>
l'OUNT,._INS
l"IRE HYPRANT
NORTH P"LM AVE
At.C-E5'6 ROAD

TRAIL TO SPANO
P,._RK !>T MRt.A!>E
PARKIN€> PAY
STATION ,._T

N PALM AVE

ENTRANC-E
lFT TRAIL
'6HOULDER
l'I-FT LEW 15 '6
E,._TON TRAIL
~F f E(;IUt:5f RJAN
TRAIL
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Figure 5-14 Planned Access Point and Parking at Palm and Nees Avenue under Alternative 5B

Page 5 ends

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives This page intentionally left blank

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

5.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Alternative 5B study area is generally delineated on the north by the River and on the south by commercially developed parcels on the plateau above the steep River bluff, including the Park Place Shopping Center and the Palm Bluffs Corporate Center. Residential development is located on the plateau southeast of the study area. Other than Spano Park and the stormwater basin, most of the study area for Alternative 5B consists of undeveloped open space. The area is adjacent to the end of the proposed trail extension and has been identified in the Parkway Master Plan and the City’s General Plan 2025 as a potential River access point. Figure 5-15 shows photographs of the existing setting along the Alternative 5B alignment.

The alignment for Alternative 5B traverses Spano Park, which was constructed in 2001 and dedicated for public use in 2002. The park was built by Riverview Estates in conjunction with Tract Map No. 4913. This map included an 18-lot commercial development and a 9-lot single-family residential development. The useable park space is 1.13 acres. However, the City also owns the adjacent river bluff-slope property, which occupies 2.3 acres. The park has a concrete walkway along the top of the bluff that provides users with a view of the San Joaquin River and the open space surrounding the River. A large cul-de-sac on Palm Avenue provides diagonal parking for 18 vehicles.

Table 5.11-2 identifies the parcels in the Alternative 5B study area, their sizes, land uses and zoning, and owner names. Figure 5-16 illustrates the parcels that would be crossed by the project alignment under this alternative. The footprint of Alternative 5B improvements is limited to approximately 1.5 acres.

Table 5.11-2 Study Area for Alternative 5B: Parcels, Sizes, Land Uses, and Owner(s) Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Acreage
Existing Land Use
Description
Planned Land Use
Description Zoning Owner
40203063S 11.6 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Multiuse AE-5 SOB Enterprises 40203047ST 2.3 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Multiuse Split: AE-20/AE-5 City of Fresno 40203038ST 0.3 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Multiuse Split: AE-20/AE-5 FMFCD 40203048ST 4.4 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Multiuse Split: AE-20/AE-5 City of Fresno 40203069ST 206 Open Space/Multiuse Open Space/Multiuse AE-5 State of California— Conservancy
40203052ST 3.8 Ponding Basin Open Space AE-5 FMFCD
40257012T 1.1 Spano Park Open Space/
Recreational Park
OS/BP City of Fresno
40203050ST 0.1 Open Space Open Space/Multiuse AE-5 FMFCD Total Acres 229.5
Notes: Conservancy = San Joaquin River Conservancy; FMFCD = Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2017

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives The project area contains a number of utility easements including Comcast, the County of Fresno, Qwest Communications, and Time Warner Telecom.

5.11.2 Past Land Uses
From the early 1940s to the mid-1970s, several locations in the Alternative 5B study area were used for open dumps and landfills. Figure 5-17 shows the approximate location of the various disposal sites. 25 The
earliest landfill activity is associated with the U.S. Army’s Camp Pinedale in 1942; landfilling continued until 1947, when the base was closed. A sewage treatment plant and associated ponds were built in 1943 to serve the Army camp. In 1962, Pinedale Utility District took over the treatment plant and began landfilling or allowed landfilling by Kepco until 1977, when the plant was closed.

The majority of the former Pinedale Dump site exists near Palm Avenue and West Nees Avenue. Portions of this site have been more deeply buried, reworked, or remediated. Land in the Alternative 5B study area at the location of the proposed parking area has been used for the disposal of concrete, asphalt, and construction and demolition wastes. Additional landfilling of organic wastes (domestic garbage) took place at the former Pinedale Dump (also known as the Kepco Pinedale Landfill) along the bluffs.

According to the Solid Waste Information System database maintained by CalRecycle, the landfill was known as the Kepco Pinedale Landfill, a Class II landfill, and its regulatory status was “permitted” and operational status was “closed.”
For additional information about past disposal operations, see the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F).
25 The illustrated boundaries are approximate and are based on a review of data provided from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F).

Page 5 ends

A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives .

Figure 5-15 Views of Existing Setting along the Alternative 5B Alignment

Page 5 ends

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives This page intentionally left blank.

Page 5 ends

CJ Parcel Boundary
CJ Route 5b Alt
A:COM
0 40203069Sli
N
A
75 Feet
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Figure 5-16 Parcels Crossed by the Alternative 5B Project Alignment

Page 5 ends

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives This page intentionally left blank.

Page 5 ends

D Parcel Boundary - - ,
L _ .. Township, Range, and Section
Landfill Site
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I
I
' ;; I
~
I
~
ij
~
~
~
~
i
~
~
0 ~
J
A:COM
ties Distr i
Disposal
Calcott Landfill
0 N
A
200
I
Feel
400
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Figure 5-17 Closed Landfills in the Alternative 5B Study Area

Page 5 ends

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives This page intentionally left blank.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

5.11.3 Environmental Consequences
This section addresses environmental impacts for the same topic areas described for the other alternatives discussed above. Mitigation measures are identified immediately after the impact analysis.

The degree to which the identified mitigation measures would reduce an impact is also described.

When more than one mitigation measure is recommended for a specific impact, all the measures are required to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance unless the word “or” or “alternatively” appears in the list of mitigation measures. Although not specifically required by CEQA, less-than-significant impacts have also been discussed. No mitigation is required for less-than-significant impacts.

5.11.4 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Alternative 5B would result in construction of an additional entrance, roadway, parking lot, and recreational amenities on vacant land located between the River and Spano Park, and on the western edge of Spano Park. The parking area would include trees for shade and screening. These new recreational features would be most visible to tenants in commercial buildings; however, some improvements would also be visible to homeowners on the bluffs overlooking the River. This alternative would alter views of the River corridor by grading the existing bluff face and River bottom to accommodate a paved road and parking lot, and by constructing a restroom and picnic structures in the foreground of the existing viewshed. Construction of the roadway on the slope face along the bluff would require the removal of mature sycamore trees.

The long-term presence of a parking lot, along with related visitor use, would conflict with the existing visual character of the area if not properly designed. Introducing security lighting in the parking lot would also create a new source of glare. Visual impacts under Alternative 5B, similar to the proposed project, would be potentially significant; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures Aesthetics and Visual Resources-1 and Aesthetics and Visual Resources-2 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

No additional mitigation is required.

5.11.5 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or forestland is present in the Alternative 5B project area. No impact on agriculture and forestry resources would occur under this alternative.

5.11.6 Air Quality
Alternative 5B would involve constructing the project and an additional parking lot off Palm and Nees Avenues. Air pollutant emissions for this alternative were calculated based on the following information.

The proposed Perrin Avenue parking lot is estimated to be 2.23 acres (97,055 square feet) and the

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives proposed Palm and Nees parking lot (including the access road) is estimated to be 1.5 acres (65,340 square feet). The modeling also assumed construction of 1,000 square feet of recreational amenities and a restroom at the Palm and Nees Avenue parking area. Like the proposed project, Alternative 5B is estimated to generate a total of 558 daily vehicle trips.

As shown in Tables 5.11-3 and 5.11-4, Alternative 5B would generate more construction-related and oper
ational emissions than the proposed project because of the additional access road and parking lot proposed as part of this alternative. Greater earthmoving and grading during construction would be the greatest contributors to the increase. In the long term, enhancing trail access by increasing parking from Palm Avenue is expected to contribute to a small increase in overall operational emissions, assuming a greater number of vehicle miles traveled because of the added entrance and expanded length of the access road. Even with the greater emissions relative to the proposed project, all air quality impacts of Alternative 5B would be less than significant with no mitigation required. The CalEEMod results for the parking lot can be found in Appendix BB C2.

Table 5.11-3 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Construction Emissions— P
roposed Project vs. Alternative 5B
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Proposed Project 1.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Alternative 5B 3.0 2.6 2.3 0.0 0.3 0.2
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

X = oxides of sulfur
1 PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers.

Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2017
Table 5.11-4 Estimated Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions— Proposed Project vs. Alternative 5B
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Project 2.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.1
Alternative 5B 4.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 0.5 0.1
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = suspended particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SOX = oxides of sulfur PM emissions shown include the sum of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 0 to 2.5 micrometers and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 to 10 micrometers.

Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2017

Page 5 ends

1 I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

5.11.7 Biological Resources
This section describes the habitat conditions and species observed on the day of the biological resources survey for Alternative 5B. On September 22, 2015, a reconnaissance-level biological field survey was performed on about 62 acres of land in the Alternative 5B study area. Before this survey, this area had not been surveyed for biological resources. However, two previous surveys had been conducted on adjacent lands (Appendix D).

The study area along the alignment of Alternative 5B is predominantly disturbed land that was reclaimed from landfill operations (see Section 5.11.2, “Past Land Uses”). No federally listed or State-listed endangered or threatened plant species occur or have the potential to occur on the Alternative 5B project site. Various special-status wildlife species occur in Fresno and Madera counties and in the project vicinity; however, those species were determined to be absent from the Alternative 5 project site (other than occasional foraging) because the site is outside of the known range of the species, no suitable habitat occurs on the site, and/or recent species occurrence records are lacking in the vicinity.

Construction of Alternative 5B would require grading along the bluff face to achieve a 2:1 slope aspect ratio and develop the grade of the roadway and trail at a maximum of 10%. Grading activity would remove approximately five mature western sycamore trees that could support nesting birds. Although no special- status wildlife species are present along the Alternative 5B alignment, the potential exists for some of these species to be present at a future time. All native nongame birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits the take of birds and destruction of their nests and eggs. Nesting raptors are present in the vicinity of the site, and previous surveys have identified red-tailed hawks and an osprey nesting within a mile of the site. During the 2015 survey, an osprey and red-tailed hawk were observed flying over the site. Raptors are protected under the MBTA and could be affected by work at this site.

No occurrences of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) are currently recorded within 5 miles of the Alternative 5B site; however, the site is within the species’ California range and habitat is present.

San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is currently absent from the site, but the area is within its range.

Project construction and operation would directly disturb sensitive resources through grading and increased human presence and activity. Similar to the proposed project, potential impacts of Alternative 5B on plant and animal species would be significant. The biological resources BMPs identified in Section 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” of this EIR would be implemented as part of Alternative 5B. In addition, Mitigation Measures Biological Resources-1 (Special-Status Plant Species) through Biological Resources-10 (Wildlife Movement) as described in Chapter 3 would be applied to Alternative 5B. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives significant. Alternative 5B would also require implementation of the following mitigation measure to address the loss of mature trees.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Biological Resources-1
All mature sycamore trees to be removed during construction of Alternative 5B shall be replaced at a ratio of five western sycamore trees planted for every tree removed, or as otherwise required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The replacement trees shall be a minimum of 10 gallons in size and shall be planted within the project site. Irrigation shall be provided to achieve the survival rate required by CDFW.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Replanting the western sycamore trees removed during construction of the roadway and trail along the bluff face would restore the tree canopy and provide nesting and roosting spots for avian species.

Potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Cultural Resources 5.11.8
A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted in October 2015. Survey results are presented in the Phase II Archaeological Survey Report (Appendix E). The investigation identified no historical resources in the area. Aside from a few small fragments of historic ceramics and concrete that lacked association or context, no cultural resources were found during the pedestrian survey.

Impacts of Alternative 5B on cultural resources would be similar to those of the proposed project.

No historic resources are present in the area, which has been extensively disturbed by prior excavation for gravel and use as a landfill. On-site soils were excavated and removed during remedial grading at the site of Spano Park; excavation reached 30 feet below the ground surface.

Native Americans are known to have relied on the resources found along the San Joaquin River; however, the proposed Alternative 5B alignment on the River’s floodplain has been largely excavated for gravel and subsequently filled with disposed wastes (see the discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts below in Section 5.11.11). Therefore, little potential exists to uncover cultural resources or human remains along the river during construction of the Alternative 5B trail extension, parking lot, and turnaround. Impacts would be less than significant. The cultural resources BMPs identified in Section

2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 5B in the event unknown resources are uncovered during grading.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

5.11.9 Geology and Soils
Topography along the proposed Alternative 5B alignment has been altered over time by previous land uses. As a result, the slope and location of the bluff crest have been substantially modified from natural conditions. Implementing Alternative 5B would alter site topography further, as it would require regrading the bluff face to lay back the slope to a 2:1 aspect ratio.

According to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, soils in the Alternative 5B project area are the same as described for the proposed project: Grangeville fine sandy loam, Hesperia sandy loam, Tujunga, and Riverwash (NRCS 2014). However, native soils along the Alternative 5B alignment have been heavily disturbed by previous land uses. Portions of the land proposed for Alternative 5B are located on and immediately adjacent to the Kepco-Pinedale disposal site, which accepted solid wastes and construction and demolition wastes in the 1950s and 1960s. (For details, see the discussion of hazards for Alternative 5 in Section 5.10.9, as well as Section 5.11.2, “Past Land Uses.”) These materials were intermixed with layers of soil, and the landfill waste in unremediated areas reportedly extends to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet below the ground surface.

The Alternative 5B alignment has been designed such that the proposed roadway would traverse land that was remediated in the mid-1990s for development of Spano Park. Soil at the Spano Park site was excavated to remove solid waste and expose native soils that then were backfilled with clean fill.

Approximately 30 feet of engineered fill material was placed over the native soil after the landfill waste was removed and compacted in accordance with Uniform Building Code Chapter 33 (see the 2002 letter from Twining Laboratories in Appendix
CC J).

Implementation of Alternative 5B would require grading along the bluff face to create the access road down to the River bottom. The road grade would have a maximum slope of 10% and a retaining wall would be constructed to support the bluff and ensure soil stability (Figure 5-18). This route would conflict with the grading standards described in Article 14 of the Bluff Protection Overlay District (City of Fresno 2015). Section 15-1407 of the Citywide Development Code dated March 31, 2015 (Bluff Protection Overlay District) states: “No grading or modification of the existing landscape or alteration of existing topography or construction of any structures shall be permitted on the bluff face or air space above it.” The proposed grading along the bluff face for the access road would be on City-owned land and would not be exempted from the City’s Bluff Protection Overlay District. The Conservancy would need to apply to the City for approval of a variance. All work would be conducted in accordance with the design standards in the latest edition of the State building code, which requires preparing a preliminary soils report, engineering geologic report, and geotechnical report to identify the property’s site-specific geologic and soil conditions. The reports would recommend standards to regulate grading activity, soil conditions including density, moisture, and vegetation content, identify preferred methods of drainage control, and

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives evaluate slope stability and foundation, among other standards that must be implemented during project design and construction.

Potential impacts of Alternative 5B on geology and soils would be potentially significant. A larger amount of earthwork would be required for construction of Alternative 5B than for the proposed project, and the Conservancy would need to seek a variance from the City of Fresno to address the Bluff Protection Overlay District. The geology BMPs identified in Section 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 5B. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils-1 (see Chapter 2) and Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Geology and Soils-1 (below) would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Geology and Soils-1
The Conservancy shall work with the City of Fresno to obtain a variance from the requirements of the Bluff Overlay District to permit construction of the access road and staircase down the slope of the bluff. The variance must be approved by the City before construction along the slope of the bluff may proceed.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Geology and Soils-1 and Alt. 5B–Geology and Soils-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant because the Conservancy would not construct the access road or stairway on the bluff until a variance from the requirements is obtained from the City. The Conservancy would also prepare the required geology and soils report to document that construction of the facility would not destabilize the slope face.

5.11.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 5B would involve constructing the project plus an additional parking lot off Palm and Nees Avenues. GHG emissions for this alternative were calculated based on the following information. The Perrin Avenue parking lot is estimated to be 2.23 acres (97,055 square feet) and the Palm and Nees parking lot is estimated to be 1.5 acres (65,340 square feet). With construction of the Palm and Nees Avenue parking lot, an additional 1,000 square feet of recreational amenities and a restroom would be constructed. This alternative, including the proposed project elements, would generate a total of approximately 558 daily vehicle trips.

Page 5 ends

· . ,•
. f"
• _1/,, ,~- . :
.1/'°' ' , • · . (
.. 1/· ' . 4 1/ / ': . . /;
. / :
"- •• I, ✓
·- , . ,,/ ... .
..
--------·--------/\_ ______ · ·-·· - --,v·· ..

A:COM
,., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....,....,~~~
340 il-+--+-<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-++-+-+-+--+-1 .lli ii-+--+-<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+--+-+-+-+-+- --+--+-+- ~ I
1 I
: .... 1 -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-<-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+- - -+-<>-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+--< 320 il-+--+-<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+ ..,..,,...>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-1 ,- 315 il-+--+-<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-- -..+ -+-+<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-1 Jlorl-++...jH-+-+-+-+-++-J-+-+-++-H-+-+--b-¥:t:~ee:!==l==f~P+-+-+-+-+-++-l-+-+-++-l "'" il-+--+-<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+-.....,... /-+-e--F-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-1 JOO il-+--+-<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-h-F-/+-,.-"+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-1 ,., ii-+--+-<>-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+- +--< ' ' .... /-+-/+.-,.... ' -+-</-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-<>-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-< 290 lt-\~M-t-+-+-+--+-t-+-++-+-bf-/-t-t--;r'-+-+--+-t-+-++-+-+-+--t-t-+-t-t--+-t-+-++-+-+-+--t-t-1 285 ~ - _,,/
280-l--ll-~e---l--l-l---l--l-,/_,~--l-j....,l<:4-,4--!--i--1-~e---l--l-l---l-l-+-4--4--1--l--l-~e---l--l-l---l-l-+-4--4--l 275 +-4--+-< >-+- -+-+ -.,F-- +-+--+-t.,...._+-+-+->-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+->-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-I 270 .-+-+-<+-+-+-+-+-+-' ' 'l"•-:;c'-1' -+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-++-t-1 J4S
340
.ill
JJO
325
320
315
JIO
JO,
JOO
,.,
290
285
280
275
270
~1:,{}126-12IJ'161'9105-100-95 - 90- 85--B0-75 - 70-65 - 60- 55- S0-45 - 40- J5 - J0 - 25- 20-15 - I0 - 5 0 5 H} 15 20 25 .JO J5 fO 45 !iO 55 60 65 70 75 e/65 13+00.00
345 I ,.,
1 340
I
340
JJ5
1 =
.l.JO
=
J25 325
J20 320

JIS JIS

JIO JIO
J05 JOS
"" JOO ,,v JOO
295 295
290 l l " 290
285 i i , ..... 285 V
280 ,,,v 280
275 275
210 210
266 266
26E100-95- 90- 85 - 80- 75- 70 - 65- 60-55- 50- ~ -4()-J5 - .J0- 2'- 20-15 - 10 - 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 .JO J5 ,W 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 so260 14+00.00
345
~ I
345
l J40
I
J40
.ll5 -=
J.J() 330
:s2S 325
J2Q J2Q
,,, JIS

JIO JIO

JOS JOS

JOO JOO
295 B!C
,.,
290
,
290
I ,,,v
285 ;:,. 285
28()
V
28()
27~ - ---- 275
270
-- _, 270
266 265
2~85-ll0-75- 70- 65-60-~-5()-<l.5-40--'5-J0-2 5 -20-15-10-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 JO .J5 fO 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 260 15+00 .00
i
J40 J40
= I=

JJO JJO
325 1 325
320 320

JI, JIS

J I O JIO
305
/ IJ05
JOO
, : 295
290 ~I 290
28!) ~
"" 1"'5
280 i
/ 1;: 275 ............
270 270
-... -- -265 265
260- 65- 60-S5- S0- 45- .«J-.J5-30-25-20 - 15- I0 - 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 JO JS 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 BO 85 90 95100105110 260 16+00.00
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Figure 5-18 Proposed Road Grading under Alternative 5B

Page 5 ends

A..=t'OM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives This page intentionally left blank.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives As shown in Table 5.11-5, this alternative would generate slightly more construction-related and operational emissions than the proposed project. The increased construction activity required to grade the access road across the bluff face would be primarily responsible for the increase in construction emissions associated with Alternative 5B. However, the emissions would not approach any adopted or recommended thresholds.
26 Similarly, Alternative 5B would increase operational emissions compared to the proposed project by providing conveniently accessible parking that may encourage the use of motor vehicles to access the project site. The CalEEMod results for the Perrin Avenue parking lot and the Palm and Nees parking lot can be found in Appendix BB C2. All impacts associated with Alternative 5B would be less than significant with no mitigation required.

Table 5.11-5 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Proposed Project vs. Alternative 5B

Total Construction
Emissions (MTCO2 e)
Amortized
Construction
Emissions (MTCO2 e)
Total Operational
Emissions (MTCO2 e)
Proposed Project 192 6 501
Alternative 5B 348 12 640
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Estimated by AECOM in 2017

5.11.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts of Alternative 5B from routine transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials, along with the potential for accidental spills, would be similar to those of the proposed project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

The additional facilities proposed under Alternative 5B would be located west of the Alternative 5B project site, but would still be approximately 0.60 mile from Nelson Elementary School, 3.1 miles from the Sierra Skypark airport, and 2.45 miles from the heliport at Valley Children’s Hospital. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 5B would have no impact related to emissions of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school or related to hazards from airports and airstrips.

Alternative 5B would provide appropriate emergency-vehicle access (fire, police, and ambulance) via a paved road from the Palm and Nees Avenue entrance onto the project site, including the additional 26 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District have developed a threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e annually; San Diego County has developed a threshold of 2,500 MTCO2e annually, based on the different mix and scale of forecast development projects in this region compared to the Bay Area. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has developed a threshold of 900 MTCO 2e
annually, designed to “capture” approximately 90% of future stationary emission sources, so that feasible mitigation can be imposed on most projects.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives parking lot. This road would also provide additional emergency egress for members of the public using the trail. The Perrin Avenue entrance would also provide access for emergency vehicles. The trail leading from the Alternative 5B project site to the trail extension would accommodate emergency response vehicles. Construction activity would occur only within the site and would not block or reduce access to city streets. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 5B would have no impact related to interference with emergency response and/or evacuation plans.

Because Alternative 5B would entail constructing additional recreation facilities near the River, the potential for wildland fire hazards from sparks emitted by construction equipment would be greater than the proposed project’s wildland fire hazard, and the impact would be potentially significant. The hazards and hazardous materials BMPs identified in Section 2.5.2, “Best Management Practices,” would be implemented as part of Alternative 5B. Implementing Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 through Hazards and Hazardous Materials-6 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

As discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F), an open dump and landfill on private land in the vicinity of Alternative 5B was operating under the name Kepco in the 1950s. Solid wastes were placed in natural depressions and drainages and on the bluff face from the 1950s to 1978.

The exact boundaries of the Kepco landfill are difficult to determine. Anecdotal reports suggest that several locations were used somewhat indiscriminately in the 1950s and 1960s. Paint and degreaser sludge were also deposited into the Kepco Pinedale Landfill. This sludge contained metallic pigments, volatile aliphatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, esters, and ketones. Waste also included household and commercial refuse, garbage, other decomposable organic material, scrap metals, and solid inert materials. These materials have been intermixed with layers of soil, and they reportedly extend to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet below the ground surface. In addition, construction debris has been dumped on the surface. The proposed alignment of Alternative 5B has been designed to cross Spano Park, where remedial activity to remove landfill waste was conducted in the 1990s.

Waste accepted in past gravel pit excavations below the bluff included concrete and brick construction debris and garbage. These wastes underlie the site of the proposed parking area.

Previous tests concluded that groundwater quality has not been adversely affected by the landfill activities, with the exception of the deposit of Freon-12 into the landfill (Appendix F). Gas monitoring wells have detected the presence of methane gas, a gas generated by decomposing wastes, at levels above the lower explosive limit.
27 Two underground fires were observed in the 1990s at locations along the bluff 27 The lower explosive limit is the lowest concentration (percentage) of a gas or a vapor in air capable of producing a flash of fire in presence of an ignition source (arc, flame, or heat).

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives east and south of the proposed parking lot, at the foot of the existing private access road. Soil vapor samples collected from within the landfill area have indicated the presence of several volatile organic compounds, such as vinyl chloride and benzene, at levels above the respective human health screening levels (OEHHA 2010).

Postclosure plans must be prepared before disposal areas can be converted to other uses. A postclosure plan has not been prepared for the unregulated landfill activities on and near the Alternative 5B site. The presence of the known contaminants in the Kepco Pinedale Landfill represents a Recognized Environmental Condition. Constructing a paved pedestrian/bicycle pathway and a new parking lot at the base of the road under Alternative 5B could expose construction workers and members of the public to hazardous materials (gases such as methane and volatile organic compounds such as vinyl chloride and benzene). Furthermore, construction activities at former landfill areas could disturb drainage patterns or disturb cover, which could cause or allow the landfill materials to become wet. Over time, this condition would increase the potential for the presence of explosive and flammable gases and possible leachate movement and accumulation. Additionally, disturbed landfill soils could become mobilized, causing potential human health and pollution issues.

Because of the proximity to the Kepco Pinedale Landfill site, construction at the location of the parking lot may potentially encounter landfill materials and present a potential hazard from unstable soils that may be unsuitable for use as a base material. Therefore, the impact of Alternative 5B from hazards related to project construction and operation would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 Consistent with State of California procedures and in conjunction with the Conservancy’s real property acquisition process, the Conservancy shall obtain the following:
• A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by a licensed environmental professional and performed to ASTM standards (ASTM E1903-11) at the locations of the proposed paved pedestrian/bicycle path (adjacent to the existing access road) and the new parking area and associated facilities (at the base of the existing access road). Testing shall include sampling of soil and groundwater for constituents of concern such as volatile organic compounds, along with vapor monitoring for ambient air emissions of constituents such as methane. Laboratory results shall be presented and summarized in a report, which shall be submitted to the County of Fresno Department of Public Health. The report shall recommend specific additional site investigation needs if appropriate, remedial activities to clean up the property, and any project design features that are necessary to assure human and environmental health and safety with the implementation of Alternative 5B.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives • Any further site investigations recommended as part of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
• A postclosure land use plan prepared in compliance with 27 CCR Sections 20950–21420. As required by Section 21190, the postclosure land use plan shall be designed and maintained to:
o protect public health and safety and prevent damage to structures, roads, utilities, and gas monitoring and control systems;
o prevent public contact with waste, landfill gas, and leachate; and o prevent landfill gas explosions.

The land use plan shall be submitted to the County of Fresno Department of Public Health and the Central Valley RWQCB for review and approval. Upon approval, the plan shall be implemented before the Conservancy acquires the land for the Parkway project.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-2 A worker health and safety plan shall be prepared before the start of construction activities within the Alternative 5B project site. The plan shall identify, at a minimum:
• the potential types of contaminants that could be encountered during construction activity; • all appropriate equipment and procedures to be used during project activities to protect workers, public health, and the environment;
• emergency response procedures;
• the most direct route to the nearest hospitals; and
• an on-site safety officer.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives samples, if needed. If the samples identify contaminants, the Conservancy shall employ measures in accordance with federal and State regulations, or shall coordinate with the landowner or other responsible party to employ such measures, before construction activities can resume at the site.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Alt. 5B–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1 and Alt. 5B– Hazards and Hazardous Materials-2 would reduce the potential impact related to human health and environmental hazards from construction at the former Kepco Pinedale Landfill to less than significant because any necessary remedial activities would occur before the property was acquired for public use; a worker health and safety plan would be implemented should contaminated soil or groundwater be encountered; and a postclosure land use plan approved by regulatory agencies would be implemented.

5.11.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Temporary Impacts. For Alternative 5B, an extended multiuse trail route, 40-stall parking lot, access road and turnaround, and restrooms would be constructed in addition to the facilities described in Chapter 3 for the proposed project. The BMPs would be the same for this alternative as for the proposed project. The area of disturbance and paved surfaces would be greater under Alternative 5B than under the proposed project, and the access road under this alternative would be constructed on a steep, erodible slope.

Alternative 5B includes project features located in an area that was formerly used for the Kepco Pinedale Landfill. A plume of groundwater contaminated with trichloroethylene, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chloroform is situated below the residential development on the bluffs, near the intersection of Palm and Nees Avenues. The soils near the groundwater plume may also be contaminated. Disturbing the soil during construction could mobilize sediments laced with contaminants of concern, resulting in a health hazard and a potential source of polluted sediment that could enter receiving waters.

Construction near the former landfill could disturb drainage patterns, or could disturb vegetative cover, which could cause or allow the landfill materials to become wet, thereby increasing the potential for possible leachate releases over time. The impact would be potentially significant.

Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan would be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met. Additionally, implementing Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, and Hydrology and Water Quality-3 as described for the proposed project would adequately reduce most water quality impacts associated with construction of Alternative 5B to less than significant. However, the potential

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives would remain for water quality impacts associated with construction in areas with possible contamination.

The impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Hydrology and Water Quality-1 Before any surface-disturbing construction begins, the Conservancy shall implement Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1, which requires completion of a subsurface assessment, avoidance, and postclosure plan (if required) for land within and adjacent to the alignment of the access road, multiuse trail, and parking lot, to determine the presence of contaminants of concern. The assessment shall be completed along the face of the slope adjacent to the trail and access road alignment. If contaminants of concern are present, the area shall be remediated as recommended in the assessment and as required by regulatory agencies. In addition, the Conservancy shall implement Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hazards and Hazardous Materials-2, requiring preparation of a worker health and safety plan.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hydrology and Water Quality-1 would reduce the potential temporary impact on water quality associated with the former landfill to less than significant, because a postclosure land use plan approved by regulatory agencies would be implemented to remediate any hazards before the start of earthmoving activities, and a worker health and safety plan would be implemented should any contaminated soil or groundwater be encountered.

No additional mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. The area of new impervious/paved surfaces associated with Alternative 5B would be larger than that of the proposed project (Table 5.11-6). Alternative 5B would provide an additional restroom facility along with the facilities and uses described for the proposed project.

Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan would be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met. Implementing Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-1, Hydrology and Water Quality-2, Hydrology and Water Quality-3, and Hydrology and Water Quality-4 as described for the proposed project would adequately reduce long-term water quality impacts of Alternative 5B to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Grading along the face of the bluff to construct the access road could cause erosion if not properly designed and constructed. Alternative 5B would involve grading the bluff face to reach a 2:1 slope angle, which would improve soil stability and reduce the potential for erosion. A retaining wall and drainage system would also be constructed along the roadway to stabilize the slope face and further minimize the potential for soil erosion. With the incorporation of BMPs described in Section 2.5.2 of this EIR, the potential impacts on water quality would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Groundwater
Temporary Impacts. The construction activities for the proposed project and Alternative 5B would be similar; therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 5B on groundwater would be similar to those for the proposed project and would be less than significant. (Potential impacts associated with the creation and movement of leachate are discussed in the previous section.) No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. Alternative 5B would have a larger area of new impervious/paved surface than the proposed project (Table 5.11-6). However, the percentage of impervious/paved surface proposed is very small relative to the total area of the Alternative 5B project site, and this increase would not measurably affect recharge to the local groundwater basin. Operations under Alternative 5B would not substantially increase groundwater demands, and existing supplies provided for fire suppression are expected to be adequate to serve the site under this alternative without lowering groundwater levels. The long-term impact on groundwater would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Drainage
Temporary Impacts. As with the proposed project, Alternative 5B would require grading, moving soil, and placing structures within flood zones, which could alter drainage courses and runoff patterns from existing conditions. In addition, Alternative 5B would require constructing structures on steep slopes, which could further alter drainage patterns. As shown in Table 5.11-6, the area of disturbance in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain and the designated floodway would be greater under Alternative 5B than under the proposed project. Although the area of disturbance would be slightly larger under this alternative, the construction activities for the proposed project and Alternative 5B would be similar, and the BMPs and mitigation measures would be the same. Therefore, the temporary impacts of Alternative 5B would be similar to those of the proposed project. This temporary impact would be potentially significant.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Table 5.11-6 Project plus Alternative 5B Components within the 100-Year Floodplain and Designated Floodway
Project Component
100-Year Floodplain Designated Floodway
Length (miles) Area (acres) Length (miles) Area (acres) Multiuse Trail (paved—12 feet wide) 1.4 2.0 0 0
Multiuse Trail (unpaved—10 feet wide) 1.7 2.1 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking (paved) 0 0 0 0
Perrin Avenue Parking (unpaved) 0 0 0 0
Bluff Roadway (paved) 0 0 0 0
Hiking Trails 1.8 1.3 0 0
Trail Extension (paved) 0.09 0.48 0 0
Alternative 5B Parking (paved) 0.034 1.18 0 0
Total 5.02 7.06 0 0
Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2017
Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan would be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met. Implementing Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4, Hydrology and Water Quality-5, and Hydrology and Water Quality-6 as described for the proposed project would reduce the temporary hydromodification impacts from placement of Alternative 5B structures in areas of the former landfill to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Long-Term Impacts. Placing impervious/paved surfaces, structures, fences, landscaping, and other project components adjacent to or within the floodway and FEMA 100-year floodplain could contribute to changes to hydrologic and/or geomorphic processes. Table 5.11-6 presents the portion of Alternative 5B located within the designated floodway and floodplain. Both the parking lot and restroom would encroach into the designated FEMA floodplain. These surfaces would be hardscaped or paved. The total area of impervious/paved and hard-packed surfaces within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway would be slightly greater under Alternative 5B than under the proposed project. As discussed above for construction, placing facilities within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway could disturb drainage patterns or disturb the cover in landfill areas, which could further affect hydrologic and/or geomorphic processes. This impact would be potentially significant.

Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan would be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met. Implementing Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality-4, Hydrology and Water Quality-5, and Hydrology and Water Quality-6 as described for the proposed project would reduce the long-term hydromodification impacts from placement of structures for Alternative 5B to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Page 5 ends

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Runoff. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 5B on runoff would be similar to those described for the proposed project. Alternative 5B would include drainage improvements to capture runoff and direct it to a new inlet at the toe of the bluff (see Appendix EE I). Hydrology and water quality BMPs and applicable policies from the Conservancy’s Parkway Master Plan would be implemented and other regulatory requirements would be met. Implementing Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality-7 (see Chapter 3) and Mitigation Measure Alt. 5–Hydrology and Water Quality-3 (described above) would reduce hydromodification impacts from placement of structures for Alternative 5B to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. 100-Year Floodplain and Designated Floodway. Table 5.11-6 summarizes the components of Alternative 5B that would affect land within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway. Under Alternative 5B, a total of 7 acres within the 100-year floodplain would be affected, a slightly larger area than under the proposed project. Construction of both paved and unpaved portions of the trail would occur within the 100-year floodplain and designated floodway.

Construction of the prefabricated restroom and parking area would occur within the 100-year floodplain. The restroom would be elevated 1 foot above the base flood elevation as required by the Parkway Master Plan, which requires the introduction of fill into the River bottom. City of Fresno Ordinance 11-616(g) prohibits importing fill below the base flood elevation. Under this ordinance, the City of Fresno Flood Plain Administrator must determine that the volume of space occupied by fill is compensated for and balanced by a hydraulically equivalent volume of excavation taken from below the base flood elevation. The ordinance also requires that a Letter of Map Revision be submitted to FEMA once the ground is proven to be above flood level.

Overall, impacts of Alternative 5B would be greater than impacts of the proposed project and would be potentially significant. Portions of the multiuse trail and emergency vehicle turnaround would be located within the designated floodway. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality-9 would reduce the impact to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Exposure of People or Structures to Flooding. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 5B regarding exposure of people or structures would be similar to those described for the proposed project and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow. Temporary and long-term impacts of Alternative 5B regarding the potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be similar to those described for the proposed project.

No impact would occur related to potential for a seiche or tsunami, and the impact related to mudflow potential would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Page 5 ends

Fresno City CouncilMay 7, 2026

Fresno City Council
May 7, 2026