Fresno City Council
May 7, 2026

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

5.11.13 Land Use and Planning
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 commission’s jurisdiction. In addition, the proposed parking area for Alternative 5B is within State sovereign lands under the State Lands Commission’s jurisdiction. The uses and improvements proposed by Alternative 5B are generally consistent with the public-trust uses allowed by the commission. To complete Conservancy improvements proposed for State sovereign lands under this alternative (as under the proposed project), the Conservancy must enter into a lease with the State Lands Commission.

Alternative 5B would not physically divide an established community, but may be inconsistent with the Bullard Community Plan Policy 4 under “Special Issues, Policies and Standards: River Bottom and Bluffs,” which states, “Preserve the river bluffs as a unique geological feature in the San Joaquin Valley.” Alternative 5B construction would alter the face of the bluff, extending 62 vertical feet and removing more than 17,000 cubic yards. Alternative 5B may also be found inconsistent with the grading standards described in Article 16 of the Bluff Protection Overlay District (City of Fresno 2015). Section 15-1603 of the overlay limits alteration of the bluff face. Measures would be required to provide for slope stabilization and erosion control including a drainage swale, and the Conservancy must apply for a variance from the City’s policy (see Section 5.11.9, “Geology and Soils”). This impact would be potentially significant.

Alternative 5B would meet multiple objectives of the Parkway Master Plan by providing recreational and educational opportunities to all segments of the population; avoiding disturbance to sensitive habitat areas by using existing points of access; siting uses on previously disturbed land when feasible; locating intensive activities away from natural resources; and minimizing disturbance to private property. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Land Use-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 may begin along the slope of the bluff.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Alt. 5B–Land Use-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 of the Bluff Overlay District is obtained from the City. The Conservancy would also prepare the required geology and soils report to document that construction

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives of the facility would not destabilize the slope face. To implement Alternative 5B, additional property and easement rights would need to be acquired by a public agency from willing landowners and at mutually agreeable terms.

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

5.11.15 Noise
Constructing the additional public parking lot and access road under Alternative 5B would require increased construction activity compared to the proposed project. However, the construction activities would cause only 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.

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

5.11.17 Public Services
Like the project, Alternative 5B 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.

5.11.18 Recreation
Under Alternative 5B, 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. This additional access may be more convenient and involve shorter trip distances for visitors from the Fresno metropolitan area, which may encourage increased visitor use such for recreational access to hiking, bicycling, jogging, and picnicking. The 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.

Spano Park, which is currently 1.13 acres, is used as a vista point, with picnic tables, benches, and irrigated turf and shade trees. With construction of the Alternative 5B entrance and access road, the

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives usable park area would be reduced to 0.89 acres. The project would include restoration of the landscaping, tables, and benches. Most of the current function of the park would be restored, and the alternative would result in an added public vehicle and bicycle access point for the project area, consisting of approximately 500 acres of public open space. The impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

5.11.19 Transportation
A supplemental traffic study was prepared to evaluate impacts of the proposed project and alternatives to the project. 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 5.11-7, five of six studied roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better under the Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 5B condition. Segment No. 3, Audubon Drive between SR 41 and Palm Avenue, would operate at LOS E in the year 2025 Base and Base plus Alternative 5B conditions. LOS E is considered the minimum acceptable operating condition according to the City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines (City of Fresno 2009). 28 Similar to with-project
conditions, all roadway segments under Alternative 5B have sufficient capacity to accommodate added traffic and still operate at acceptable LOS. The impact on roadway segments would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 5.11-8 illustrates the operating condition of two roadway intersections examined for Alternative 5B.

As shown, 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 under current conditions (2017). With implementation of the proposed project, the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels in both existing plus project and cumulative (year 2025 plus project) conditions. In comparison, adding vehicle trips from Alternative 5B to 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 5B would be 1.1 seconds, which is less than the 5-second delay utilized by the City of Fresno when evaluating cumulative traffic impacts. For this reason, impacts on the Audubon Drive/Del Mar Avenue intersection would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
28 A project is considered to have an individually significant impact on the operation of an intersection if the additional traffic generated from the project would:
• trigger an intersection operating at an acceptable LOS to operate at an unacceptable LOS, • trigger an intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E) to operate at LOS F, or • increase the average delay for a study intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable LOS.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Table 5.11-7 Roadway Segment Analysis Project Buildout (2025) Base plus Alternative 5B Conditions Roadway Segment
# of
Lanes Direction
Year 2025 Baseline Condition Year 2025 Plus Project Plus Alternative 5B Condition # Location ADT
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ADT
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS
1 SR 41 between Fresno-
Madera County Line and
Avenue 12
2/D
NB
36,630
760 B 1,142 B
36,948
800 B 1,195 B
SB 603 B 1,368 B 623 B 1,388 B
2 SR 41 East Frontage Road
(Cobb Ranch Road) north of
Vin Rose Lane
1/U
NB
210
11 C 8 C
528
31 C 28 C
SB 3 C 8 C 43 C 61 C
3 Audubon Drive between
SR 41 and Palm Avenue
1/U
EB
18,177
526 C 1,152 E
18,225
529 C 1,155 E
WB 921 E 686 C 927 E 694 C
4 Audubon Drive East of SR 41 2/D
EB
20,228
636 C 1,188 C
20,276
639 C 1,191 C
WB 911 C 799 C 917 C 807 C
5 Del Mar Avenue between
Audubon Drive and Riverview
Drive

1/U
NB
2,168
33 C 68 C
2,168
33 C 68 C
SB 91 C 95 C 91 C 95 C
6 Palm Avenue South of Nees
Avenue 2/D NB 42,798 896 C 1,554 C 42,894 908 C 1,570 C SB 1,228 C 1,208 C 1,234 C 1,214 C
Notes:

ADT = average daily traffic; D = divided roadway; EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; SR = State Route; U = undivided roadway; WB = westbound
Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2017

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Table 5.11-8 Intersection Analysis Existing (2017) Base plus Alternative 5B Conditions # Intersection Location Control
Existing (Year 2017) Condition Existing Plus Project 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 29.8 C 31.1 C 29.8 C 31.1 C No 2 Del Mar Avenue (NS)/Audubon Drive (EW) TWSC 20.2 C 28.0 D 20.2 C 28.0 D No # Intersection Location Control
Year 2025 Base Condition Year 2025 Plus Project 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 59.0 E 67.8 E No 2 Del Mar Avenue (NS)/Audubon Drive (EW) TWSC 33.3 D 65.3 F 33.3 D 65.3 F No # Intersection Location Control
Year 2025 Base Condition Year 2025 Plus Project Alt. 5B 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 58.7 E 67.3 E No 2 Del Mar Avenue (NS)/Audubon Drive (EW) TWSC 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; TS = traffic signal; TWSC = two-way stop-controlled Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2017

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

5.11.20 Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 5B would provide another all-weather point of access to reach the River bottom, which would enhance the ability of emergency first responders to meet call for services in a timely manner. The access road would be designed to meet code requirements for width, grade, and turning radius. 29 Like the
proposed project, Alternative 5B 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.

5.11.21 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.

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 (Chapter 3).

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).

Under Alternative 5B, the trail alignment would comply with policies requiring setbacks from natural resources established by the Parkway Master Plan, but would conflict with the City of Fresno Bluff Protection Ordinance, which limits landform alteration along the river bluff. This conflict would be site specific, as no other cumulative projects are proposed on or adjacent to the River bluff. Further, all impacts could be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of BMPs and application of mitigation measures. The incremental impact of Alternative 5B would not be cumulatively considerable. 29 According to Section 403.002, “Fire Department Access,” of the Fresno Fire Department’s Fire Prevention Manual, the road must be an approved all-weather surface capable of supporting an 80,000-pound vehicle, must have a grade of 10% (10H:1V) or less, and must have 24 feet of unobstructed width. Lanes that are one way shall be 15 feet wide.

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

5.11.22 Environmental Justice Considerations
As discussed in Section 4.2 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 5B proposes an additional parking lot accessed at Palm and Nees Avenues, and thus, 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 5B 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, 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 5B, 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, Alternative 5B 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, 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 the addition of 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 Palm and Nees Avenues, as proposed by Alternative 5B, could improve public 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 those in 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, would be shared equitably within the community.

5.12 Alternative 6: No Project
In accordance with Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative consists of an analysis of the effects under which the project would not proceed; that is, no trail, parking, or recreational amenities would be constructed.

I
"
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Temporary and long-term construction impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and utilities, and transportation and traffic would be avoided with the No Project Alternative because no construction activities would occur on the project site. Under this alternative, there would be a greater unmet demand for parks and open space in the City of Fresno. The project area would remain closed to public recreational use, denying open space and recreational opportunities to a nearby disadvantaged community, and more broadly, to the residents of Fresno. This would be an unavoidable significant impact.

No temporary traffic impacts would occur related to the truck trips required to transport materials to and from the project site. No impacts on air quality and noise would occur as a result of on-site construction because no construction activities would occur. In addition, the temporary impacts of on-site project construction on biological resources would not occur. Further, the potential for uncovering previously unknown archaeological or paleontological resources would be avoided because grading would not take place on the project site. Because of the lack of grading activities, no hazards or hazardous materials would be encountered or disturbed.

Operational impacts would be avoided under the No Project Alternative because no changes to the project site would occur and the site would remain closed to the public.

Under this alternative, the design goals and vision of the Parkway Master Plan would not be implemented. Further, the No Project Alternative would not fully achieve any of the objectives of the project. This would be an unavoidable significant impact.

5.13 Comparison of Alternatives and to the Project
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates states that an EIR must include a comparative evaluation of the proposed project with against a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives of the project while simultaneously while avoiding or substantially lessening any of lessening the significant project effects of the project. As stated in Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines:
[A]mong the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).

I
i'
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Although these factors do not present a strict limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives to be considered, they help establish the context against which “the rule of reason” is measured when determining an appropriate range of alternatives sufficient to establish and foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.

Table 5.125.13-1 compares the results of the CEQA analysis for each resource category, and identifies alternatives that would result in unavoidable significant impacts. A summary of the resources with significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant or unavoidable significant impacts is provided. This comparison provides the means to consider, in conformance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, factors affecting the feasibility of the alternatives, whether any of the alternatives would mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen environmental impacts associated with the project.

5.13.1 Mitigated Significant Impacts
For the proposed project and Alternatives 1–5B, impacts on the following resource categories would be significant but would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures: aesthetics and visual resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise. Alternative 1 would also result in a transportation impact that could be mitigated by incorporating a traffic signal. Alternatives 3 and 4 could be found to be inconsistent with policies of the Parkway Master Plan that require setbacks from natural resources in the river and construction of parking lots to support visitor activities. Alternative 5B could be considered inconsistent with City policies to protect the River bluff.

5.13.2 Alternatives with Additional Mitigation Measures Impacts on biological resources and hydrology and water quality in Alternative 3 would be reduced to less than significant, but with additional mitigation measures compared to the proposed project. Recreation impacts under Alternative 4 would require additional mitigation measures compared to the proposed project. Under Alternatives 5 and 5B, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality, and land use would also require additional mitigation measures compared to the proposed project.

5.13.3 Alternatives with Unavoidable Significant Impacts Under CEQA, a project would result in unavoidable significant environmental effects if the impacts of the project (both construction-related and operational impacts) would be significant and no feasible mitigation is available or only partial mitigation is feasible. Significant and unavoidable Unavoidable significant
impacts are presented in Table 5.13-1. 5.12-1. The proposed project, Alternative 2, and Alternative 4 would have unavoidable significant environmental impacts with respect to environmental justice for disadvantaged communities/designated census tracts by denying equal access and use of a

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives neighborhood park, open space, and recreational opportunities to the residents of a designated disadvantaged community, and more broadly, to residents of Fresno. Alternative 1 would result in a significant and unavoidable impact under Transportation. Alternative 3 would have unavoidable significant impacts on disadvantaged communities/designated census tracts by denying equal access and use of a neighborhood park, open space, and recreational opportunities; and an unavoidable significant impact related to land use policies of the result in a conflict with Parkway Master Plan policies that are intended to protect the River’s riparian corridor. Alternative 4 would result in a conflict with a Parkway Master Plan policy directed at providing parking to support visitor activities.

The No Project Alternative would have
unavoidable significant impacts on disadvantaged communities/designated census tracts and recreation.

State law and policy support efforts to secure environmental justice through commitments to identify existing and potential problems, and find and apply solutions in approving specific projects. Project proponents must ensure that the project would not create unequal access for residents of identified disadvantaged communities. Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 5 would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to environmental justice. Neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 5 would have potential unavoidable significant impacts, and all potential impacts would be less than significant with the identified mitigation.

The proposed project and Alternatives 1–5 meet the Conservancy’s project objectives as stated in the Parkway Master Plan.

5.13.4 Alternatives Not Meeting Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not extend the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail downstream along the San Joaquin River on public open space lands, nor would it provide recreation amenities. This alternative fails to meet the objectives of the proposed project as described in Section 1.4 of this EIR by denying linkage to the existing multiuse trail, and preventing access and use of a neighborhood park, public open
space, and recreation amenities to the residents of Fresno. Therefore, the No Project Alternative does not meet the project objectives.

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Table 5.125.13-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Project with Impacts of the Alternatives
Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Meets Project
Objectives? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Is Land Owned by State
of California/San
Joaquin River
Conservancy?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No, land or
easement must
be acquired by
willing seller
No, land or
easement must
be acquired by
willing seller
Yes
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impact 3.2-1: Scenic
Vista
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.2-2: Scenic
Resources
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.2-3: Visual
Character
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.3-4: Light and
Glare
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 3.3-1: Conversion
of Prime Farmland, etc.

Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.3-2: Conflict with
Agricultural Zoning,
Williamson Act
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Impact 3.3-3: Forestland
Zoning No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Impact 3.3-4: Conversion
of Forestland No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Impact 3.3-5: Conversion
of Agriculture and
Forestland to
Nonagricultural Use
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Air Quality
Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Impact 3.4-1: Conflict with
Air Quality Plans
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.4-2: Air Quality
Violation
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.4-3: Cumulative
Increase of Criteria
Pollutants
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.4-4: Exposure to
Sensitive Receptors
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.4-5:

Objectionable Odors
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Biological Resources
Impact 3.5-1: Special-
Status Species
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.5-2: Riparian
Habitat, Natural
Communities
Less than
Significant Same Same
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Impact 3.5-3: Federally
Protected Wetlands
Less than
Significant Same Same
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.5-4: Wildlife
Corridors
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.5-5: Policies and
Ordinances No Impact Same Same
Unavoidable
Significant
Impact
Same Same
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Impact 3.5-6:

Conservation Plans No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Cultural Resources

Impact 3.6-1: Historical
Resources
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.6-2:

Archaeological Resources
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.6-3:

Paleontological
Resources
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.6-4: Human
Remains
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Geology and Soils
Impact 3.7-1: Exposure to
Earthquake Fault
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Impact 3.7-2: Soil Erosion
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.7-3: Unstable
Geologic Unit or Soil
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Impact 3.7-4: Expansive
Soils
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.7-5: Soil
Incapable of Wastewater
Disposal
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Impact 3.8-1:

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.8-2: Conflicts
with Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plans
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.9-1: Transport of
Hazardous Materials
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.9-2: Emission of
Hazardous Materials No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Impact 3.9-3: Hazardous
Materials Site
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Impact 3.9-4: Airport Land
Use Plan Conflict No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Impact 3.9-5: Hazard due
to Private Airstrip No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Impact 3.9-6: Conflict with
Emergency Response
Plan
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.9-7: Exposure to
Wildland Fire
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Hydrology and Water Quality
Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Impact 3.10-1: Water
Quality Standards
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same
Same with
additional
mitigation
measure
Same
Same with
additional
mitigation
measure
Same with
additional
mitigation
measure
No Impact
Impact 3.10-2:

Groundwater Supply
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.10-3: Drainage
Patterns Affecting Erosion
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.10-4: Drainage
Patterns Affecting
Flooding
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.10-5:

Exceedance of Drainage
Capacity
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Impact 3.10-6: Other
Degradation of Water
Quality
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.10-7: Housing
within 100-Year
Floodplain
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.10-8: Structures
within 100-Year
Floodplain
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.10-9: Failure of
Dam or Levee
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.10-10: Seiche,
Tsunami, Mudflow
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Land Use and Planning
Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Impact 3.11-1: Physical
Division of Established
Community
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.11-2: Conflict
with Land Use Policy
Less than
Significant Same Same
Unavoidable
Significant
Impact
Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.11-3: Conflict
with Habitat Conservation
Plan
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Mineral Resources
Impact 3.12-1: Loss of
Mineral Resource No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Impact 3.12-2: Loss of
Locally Important Mineral
Resource Recovery Site
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Noise
Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Impact 3.13-1: Noise
Levels Exceeding
Standards
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.13-2: Exposure
to Groundborne Vibration
or Noise
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.13-3: Permanent
Increase in Ambient Noise
Levels
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.13-4: Temporary
Increase in Ambient Noise
Levels
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.13-5: Noise
Exposure within Airport
Land Use Plan
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.13-6: Noise
Exposure within Private
Airstrip Vicinity
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Population an d Housing
Impact 3.14-1:

Inducement of Substantial
Population Growth
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.14-2:

Displacement of Existing
Housing
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Impact 3.14-3:

Displacement of
Substantial Numbers of
People
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Public Services
Impact 3.15-1: Impacts
from Construction of
Government Facilities
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Recreation
Impact 3.16-1:

Neighborhood and
Regional Parks
Less than
Significant Same Same Same
Same with
additional
mitigation
measure
Same Same
Unavoidable
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Impact 3.16-2: Adverse
Physical Impact of
Recreation Facilities
Less than
Significant Same Same Same
Unavoidable
Significant
Impact
Same Same No Impact
Transportation
Impact 3.17-1: Conflict
with Traffic Plan or Policy
Less than
Significant
Same
Unavoidable
significant
impact
Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.17-2: Conflict
with Congestion
Management Program
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.17-3: Change in
Air Traffic Pattern No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Impact 3.17-4: Increased
Design Standards No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project
Impact 3.17-5:

Inadequate Emergency
Access
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.17-6: Conflict
with Public Transit,
Bicycle, Pedestrian Plan
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 3.18-1:

Exceedance of
Wastewater Treatment
Requirements
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.18-2: New
Water or Wastewater
Treatment
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.18-3: New or
Expanded Water Drainage
Facilities
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.18-4: Insufficient
Water Supply
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.18-5:

Exceedance of
Wastewater Treatment
Capacity
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.18-6: Insufficient
Landfill Capacity
Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact
Impact 3.18-7:

Noncompliance with Solid
Waste Regulations
No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Proposed
Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5B No Project

OTHER CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Cumulative Impacts Less than
Significant Same Same
Same
Unavoidable
Significant
Impact
Same
Unavoidable
Significant
Impact
Same Same No Impact
Impact 4.2-1:

Environmental Justice—
Disadvantaged
Community
Considerations
Unavoidable
Significant
Impact; no
mitigation
measures
Would provide
benefits by
increasing
access to parks
and green
spaces, but
access may be
limited by
providing only
one vehicular
access to one
location at
Perrin Avenue
that would
require travel
up SR 41
Less than
Significant
Likely to reduce
barriers to
access by
creating
additional
convenient
vehicular
access point
from surface
street at West
Riverview Drive
Same as
proposed
project
Same as
proposed
project
Same as
proposed
project
Less than
Significant
Likely to reduce
barriers to
access by
creating
additional
convenient
vehicular
access point
from surface
street at Palm
and Nees
Likely to reduce
barriers to
access by
creating
additional
convenient
vehicular
access point
from surface
street at Palm
and Nees
Same
Would not
provide benefits
or improve
access to
benefits of the
Parkway
Impact 4.3-1: Growth
Inducing No Impact Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact Impact 4.3-2: Energy Less than
Significant Same Same Same Same Same Same No Impact

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

5.14 Comparison of Alternatives
The broad objective of the Conservancy is to conserve habitat, provide public access to the River, and provide low-impact public recreation, linking all public recreational areas between SR 99 and Friant Dam with a continuous, multipurpose trail on land along the River; to create a low-impact recreation system with a variety of recreational opportunities; and to connect the multipurpose trail with other local and regional trails. Specifically, the objective of the proposed project is to extend the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail from its current southern terminus near Woodward Park for about 2.4 miles downstream along the River across State-owned land and to provide recreational amenities consistent with the policies of the Parkway Master Plan.

Alternative 1 would results in a significant and unavoidable impact related to Transportation and is not consistent with policies of the City’s of Fresno General Plan. Alternatives 3, 5, and 5B require additional mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. Alternative 3 also conflicts with the Parkway Master Plan policies related to protecting the River’s riparian corridor, while Alternative 5B conflicts with policies of the City of Fresno Bluff Protection Overlay District. Therefore, these alternatives would not be environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. Alternative 4, the No Parking Alternative, would minimize
s the potential impacts by eliminating the parking area, at the expense of consistency with policies of the River Parkway Master Plan that encourage parking to support visitor activity. Each alternative is described in greater detail below.

5.14.1 Alternative 1
Alternative 1, “Added Parking,” was developed to augment public vehicular provide convenient vehicle access to the project area for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, and to residents of the nearby including increasing opportunities for equal access for disadvantaged communities, because of the travel distance to the proposed Perrin Avenue vehicle entrance and parking area. and to increase parking capacity for visitors to the trail.

In Alternative 1, the trail extension, parking lot, and associated recreation amenities described for the proposed project would be provided along with added parking via an entrance to be provided at West Riverview Drive. Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would offer environmentally superior attributes with regard to environmental justice by providing equal access via the entrance through the Riverview Drive gate. However, this alternative may be infeasible because of the cost and time frame required to construct, in partnership with the City of Fresno, This alternative found significant
transportation impacts that could be mitigated with a traffic signal or traffic roundabout at the intersection of Audubon Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. However, this mitigation measure requires approval and action by the City of Fresno. The Conservancy cannot guarantee that these improvements would be

I

II I I II
1 II
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives implemented because they would be controlled by another agency. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. If the Conservancy wanted to adopt this alternative, it would have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 unless the improvements are timed to coincide with installation of the intersection improvements.

In terms of access to the Parkway for disadvantaged communities, Alternative 1 is likely to help reduce barriers to access by creating an additional convenient vehicular access point from surface streets at West Riverview Drive that does not require traveling north on SR 41, which visitors would be required to do with the single access point at Perrin Avenue.

5.14.2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2, the Bluff Trail Alignment, was developed to reduce the circuitous proposed trail alignment and reduce potential impacts on riparian habitat and disturbance to nearby residences on the floodplain.

The multiuse trail specifications, the Perrin Avenue parking lot, and associated recreation amenities described for the proposed project would be provided.

However, under Alternative 2, parking and public
vehicle access would be limited to the Perrin Avenue entrance. Therefore, this This alternative does not would not address improve limited public access to the River for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities, and more broadly, for Fresno metropolitan area residents. The impact on disadvantaged communities would be an unavoidable significant impact. compared to the proposed project and would results in impacts similar to those for the proposed project and require the same mitigation measures.

5.14.3 Alternative 3
Alternative 3, the 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 residences located on the Bluffs.

It This alternative includes all of the project elements described in for the proposed project, with the deviation difference being that this trail extension alignment lying lays would lie nearer to and along the bank of the River. The River’s Edge Trail This alternative requires additional mitigation measures beyond those of the proposed project, and this trail alignment conflicts with the policies of the Parkway Master Plan. The Conservancy’s policies that require a minimum width of 200 feet on both sides of the River as wildlife movement corridors. A, and require a buffer of 150 feet is to be established between riparian habitat and the planned multipurpose trail. Also, whenever feasible, the trail should be routed on the outside edges of habitat area areas, rather than through the center of riparian vegetation. The impact on and conflict with the Conservancy’s land use policy is an unavoidable significant impact with no feasible mitigation measures available. In addition, because Alternative 3 would provide public vehicle access only through the Perrin Avenue entrance, it would not provide equal access to the River for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities and for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area.

This would be an
unavoidable significant impact on disadvantaged communities.

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

5.14.4 Alternative 4
Alternative 4, the No Parking Alternative, was developed to address the potential impacts of parking near the River. The trail alignment and recreational amenities described for the proposed project would be constructed. However, no public vehicle parking would be provided on the project site.

This alternative
Alternative 4 would not address limited public does not improve access to the River for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities, including those nearby in the city of Fresno and in Madera County, and for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, compared to the proposed project, and Alternative 4 conflicts with policies of the Parkway Master Plan that encourage construction of parking to enhance visitor access and minimize off-site parking.

This is considered an unavoidable significant impact on nearby disadvantaged communities Impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. Alternative 4’s incremental contribution to transportation impacts would be cumulatively considerable, and a significant unavoidable impact. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce access to the project site for disadvantaged communities by limiting access to the trail network from surface roadways near the project site.

5.14.5 Alternative 5
Alternative 5, the Palm and Nees Access Alternative, was developed to address the potential impacts on air quality and VMT associated with the proposed project, and to provide greater, more convenient vehicle access for nearby disadvantaged communities, and more broadly, residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, including disadvantaged communities. Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 5 would offer environmentally superior attributes with regard to environmental justice by providing equal access to the project site through the access road from the intersection of Palm and Nees Avenues.

However, this alternative may prove to be infeasible because of the challenge of securing land ownership or easements, and the cost, uncertainties, and potential liabilities of remediation. This alternative is likely to would likely help reduce barriers to access by creating an additional convenient vehicular access point from surface streets at West Riverview Drive that does would not require traveling north on up the SR 41, which is what visitors would be required to do with the single access point at Perrin Avenue. This alternative requires the acquisition of private land from willing sellers and on mutually agreeable terms, and requires additional mitigation to address the potential for exposure to hazardous materials.

5.14.6 Al ternative 5B
Alternative 5B, the North Palm Avenue Access Alternative, was developed to provide convenient vehicle access for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, including disadvantaged communities. This alternative would require additional mitigation measures beyond those identified for the proposed project to address inconsistency with the City’s Bluff Protection Ordinance, and address the potential exposure to hazardous materials. Moreover, this alternative would require the acquisition of private land from willing sellers and on mutually agreeable terms, and acquisition of land or easements from FMFCD.

I
11'
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives

5.14.7 Alternative 6 (No Project)
Alternative 6, the The No Project Alternative, fails to meet the objectives of the proposed project as described in Section 1.4 of this EIR by denying linkage to the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail, and preventing access and use of a planned public park, open space, and recreation amenities to the residents of Fresno. None of the impacts identified for the proposed project would occur under the No Project Alternative.

5.15 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) require state that an if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives considered. The environmentally superior alternative is generally defined as the alternative that would result in the least adverse environmental impacts on the project site and the surrounding area. If the No Project alternative is found to be the environmentally superior alternative, the document must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

The broad objective of the Conservancy is to conserve habitat, provide public access to the River, and provide low-impact public recreation, linking all public recreational areas between SR 99 and Friant Dam with a continuous, multipurpose trail on land along the River; to create a low-impact recreation system with a variety of recreational opportunities; and to connect the multipurpose trail with other local and regional trails. Specifically, the objective of the proposed project is to extend the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail from its current southern terminus near Woodward Park for about 2.4 miles downstream along the San Joaquin River across State-owned land and provide recreational amenities consistent with the policies of the Parkway Master Plan.

The No Project Alternative fails to meet the objectives of the proposed project as described in Section 1.4 of this EIR by denying linkage to the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail, and preventing access and use of a planned neighborhood park, open space, and recreation amenities to the residents of Fresno. The other alternatives meet the objective of the project and the overall impacts associated with each are similar.

Alternative 1, Added Parking, was developed to augment public vehicular access to the project area for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area, and to residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities because of the travel distance to the proposed Perrin Avenue vehicle entrance and parking area. In Alternative 1, the trail extension, parking lot, and associated recreation amenities described for the proposed project would be provided along with added parking via an entrance to be provided at West Riverview Drive. Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would offer environmentally superior attributes with regard to environmental justice by providing equal access via the entrance through the

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Riverview Drive gate. However, this alternative may be infeasible because of the cost and time frame required to construct, in partnership with the City of Fresno, a traffic signal or traffic roundabout at the intersection of Audubon Avenue and Del Mar Avenue.

Alternative 2, the Bluff Trail Alignment, was developed to reduce the circuitous proposed trail alignment and reduce potential impacts on riparian habitat and disturbance to nearby residences on the floodplain.

The multiuse trail specifications, the Perrin Avenue parking lot, and associated recreation amenities described for the proposed project would be provided. However, under Alternative 2, parking and public vehicle access would be limited to the Perrin Avenue entrance. Therefore, this alternative does not address limited public access to the River for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities, and more broadly, for Fresno metropolitan area residents. The impact on disadvantaged communities would be an unavoidable significant impact.

Alternative 3, the 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 residences located on the Bluffs.

It includes all of the project elements described in for the proposed project, with the trail extension alignment lying nearer and along the bank of the River. The River’s Edge Trail alignment conflicts with the policies of the Parkway Master Plan. The Conservancy’s policies require a minimum width of 200 feet on both sides of the River as wildlife movement corridors. A buffer of 150 feet is to be established between riparian habitat and the planned multipurpose trail. Also, whenever feasible, the trail should be routed on the outside edges of habitat area areas, rather than through the center of riparian vegetation. The impact on and conflict with the Conservancy’s land use policy is an unavoidable significant impact with no feasible mitigation measures available. In addition, because Alternative 3 would provide public vehicle access only through the Perrin Avenue entrance, it would not provide equal access to the River for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities and for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area.

This would be an unavoidable significant impact on disadvantaged communities.

Alternative 4, the No Parking Alternative, was developed to address the potential impacts of parking near the River. The trail alignment and recreational amenities described for the proposed project would be constructed. However, no public vehicle parking would be provided on the project site. Alternative 4 would not address limited public access to the River for residents of the nearby disadvantaged communities, including those nearby in the city of Fresno and in Madera County, and for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area. This is considered an unavoidable significant impact on nearby disadvantaged communities.

Alternative 5, the Palm and Nees Access, was developed to address the potential impacts on air quality and VMT associated with the proposed project, and to provide greater, more convenient vehicle access for nearby disadvantaged communities, and more broadly, residents of the Fresno metropolitan area.

Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 5 would offer environmentally superior attributes with

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives regard to environmental justice by providing equal access to the project site through the access road from the intersection of Palm and Nees Avenues. However, this alternative may prove to be infeasible because of the challenge of securing land ownership or easements, and the cost, uncertainties, and potential liabilities of remediation.

In summary, the proposed project and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would create an unavoidable significant impact on residents living in two disadvantaged community census tracts, and more broadly on residents of Fresno, by restricting access to open space and recreation opportunities that would be more readily available to residents living closer to the project area. Therefore, these alternatives would not be environmentally superior.

5.15.1 Conclusion: Environmentally Superior Alternative Alternative 1 and Alternative 5 would offer environmentally superior attributes by providing public vehicle access in closer proximity for residents of a nearby disadvantaged community, and more broadly, for the residents of Fresno, thus ensuring equal access to the proposed project for all user groups. Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts in this DEIR, either Alternative 1 or Alternative 5, with the appropriate mitigation, would result in the fewest impacts, and both have been selected for this DEIR as the environmentally superior alternative.

Visitors would be able to access the multiuse trail and recreation amenities via the additional public vehicle entrance and parking provided Riverview Drive (Alternative 1) or at the access site in the vicinity of Palm and Nees Avenues (Alternative 5). 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.

Although environmental impacts may be lessened by either Alternative 1 or Alternative 5 in comparison to the proposed project, both of these alternatives have attributes that may make them more complicated and possibly infeasible.

Table 5.13-1, above, provides a summary of the design alternatives, comparing the environmental impacts of each to the impacts of the proposed project. Each of the action alternatives meets the project objectives to varying degrees compared to the proposed project. All alternatives except Alternative 2 require additional mitigation beyond that required for the proposed project, and three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, and 4) would result in unavoidable significant impacts that would not occur under the proposed project. Therefore, all these alternatives are not environmentally superior when compared to the proposed project. The No Project Alternative, while avoiding all environmental impacts, fails to meet the objectives of the proposed project as described in Section 1.4 of this EIR by denying linkage to the existing Lewis S. Eaton Trail, and preventing access and use of a planned recreational trail and open space, to the residents of Fresno.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Alternatives Under CEQA a lead agency is charged with the important task of determining whether and how a project should be approved, and must exercise its own best judgment to “balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15021[d]).

A lead agency has discretion to approve a project even where, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project will have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). However, when the agency does so, it must be clear and transparent about the balance it has struck.

To satisfy CEQA’s public information and informed decision-making process, if significant unavoidable impacts remain for the selected project (or alternative), the lead agency shall make a statement of overriding considerations, as described in Section 15093, that reflect the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives when the lead agency decides to approve a project that will cause one or more significant effects on the environment. The lead agency shall clearly state not only the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, that in its view warrant approval of the project (or selected alternative), but also the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
Chapter 6.

References
AccuWeather.com. 2014. AccuWeather Forecast for Fresno August 5, 2014. Available:
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/fresno-ca/93702/june-weather/327144. Accessed August 5, 2014.

AECOM. 2017. Supplemental Traffic Report, San Joaquin River West Eaton Trail Extension Project.

Fresno, CA.

ARB. See California Air Resources Board.

Blair, Church & Flynn. See Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers.

Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers. July 2017 (August 3). Palm Bluffs River Access Schematic Design Report. Clovis, CA. Prepared for City of Fresno Department of Public Works, Fresno, CA.

CalEPA. See California Environmental Protection Agency.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Air Resources Board. 2008 (December). Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Pursuant to AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sacramento, CA.
———.
———.
———. 2016a. Area Designation Maps/State and National. Available:
———. 2016b. Ambient Air Quality Standards dated March 2016. Available:
2013. California Estimator Emissions Model (CalEEMod) Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2. 2014 (May). First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework.

Pursuant to AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sacramento, CA. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm. Accessed in May 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed in March 2016.

California Demographics. 2016. Need Madera County Demographics for Your Business Plan? Available:
http://www.california-demographics.com/madera-county-demographics . Accessed in June 2016.

California Departme nt of Conservati on. 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitori ng Program (FMMP).

Availabl e: http://conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx . Accessed July 23, 2014.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
California Department of Fish and Game. 1994 (November 8). Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, CA.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———. 2015. Project Development Procedures Manual. Available:
———.
———.
2000 (May). Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Sacramento, CA. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.
2010. Bald Eagle Breeding Survey Instructions. Sacramento, CA. 2012 (March 7). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Health Services. 1990. Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2005. The Health and Social Benefits of Recreation.

California Outdoor Recreation Planning Program. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2014a. California Scenic Highway Program. Available:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/mtce/scenic.htm. Accessed June 19 and September 8, 2014.
2014b. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/CAMUTCD2014-Part0_rev1.pdf. Accessed June 19 and September 8, 2014.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/pdpmn.htm. Accessed March 20, 2015.

California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California Water Bulletin 118. Sacramento, CA. 2006. California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118, Update 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Kings Subbasin. Available:
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/5-22.08.pdf. Last updated January 20, 2006. Accessed July 13, 2015.
2015. State Groundwater Level Data, Water Data Library (2015). Available:
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/data_and_monitoring/south_central_region/GroundwaterLe vel/basin_contour.cfm?map=king_d10. Accessed July 13, 2015.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2010 (September 23). Soil- and Soil-Gas Screening Numbers (California Human Health Screening Levels or CHHSLs)—Tables of OEHHA Soil and Soil-Gas Screening Numbers. Available: http://oehha.ca.gov/chhsltable. Accessed January 5, 2016.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
2014. CalEPA Cortese List Data Resources. Available:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/. Accessed September 9, 2014. 2016. CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0 Results Map. Available:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html. Accessed April 28, 2016.

California Geological Survey. 2007. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Special Publication 42. Interim Revision 2007.

California Native Plant Society. 2015. California Native Plant Society Web page. Available:
http://cnps.org/. Accessed April 15, 2015.

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Sacramento, CA. 2014 (July). Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk. An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Sacramento, CA.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spot Program—Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

Sacramento, CA.
2010 (September 23). Soil- and Soil-Gas Screening Numbers (California Human Health Screening Levels or CHHSLs)—Tables of OEHHA Soil and Soil-Gas Screening Numbers.

Available: http://oehha.ca.gov/chhsltable. Accessed January 5, 2016. 2016. CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0 Results Map. Available:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html. Accessed April 28, 2016.

California Stormwater Quality Association. 2009. Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

CASQA. See California Stormwater Quality Association.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan). Fourth edition.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
Central Valley RWQCB. See Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

CEQ. See Council on Environmental Quality.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

City of Clovis. 2014. City of Clovis Government. Available: http://www.ci.clovis.ca.us/Government/Public- Documents/Planning-and-Zoning/General-Plan-1993. Accessed April 28, 2014. ———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
2016. About Clovis. Available: http://www.ci.clovis.ca.us/About/Clovis-Facts. Accessed June 10, 2016.

City of Fresno. 1988 (December 20). 1988 Bullard Community Plan and Related Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 10096. First printing June 1989; second printing July 1990; third printing April 1991. Development Department, Planning Division. Fresno, CA. 2002 (February 1). 2025 Fresno General Plan and Related Draft Environmental Impact Report, No. 10130. Planning and Development Department, Advance Planning. Fresno, CA. 2008. Fresno Green: The City of Fresno’s Strategy for Achieving Sustainability. Fresno, CA.

Available: http://toolkit.valleyblueprint.org/sites/default/files/fresnogreenpacketfinal50608_0.pdf.

Accessed in May 2016.
2009. City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines. Originally adopted October 18, 2006; updated February 2, 2009. Fresno, CA.
2010. City of Fresno Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Master Plan. Fresno, CA. Prepared by Fehr & Peers.
2014a. Fresno General Plan. Adopted December 18, 2014. Fresno, CA. Prepared by Development and Resource Management Department and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners.
2014b (July 22). Draft Master Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Fresno, CA. Prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, Fresno, CA.
2015. Citywide Development Code, Section 15-1407 of the Bluff Protection Overlay District dated March 31, 2015.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.

Conservancy. See San Joaquin River Conservancy.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
Council on Environmental Quality. 2014. Draft Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Washington, DC.

County of Fresno. 2000a (January). Fresno County General Plan Revised Public Review Draft Background Report. Fresno, CA.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
2015 . State Groundwater Lev el Dat a, Wate r Dat a Library (2015) . Available :
2000b (October 3). Fresno County General Plan Update. Fresno, CA. Available:
http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departmentpage.aspx?id=19705. Accessed April 28, 2014. 2008. Go Green Fresno County. Available:
http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/DepartmentPage.aspx?id=33055. Accessed May 2016. 2013. Regional Bicycle & Recreational Trails Master Plan. Fresno, CA. 2014a. About the County . Available: http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/CountyPage.aspx?id=19947.

Accessed July 23, 2014.
2014b. County of Fresno Assessor Map Lookup. Available:
http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/DepartmentPage.aspx?id=39951. Accessed July 16, 2014.

County of Madera. 1995. Madera County General Plan. Prepared by J. Laurence Mintier and Associates.

Available: http://www.madera-county.com/index.php/county-forms/category/46-general-plan- document-materials. Accessed April 28, 2014.
2010. Madera County General Plan, Air Quality and Transportation Element. Planning Department. Available: http://www.madera-county.com/index.php/county-forms/category/46- general-plan-document-materials. Accessed in May 2016.

DFG. See California Department of Fish and Game.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.
2006. California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118, Update 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Kings Subbasin. Available:
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/5-22.08.pdf. Last updated January 20, 2006. Accessed July 13, 2015.
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/data_and_monitoring/south_central_region/GroundwaterLe vel/basin_contour.cfm?map=king_d10. Accesse d July 13, 2015.

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. National Flood Insurance Program Flood Rate Insurance Map for Fresno County California and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 06019c1560H.

Federal Highway Administration. 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

Washington, DC.

FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

Fresno COG. See Fresno Council of Governments.

Fresno Council of Governments. 2014. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted June 26, 2014. Fresno, CA.

Guzman, Eric. Environmental scientist. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno, CA. October 8, 2014—e-mail message to David Young of AECOM regarding occurrence of fish species in gravel mining ponds along the San Joaquin River.

Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. 2011. National Action Plan—Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate. Washington, DC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Accessed in May 2016.

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Madera County Transportation Commission. 2010 (July 21). Madera County 2011 Regional Transportation Plan.

Marks, Melinda. Executive Officer. San Joaquin River Conservancy. April 22, 2016—conversation with David Young about past mining activities with the project area.

Noel, Andrew. Captain. Fresno Fire Department, Fresno, CA. November 11, 2014—conversation with Maya Tjahjadi of AECOM regarding wildfires and average response time by the Fresno Fire Department.

NRCS. See U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

OEHHA. See California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

I
11 11
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
Office of the California Attorney General. 2012 (July 7 10). Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level, Legal Background. Fact sheet. Sacramento: California Department of Justice.

San Joaquin River Conservancy. 1997a (December 18). San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan.

Fresno, CA.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
———.
1997b (December 18). Final Environmental Impact Report, San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan. Fresno, CA.
2015 (January). Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Joaquin River Parkway Sycamore Island Pond Isolation Project (Pit 46e). Fresno, CA.

San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust, Inc. 1989. San Joaquin River Parkway and Environs Conceptual Plan. Fresno, CA.
2011. Short Term Transportation Plan. Fresno, CA.

San Joaquin River Restoration Program. 2012 (July). 2012 Mid-Year Technical Report. 2016. 2016 Restoration Flows. Available: http://www.restoresjr.net/restoration-goal/restoration- flows/. Accessed July 5, 2016.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). Adopted August 20, 1998; revised January 10, 2002. Prepared by the Mobile Source/CEQA Section of the Planning Division, Fresno, CA. 2014. Current District Rules and Regulations. Available:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. Accessed August 4, 2014. 2015 (March 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Final Draft. Fresno, CA.
2016a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed in February 2016. 2016b. Rules and Regulations: Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Available:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm#reg8. Accessed in March 2016.

SJRRP. See San Joaquin River Restoration Program.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westcomp.fog.html

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I References
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.

State Parks. See California Department of Parks and Recreation.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2014. GeoTracker. Available:
———.
———.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed September 9, 2014. 2016. Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303[d] List/305[b] Report). Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Accessed June 15, 2016.

SVP. See Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Trust for Public Land. 2014. ParkScore. Available: http://parkscore.tpl.org/city.php?city=Fresno. Accessed May 14, 2014.

U.S. Climate Data. 2014. Climate Fresno—California and Weather Averages. Available:
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/fresno/california/united-states/usca2234. Accessed August 4, 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils.

Available: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed September 17, 2014, and July 2017.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2014. Mean Monthly and Annual Number of Days Heavy Fog.

Available: Accessed August 4, 2014.
2016. Fresno Yosemite International Airport (Station 043257). Available:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257. Accessed March 20, 2016.

WRCC. See Western Regional Climate Center.

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

RECORD OF CONVERSATION
Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy
Date: August 28, 2014 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Maya Tjahjadi Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Diane Printz-White,
Executive Assistant
Of: PARCS
Telephone No: (559) 621-2955 Admin Record/File Guide
Code:

Main Subject: Vehicle count at Woodward Park during two summer holidays Item(s) Discussed: The number of tickets or cars entering Woodward Park during Memorial Day and 4th of July weekends; included the date, day, and total number of cars for each day Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy Date: September 2, 2014 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Maya Tjahjadi Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Cheryl Callistro, Senior
Account Clerk
Of: City of Fresno Parks
Telephone No: (559) 621-2900 Admin Record/File
Guide Code:

A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Records of ConservationsConversations Main Subject: Trip generation/distributions for the proposed project area Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy
Date: September 4, 2014 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Noel Casil, PE, TE, PTOE Contract Number:

Task Number:

Email With: Jill Gormley, TE Of: Assistant Traffic Engineering Manager
City of Fresno, Public Works
Department
2600 Fresno Street, 4th
Floor
Fresno, CA 93721-3623
Telephone No: (559) 621-8792 Admin Record/File Guide
Code:

Main Subject: Acres of parks in the City of Clovis Item(s) Discussed: The population, number of parks, and number of people per acre in the City of Clovis Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy Date: 9/22/14 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Maya Tjahjadi Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Cindy Sauls,
Environmental Health
Specialist (EHS)
Of: City of Clovis
Telephone No: (559) 600-3271 Admin Record/File
Guide Code:

A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Records of ConservationsConversations Main Subject: Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
Item(s) Discussed: Whether any local agencies are part of the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) in Fresno
Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy Date: 11/05/14 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Maya Tjahjadi Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Carolyn Hogg, Chief
Information Officer (CIO)
Of:

Telephone No: (559) 621-7171 Admin Record/File
Guide Code:

Main Subject: Information about parcel numbers
Item(s) Discussed: Whether any fire-related information is available for two parcel numbers near the project site
Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy Date: 11/11/14 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Maya Tjahjadi Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Andrew Noel, GIS Analyst/
GIS Team Coordinator/
Fire Captain
Of: Fresno Fire
Department
Telephone No: (559) 621-4044 Admin Record/File
Guide Code:

A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Records of ConservationsConversations Main Subject: River Bottom Fire Questions
Item(s) Discussed: History, response time, and guidelines about fires in the river bottom Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy Date: 01/06/15 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Maya Tjahjadi Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Mary Ann Seay, Director Of: Madera Parks and Community Services
Telephone No: (559) 661-5491 Admin Record/File
Guide Code:

Main Subject: Number of parks and acres of park space in the City of Madera Item(s) Discussed: The number of parks and the total number of acres of park space in the City of Madera
Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy Date: 8/11/15 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: Maya Tjahjadi Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Timothy Leming,
Assistant Assessor-
Recorder
Of: City of Madera
Telephone No: (559) 256-5200 Admin Record/File
Guide Code:

A:COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Records of ConservationsConversations Main Subject: Mining Resources
Item(s) Discussed: Status of mineral reserves within the project area Project: Lewis S. Eaton Trail Client: San Joaquin River Conservancy
Date: 4/22/2016 URS Job Number:

Recorded By: David Young Contract Number:

Task Number:

Talked With: Melinda Marks, Executive
Officer
Of: San Joaquin River
Conservancy
Telephone No: (559) 253-7324 Admin Record/File Guide
Code:

A=COM
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Records of ConservationsConversations This page intentionally left blank

I
San Joaquin River Conservancy
River West Eaton Trail Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I Preparers
Chapter 7.

Preparers
This section identifies all individuals, firms, and agencies involved in preparing the DEIR, by contract or other authorization.

7.1 San Joaquin River Conservancy
Melinda Marks, Executive Director

7.2 AECOM
David Young, Project Manager
Ken Koch, Technical Lead
Matthew Gerken, AICP, Senior Urban Planner
George Strnad, RLA, RA, Trail Design
Chris Hargreaves, Landscape Design
Jenifer King, Senior Planner
Noel Casil, PE, TE, PTOE, Traffic
Natalie Smith, Hydrology
Caitlin Miller, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Frank Gegunde, PG, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Environmental Site Assessment Rachel Avila, Biological Resources
Maya Tjahjadi, Assistant Planner
Julie Nichols, Senior Technical Editor
Beth Duffey, Senior Technical Editor
Deborah Jew, Document Specialist

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

7.3 J and R Environmental
Jon Brady, Cultural Resources

667595v1

APPENDIX B: ADDENDUM #1

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum to Final EIR for
River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension
August 12, 2020

AN ADDENDUM TO THE

PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER CONSERVANCY’S
RIVER WEST FRESNO, EATON TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT.

For Purposes of Consideration
of the Inclusion of a
Modified Alternative 1
in addition to
Approved Core Project and Alternative 5b

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15164 (a) states that an Addendum to a previously certif ied EIR may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 or 15163 calling for the preparation of subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 applies to the inc lusion of a Modified Alternative 1 in addition to Approved Core Project and Alternative 5b. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 allows an addendum to a previously certified environmental document to be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (see also Benton v. Board of Supervisors 1991). The San Joaquin River Conservancy (Conservancy) certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for San Joaquin River Conservancy River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project on November 15, 2017. The FEIR for the San Joaquin River Conservancy River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project is hereby amended by this Addendum and the Environmental Review Update Checklist for the Inclusion of a Modified Alternative 1 in addition to Approved Core Project and Alternative 5b as described below.

Location: The study area is located along the San Joaquin River between State Route ( SR) 41 and Spano Park within the city limits of Fresno (Figure 1). The boundary extends from the River south to the San Joaquin River Bluffs and westward from SR 41 to Spano Park, located near the intersection of Palm Avenue and Nees Avenue. The project area is situated within Sections 21, 28, and 29 of Township 12S, Range 20E, Mount Diablo Baseline, and Meridian, Fresno North 7.5- minute series USGS topographic quadrangle. The study area analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was approximately 358 acres and located on the south side of the River (Figure 2). Most of the land is owned by the State of California under the management jurisdiction of the Conservancy (this land is hereinafter referred to as “Conservancy land”). Two parcels, owned by the City of Fresno , are adjacent to Conservancy land. The project area also contains State sovereign lands riverward of the River’s low - water mark, owned by the State of California and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission. Implementation of a portion of the project may occur on Fresno city parcels. Alternative 5, considered in Chapter 5 of this DEIR, also includes privately owned properties lying between the Conservancy land and the intersection of Palm Avenue and Nees Avenue.

Three other parcels in the study area are owned by others and would not be part of the project. One parcel, privately owned land located near the center of the project area, is occupied by two residences.

Access to these residences is via a paved road within an access easement on Conservancy property from West Riverview Drive. The other two parcels, owned by Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), contain stormwater detention basins. The Proposed Project would not affect these basins.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum to Final EIR for
River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension
August 12, 2020

A residential subdivision is located on the bluffs adjacent to the southern project boundary ( Figure 2).

The subdivision is within the city limits of Fresno.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum to Final EIR for
River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension
August 12, 2020

Figure 1: Regional Setting of the River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project I (Figure 2-1 of the FEIR)

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum to Final EIR for
River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension
August 12, 2020

Figure 2: Site Map of River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project I (Figure 2-2 of the FEIR)

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum to Final EIR for
River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension
August 12, 2020

Changes and Additions in the project and impacts:

The EIR for the Conservancy’s River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2014061017, assessed the Proposed Project with several alternatives. The San Joaquin River Conservancy Board approved the Proposed Project ( hereafter referred to as the Core Project , to distinguish i t from the Approved Project and as described in Section 2.4 of the FEIR of November 15, 2017) with the addition of Alternative 5b: North Palm Avenue and Nees Access. To address concerns previously raised by the Board, the Conservancy is adding a modified “Alternative 1: Added Parking” to the Approved Project. The Approved Project remains the same as described and assessed in the FEIR. Alternative 1, as described in the FEIR, adds 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. This Modified Alternative 1, although having several changes from that described in the FEIR, has similar environmental impacts as the alternative assessed in the FEIR. These modifications include:

• The proposed parking lot will be constructed near the access point at West Riverview Drive instead of the area East of the E Pond and South of the H Pond (Figure 3); • The proposed parking lot will provide parking for 15 vehicles, including 2 American with Disabilities Act (ADA) placard parking spaces;
• The City of Fresno will provide street markings for the parking of 15 vehicles on West Riverview Drive and West Bluff Avenue; and
• Bus1 access, turn-around, and parking facilities will be constructed by improving the existing gravel road the leads from West Riverview Drive, travels Southw est along the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) stormwater basin, the n turn West and travel West between the E Pond and H Pond to an area between the E Pond and O Pond;

As describe for the original parking lot for Alternative 1:
• Neither the parking lot nor the bus parking area will accommodate horse trailers; • For both the bus parking area and public parking lot , 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 bus parking area. • Access to the parking lot would be provided by a controlled vehicle entrance, with an additional control device to the two-lane paved road from West Riverview Drive to the bus parking area.

The Proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially wors en or increase the severity of impacts already identified for Alternative 1 in the FEIR. These modifications were developed to further address impacts of the original Alternative 1 and as such will lessen impacts identified previously to a lower level than originally proposed.

Finding: The FEIR for the River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project as amended by this Addendum and the Environmental Review Update Checklist may be used to fulfill the environmental review requirements of the River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2014061017. Because the changes to the project meet the conditions for the application of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required.

1 Bus is defined as school buses or other organizations’ group-activity passenger carriers that are sanctioned by the SJRC CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum to Final EIR for
River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension
August 12, 2020

Figure 3: Modified Alternative 1 - Additional Public and Bus Parking (not to scale, final design will defer in detail).

August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UPDATE CHECKLIST FORM

For Projects With
Previously Approved Environmental Documents

For Purposes of Consideration
of the Inclusion of
a Modified Alternative 1 in Addition
To Approved Core Project and Alternative 5b

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) covering the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is required (AEP 2019). This Environmental Review Update Checklist Form has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to explain the rationale for determining whether any additional environmental documentation is needed for the Inclusion of a Modified Alternative 1 in addition to Approved Core Project and Alternative 5b.

Background on the previously certified EIR

An EIR for the Conservancy’s River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project , State Clearinghouse No. 2014061017, was certified by the San Joaquin River Conservancy Board on November 15, 2017 . The certified EIR evaluated potentially signi ficant effects for the following environmental areas of potential concern: 1) Aesthetics; 2) Agricultural Resources; 3) Air Quality; 4) Biological Resources; 5) Cultural And Paleontological Resources; 6) Geology And Soils; 7) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 8) Hydrology and Water Quality; 9) Land Use and Planning; 10) Mineral Resources; 11) Noise; 12) Population and Housing; 13) Public Services; 14) Recreation; 15) Transportation and Traffic; 16) Utilities and Service Systems, and 17) Climate Change.

The FEIR found the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to all resources areas, with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures. The FEIR identified a number of less-than-significant impacts associated with the Alternative 5b that do not require mitigation.

The FEIR also identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental impacts that may be caused in whole or in part by the Alternative 5b . These significant impacts can be fully avoided or substant ially lessened to less -than-significant levels through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures and the application of best management practices (BMPs). The Proposed Project is consistent with goals, policies, and objectives in the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan (Parkway Master Plan) , and is located on state- owned land under the Conservancy's jurisdiction and would provide the fundamental improvements initially planned for the River West Fresno site. The scope of the project was developed over several years, initiated by a conceptual plan presented in 2004 to the Board by the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust, refined through a constraints analysis performed by the City of Fresno in 2011, and carried forward by the City of Fresno and the Conservancy in several public workshops.

On August 12, 2020, the Board approved an Addendum to the F EIR for the River West Fresno, August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

Eaton Trail Extension Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2014061017 ). The FEIR and the Addendum described above are on file at the Conservancy office and available on the Conservancy’s web site at http://sjrc.ca.gov/.

Project Description:

The Conservancy proposes to expand the Eaton Trail by constructing a multipurpose trail and providing ancillary recreation support features. The paved, multi -use trail would be extended approximately 2.4 miles, from Perrin Avenue near SR 41 on the east to Spano Park on the west. The project would provide for low-impact recreational activities such as hiking, bicycling, equestrian use, fishing, and nature observation, consistent with the Conservancy's Parkway Master Plan.

MULTI PURPOSE TRAIL

The trail extension would be about 22 feet wide, with a 12- foot-wide paved surface, a parallel 8- foot-wide hard natural surface for equestrian use, and a 2 -foot shoulder (opposite the natural surface area). The trail extension generally would follow the alignment, as shown in the conceptual drawing in Volume I, Figure 2-3 of the FEIR., from SR 41 to a staircase leading to Spano Park. The trail would be ADA-compliant Three fire hydrants would be added along the trail extension, if feasible: at the Perrin Avenue parking lot, near the private property parcel, and near the toe of Spano Park. In addition to the multi-use frail extension, secondary unpaved pedestrian trails would be provided to the riverbank.

PARKING LOTS

As approved in November 2017 , a parking lot for 50 vehicles with a controlled vehicle entrance would be constructed adjacent to SR 41 (Volume I, Figure 2- 4 of the FEIR).

Vehicular access to the parking lot would be from the Perrin Avenue undercrossing of SR

41. A gate and an unmanned parking pay station would be included to manage vehicular access. The parking lot would accommodate up to three horse trailer stalls and would have a fire hydrant (if feasible), a drinking fountain, a public information bulletin board, a small pet station, and a two-vault restroom. The restroom and parking lot would be ADA accessible. Smart lighting with light -emitting diode (LED) light sets with rechargeable batteries and a solar panel would be mounted on light poles, providing sufficient illumination for security and maintenance. The area surrounding the parking lot would be landscaped with native vegetation. An emergency/service gate or removable bollards would provide access to the trail extension for emergency first responders and maintenance staff.

Included in the Approved Project was Alternative 5b, “North Palm Avenue Access.” This Alternative 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. This 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, will add 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 August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

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 of the FEIR, public access would be provided 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 r iver bottom, then would proceed in a horseshoe turn around FMFCD stormwater detention basin.

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 prov ide 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. 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 FEIR Appendix I, the Palm Bluffs River Access Schematic Design Report (August 2017).

Alternative 1 of the FEIR also adds a Public vehicle entrance, additional parking area, and public access to the trail extension from West Rivervi ew Drive. Alternative 1 was developed to augment public vehicular access to the project site for residents of the Fresno metropolitan area. During the public scoping process, concerns were 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. This addendum modifies certain aspects of the proposed Alternative 1 of the FEIR. The FEIR described a 40-stall parking lot that would be constructed between the H Pond and the E Pond. The Modified Alternative 1 changes the size and location of the proposed parking lot to 15 stalls and would be located immediately adjacent to the Riverview access g ate. This parking lot, similar to the one analyzed in the FEIR , would not accommodate horse trailers, include LED light sets with rechargeable batteries, and a solar panel would be mounted on light poles to provide sufficient illumination for security and maintenance. The modified Alternative 1 would also add a b us parking area, bus turnaround, and a two-vault ADA- accessible restroom, fire hydrant, and pet station that would be located to the East of E August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

Pond as shown in Figure 3 above. Access to the parking lot would be provided by a controlled vehicle entrance, and an addition control device will control vehicle access to a two-lane paved road from West Riverview Drive Parking Lot to the bus parking and turnaround area. Landscaping and other amenities will be included to provide shade, screen the parking lots, and ensure that these features conform to the visual environment of the area. Adoption of and application of BMPs as detailed in the FEIR further assure that the Modified Alternative 1 will not differ in negative impacts from that assessed in the FEIR.

1. Does the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is now proposed differ in any way from the previously approved project?

Yes No
X

The Proposed Project adds a previously assessed alternative, with modifications, to the overall project. This addition will increase parking for the project by 30 vehicles and provide centrally located bus parking. This bus parking is similar to the existing use of the area for which school groups and other organized groups receive permission to transport day -campers and others to the ponds within the project area. This modification will provide paved access for buses, a restroom facility for bus passengers and other users that are recreating near the ponds and river.

This addition with these modifications are part of the settlement agreement with the San Joaquin River Access Corporation and provides for a more acceptable project with increased access for the region.

2. Subject areas determined to have new, or substantially more severe significant environmental effects compared to those identified in the previous ND or EIR.

The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.

August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

☒ NONE
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forest
Resources ☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology & Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology & Water
Quality
☐ Land Use & Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise
☐ Population & Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐ Utilities & Service
Systems
☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance

August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this analysis, the San Joaquin River Conservancy has determined that:

No substantial changes are proposed in the project that were not analyzed under the previous EIR and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified
EIR is adequate without modification.

No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.

Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).

However, all new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly avoidable through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT ND is required.

Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

Signature Date:

Printed Name: Title:

John M. Shelton Executive Officer
X

August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously adopted ND or a previously certified EIR for the project.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162(a) and 15163 state that when an ND has been adopted or an EIR certified for a project, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or Subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole public record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as co mplete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously adopted Negative Declaration or previously certified EIR; or c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Negative Declaration or EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(a) states that the lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(b) states that an Addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary.

If the factors listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, or 15164 have not occurred or are not met, no changes to the previously certified EIR or previously adopted ND are necessary.

August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

The following responses detail any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that may cause one or more effects to environmental resources. The responses support the “Determination,” above, as to the type of environmental documentation required, if any.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UPDATE CHECKLIST

I. AESTHETICS – Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to aesthetic resources including: s cenic vistas; scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway; existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or day or nighttime views in the area?

Yes No
X

All Aesthetics impacts were assessed in the FEIR for the Proposed Project, Alternative 5b, and Alternative 1 and found to be less -than-significant. The modifications to Alternative 1 in this addendum further address visual impacts by moving the vehicle parking out of the floodplain and placing bus parking further from the adjoining neighborhood. Previously approved plant restoration activities bet ween the neighborhood and bus parking area will further eliminate negative impacts. The modified Alternative 1 retains the landscaping improvements that also mitigates visual impacts.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES -- Since the previous EIR was cer tified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to agriculture or forestry resources i ncluding: conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non- agricultural use, conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract, or conversion of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources as assessed in the FEIR.

III. AIR QUALITY -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under whic h the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to air quality including: conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) or applicable port ions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP); August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation; a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Air Quality as assessed in the FEIR.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to biological resources including: adverse effects on any sensitive natural community (including riparian habitat) or species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in a local or regional plan, policy, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; adverse effects to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites; and/or conflicts with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan, policies or ordinances?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Biological Resources as assessed in the FEIR.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to cultural resources including: causing a change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feat ure; and/or disturbing any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Cultural Resources as assessed in the FEIR.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that result in one or more effects from geology and soils including: exposure of people or structures to potential August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, strong seismic ground shaking, or landslides; result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; produce unstable geological conditions that will result in adverse impacts resulting from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; being located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property; and/or having soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Geology and Soils as assessed in the FEIR.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that result in one or more effects related to environmental effects associated with greenhouse gas emissions or compliance with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions as assessed in the FEIR by adding parking and access that will reduce vehicle miles traveled by local residents . The FEIR determined that this was not a significant impact , so this reduction, while important, does not change the status of this category.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MA TERIALS -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that result in one or more e ffects from hazards and hazardous materials including: creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes; creation of a significant hazard to the publ ic or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; production of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or was te within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 creating a hazard to the public or the environment; location within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; within the vicinity of a private airstrip resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and/or exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Yes No
August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials as assessed in the FEIR.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to hydrology and water quality including: violation of any waste discharge requirements; an increase in any listed pollutant to an impaired water body listed under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act ; cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses; substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems; provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; place housing or other structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, including County Floodplain Maps; expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality as assessed in the FEIR.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to land use and planning including: physically dividing an established community; and/or conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Land Use and Planning as assessed in the FEIR.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to mineral resources including: the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; and/or loss of local ly- August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Mineral Resources as assessed in the FEIR.

XII. NOISE -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that result in one or more effects f rom noise including: exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; for projects located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or for projects within the vicinity of a private air strip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Noise as assessed in the FEIR.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that result in one or more effects to population and housing including displacing substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Population and Housing as assessed in the FEIR.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that result in one or more substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

following public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed will positively impact Public Services by increasing access to this wildland park and for police and fire protection agencies. The FEIR did not find that there were significant impacts to Public Services, so these positive changes do not change this assessment.

XV. RECREATION -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or that include recreational facilities or require the constructi on or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Yes No
X

The changes proposed will positively impact Recreation by increasing ease of access to this wildland park. The FEIR did not find that there were significant impacts to Recreation, so th is positive change does not change this assessment.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause effects to transportation/traffic including: resulting in the project being greater than one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor ; increasing vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to previous EIR and existing conditions; a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); inadequate emergency access; inadequate parking capacity; and/or a conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Yes No
X

The analysis of Transportation and Traffic under the CEQA Guidelines has been changed since the FEIR for the River West Fresno, Eaton Trail Extension Project was certified by the San Joaquin River Conservancy Board. The California Natural Resources Agency has adopted new CEQA Guidelines that no longer consider impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) and consider vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) regarding roadway capacity, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. E xceeding an applicable threshold of significance for VMT may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high -quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less -than-significant transportation impact. Under this new analysis methodology, the addition of a parking lot and bus access included in Alternative 1 does not increase VMT in relation to the approved project , but instead will decrease VMT for those drivers approaching the River West area from the East and Southeast. The analysis completed in the previously certified EIR does find that Alternative 1 has a potentially significant impact to future traffic delays within the neighborhood to the provision of public access at West Riverview Drive base on LOS . The supporting traffic studies (see Appendix H of the FEIR) shows that this alternative could increase traffic so that when future modeled conditions of base traffic conditions are added to the traffic generated, Audubon Drive will have a level of congestion at the West Audubon Drive and North Del Mar Avenue intersection above thresholds developed by the City of Fresno. In the staff prepared materials that were presented to the Board and to the public at the November 2018 Board Meeting, mitigation measures were proposed to address this issue, in part to alleviate perceived issues of safety for vehicles turning left from North Del Mar Avenue onto West Audubon Avenue. Although the threshold for significance has changed for this category, the Conservancy intends to negotiate a fair-share contribution to fund traffic safety improvements at this intersection and for Audubon Avenue.

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause one or more effects to tribal cultural resources including: causing a change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resource Code §21074?

Yes No
x

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Tribal and Cultural Resources as assessed in the FEIR.

XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause effects to utilities and service systems including: exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; require new or expanded entitlements to water supplies or new water resources to serve the project; result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; and/or noncompliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? August 12, 2020 Environmental Checklist for Addendum to an Approved EIR

Yes No

The changes proposed do not change impacts to Utilities and Service Systems as assessed in the FEIR.

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE : Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND was adopted, are there any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" tha t result in any mandatory finding of significance listed below?

Does the project degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Yes No
x

The Proposed Project, which includes the Core Project, Alternative 5b, and the Modified Alternative 1, does not result in any mandatory findings of significance as listed above.

REFERENCES USED IN THE COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UPDATE

CHECKLIST FORM

Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), 2019. 2019 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. Available at https://resources.ca.gov/About- Us/Legal/CEQA-Supplemental-Documents ; pgs 472

Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 1991. 226 Cal.App.3d 1467

California Public Resources Code, CPRC, Sections 40000-419; Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=PRC&tocTitle =+Public+Resources+Code+-+PRC