26-1115 Amended and Restated Environmental Assessment No. P20-01778

1 CITY OF FRESNO

PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, OR ZONING

EXEMPTION
AMENDED AND RESTATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.

P20-01778

THE PROJECT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES.

APPLICANT(S): Department of Public Works
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
PROJECT LOCATION:

City: City of Fresno County: Fresno
County
The Mid-Town Trail project is comprised of five segments totaling 7.1 miles of multi-purpos e trail in the public right-of- way.

Segment 1 begins at the nor theast corner of North
Blackstone East Shields
Avenues and runs east along the
north side of Shields Avenue, crossing to the south side at the main entrance to the Manchester Mall. The trail continues east along the south side of Shields Avenue and terminates at the southwest corner of North Fresno Street and East Shields Avenue.

Segment 2 begins on the southeas t corner of North Fresno Street and East Shields Avenue and continues east along the north side to the Herndon Canal and terminates on the
southwest corner of North Fi rst Street and East Shields Avenue.

Segment 3 begins on the sout heast corner of North First Street and East Shields Av enue and continues along the north and east bank of the Her ndon Canal to East McKinley 2 Avenue.

Segment 4 begins on the southeast corner East McKinley
and North Millbrook Avenues and continues along the north bank of the Herndon Canal, east to North Clovis Avenue.

Segment 5 begins at the northwest corner of East McKinley and North Clovis Avenues and continues along the west side of North Clovis Avenue to Ea st Shields Avenue, where the trail will terminate.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amended and Restated Environmental Assessment No. P20- 01778 was filed by Jason Miller of the City of Fresno
Department of Public Works Engineering & Design Division and pertains to the proposed Mid-Town Trail. The Mid-Town Trail project is comprised of five segments totaling 7.1 miles of multi-purpose trail in the public right-of-way.

All Mid-Town Trail segments include the installation of a multi-purpose trail, shielded tr ail lighting, shade trees, irrigation, way finding amenities, signage, striping, minor road work, curb & gutter, sidewalk, traffic signal modifications, utilities, and grading. Key additi onal elements of Segment 1 include modifications to the SR41 on/off ramps on the south side of East Shields Avenue, removal of the westbound right turn lane from the southbound SR 41 on-ramp on the north side of East Shields Avenue to North Blackstone Avenue.

Segment 2 also includes right -of-way acquisition at the entrance to the south bank of the Herndon C anal at North Fresno Street to provide Fres no Irrigation District (FID), PG&E and AT&T access to their respective facilities within FID right-of-way. The project requires relocation of PG&E power poles and undergrounding/relocation of AT&T data
lines along the southern bank of the Herndon Canal. An
access driveway at the north en d of North Angus Street will provide additional FID, PG&E, and AT&T access to their respective facilities on the s outhern bank of t he canal. Key additional elements of Segment 3 include the installation of a 12’x60’ prefabricated steel truss pedestrian bridge at the Herndon Canal and Mill Ditch crossing. Segment 4 key
elements include the passing of the trail under SR168
(Caltrans ROW), railroad track p anel installation to facilitate FID access at North Peach Avenue and North Clovis Avenue 3 (San Joaquin Valley Railroad), and an airport (FAA) runway protection zone near North Clovis Avenue. Finally, Segment 5 key elements include an airp ort (FAA) runway protection zone near North Clovis Avenue, a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Cit y and the Airport, and an impact to Valero Gas Station’s Clovis Avenue frontage (lease from the airport).

An Environmental Assessment wa s previously adopted by
the City of Fresno on November 19, 2020, this Amended and Restated Environmental Assessment is to provide a
correction to indicate that the Mid-Town Trail will be a multi- purpose trail.

This project is exempt under Section 15183 (P rojects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning) of the Calif ornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as follows:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows a str eamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for whic h an Environmental Impact Repor t (EIR) was certified. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the Fresno General Plan, for which an EIR was certified (State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2012111015).

An Environmental Checklist has been prepared to show the project’s consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Statut ory Exemption. The Environm ental Checklist includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or site-specific environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The Environmental Checklist identifies the applicable City of Fresno devel opment standards and policies that would apply to the proposed project during both the construction and operational phases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar or site-specific environmental impacts would occur.

The proposed trail (project) is consistent with Figure MT-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan.

Cumulative impacts associated with developm ent and buildout of the project, as proposed, were fully addressed in the City of Fresno MEIR (SCH# 2012111015). Since the proposed project is consistent with the trail designation and intensity identified in the General Plan and analyzed in the MEIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or altered cumulative impacts beyond those addressed in the MEIR.

4 The analysis in the CEQA Environmental Che cklist demonstrates that there are no site- specific or peculiar impacts associated with the project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that woul d be applied to the project. The Project Requirements identified in the attached env ironmental analysis include r equirements that must be implemented by the proposed project in order to ensure that any site-specific impacts or construction-related impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made a condition of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified.

Additional supporting evidence fo r why the project qualifies for the exemption is included in the attached CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist (Appendix G).

Furthermore, the proposed project is not ex pected to have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Section 15183 Exemption (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning), as noted above, has been prepared for the project.

Date: December 10, 2020
Submitted by:

Marisela Martínez
Marisela Martínez, Planner
Planning and Development Department
559-621-8038

5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IN SUPPORT OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
Environmental Checklist Form for:

Amended and Restated Environmental Assessment No. P20-01778

1. Project title:

Amended and Restated Environmental Assessment No. P20-01778

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

3. Contact person and phone number:

Marisela Martinez, Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8038

4. Project location:

City: City of Fresno County: Fresno County The Mid-Town Trail project is comprised of five segments totaling 7.1 miles of multi- purpose trail in the public right-of-way.

Segment 1 begins at the northeast corner of North Blackstone and East Shields Avenues and runs east along the north side of East Shields Avenue, crossing to the south side at the main entrance to the Manchester Mall. The trail continues east along the south side of Shields Av enue and terminates at the s outhwest corner of North Fresno Street and East Shields Avenue.

Segment 2 begins on the southeast corner of North Fresno Street and East Shields Avenue and continues east along the north side to the Herndon Canal and terminates on the southwest corner of North First Street and East Shields Avenue.

Segment 3 begins on the sout heast corner of North Firs t Street and East Shields Avenue and continues along t he north and east bank of th e Herndon Canal to East McKinley Avenue.

Segment 4 begins on the southeast corner East McKinley and North Millbrook Avenues and continues along the north bank of the Herndon Canal, east to North Clovis Avenue.

6 Segment 5 begins at the northwest corner of East McKinley and North Clovis Avenues and continues along the west side of North Clovis Avenue to East Shields Avenue, where the trail will terminate.

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

City of Fresno – Department of Public Works
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721

6. General & Community plan land use designation:

All segments of the Mid-Town Trail are identified in Fi gure MT-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan and fall within the McLane Community Plan.

7. Zoning:

The Mid-Town Trail does not pertain to a sole zoning district.

8. Description of project:

Amended and Restated Environmental Assessm ent No. P20-01778 was filed by Jason Miller of the City of Fresno Department of Public Works Engineering & Design Division and pertains to the proposed Mid-Town Trail. The Mid-Town Trail project is comprised of five segments totaling 7.1 miles of multi-purpose trail in the public right- of-way.

Key additional elements of Segment 1 in clude modifications to the SR41 on/off ramps on the south side of East Shields Avenue, removal of the westbound right turn lane from the southbound SR41 on-ramp on t he north side of East Shields Avenue to North Blackstone Avenue. Segment 2 also includes right-of-way acquisition at the entrance to the south bank of the Herndon Canal at North Fresno Street to provide Fresno Irrigation District (FID), PG&E and AT&T access to their respective facilities within FID right-of-way. The project requi res relocation of PG&E power poles and undergrounding/relocation of AT &T data lines along the southern bank of the Herndon Canal. An access driveway at the north end of North Angus Street will provide additional FID, PG&E, and AT&T acce ss to their respective facilities on the southern bank of the canal. Key additiona l elements of Segment 3 include the installation of a 12’x60’ prefabricated steel truss pedestri an bridge at the Herndon Canal and Mill Ditch crossing. Segment 4 key elements include the passing of the trail under SR168 (Caltrans RO W), railroad track panel inst allation to facilitate FID access at North Peach Avenue and Nort h Clovis Avenue (San Joaquin Valley 7 Railroad), and an airport (FAA) runway pr otection zone near North Clovis Avenue.

Finally, Segment 5 key elements include an airport (FAA) runway protection zone near North Clovis Avenue, a Memorandu m of Understanding between the Fresno Yosemite International Airport and the City of Fresno, City of Fresno, and an impact to Valero Gas Station’s Clovis Avenue frontage (lease from the airport).

An Environmental Assessment was previously adopted by the City of Fresno on November 19, 2020, this Amended and Restated Environm ental Assessment is to provide a correction to indicate that the Mid-Town Trail will be a multi-purpose trail.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The Mid-Town Trail is surrounded by variou s planned land uses and is located in an urban setting.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Planning and Development D epartment; Department of Pub lic Works; Department of Public Utilities; Fresno Irrigation District; Westlands Water District; Fresno Yosemite International Airport; Depar tment of Transportation (CalTrans); Fresno County; San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVRR); Federal Aviation Administration.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Tradi tional Tribal Cultural Re sources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelin es. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliat ed with the geographical ar ea of the proposed project. Such significant cult ural resources are either site s, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Histo ric Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or 8 Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy R ancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

As stated in PRC Section 21080.3.1, California Native American tribes are required to be contacted by the lead agency prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental im pact report. The City of Fresno has determined the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and the proposed project does not warrant a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report. Thus, the lead agency is not required to conduct tribal consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1.

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT One previous environmental ana lysis has been prepared and certified which is applicable to the proposed project. On Dece mber 18, 2014, the City adopt ed a new General Plan and certified the associated Master EIR (MEIR) (State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2012111015). The proposed project is consistent with the Figure MT-2 of the Fr esno General Plan. The MEIR assumed full development and buil dout of the project site, c onsistent with the uses and development standards proposed by the project. The cumulati ve impacts associated with buildout of the City of Fresno General Plan, including the project site, were fully addressed in the MEIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
CEQA Guidelines Section 1518 3 allows a streamlined environ mental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. As noted above, the proposed project is consistent with the Fresno General Plan, for which an EIR was certified. The provisions c ontained in Section 15183 of the CE QA Guidelines are presented below.

15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether th ere are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

(b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environm ental effects to those which the agency 9 determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) Were not analyzed as significant e ffects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EI R prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

(c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in t he prior EIR, or can be subs tantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) bel ow, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.

(d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to acco mmodate a particular density of development, or
(C) A general plan of a local agency, and
(2) An EIR was certified by the l ead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.

(e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigat ion measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and
(2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.

(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for t he purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the City or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially 10 mitigate that environmental effect w hen applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows t hat the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply th roughout the entire City or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is lo cated, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another per tinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a City or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such po licies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision-making bo dy of the City or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project.

Such a public hearing need only be held if the City or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section.

(g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse ga s emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.

(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it.

(i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section.
(1) “Community plan” is defined as a par t of the general pl an of a City or county which applies to a defined geo graphic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and 11 contains specific development po licies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel. (2) For purposes of this section, “consis tent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and th at the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the genera l plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.

(j) This section does not affect any require ment to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a signi ficant offsite or cumula tive impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Checklist includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or site- specific environmental impacts associated with construc tion and operation of the proposed project.

The Environmental Checklist identifies the appl icable City of Fresno development standards and policies that would apply to the proposed project duri ng both the construction and operational phases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar or site -specific environmental impacts would occur.

None of the environmental factors below would be affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
12 ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION
As described above, the Mid-Town Trail is consistent with Figure MT-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan. Cumulative impacts associated with development and bui ldout of the project site, as proposed, were fully addressed in the City of Fresno MEIR (SCH# 2012111015). Since the proposed project is consist ent with the Fresno General Plan and analyzed in the MEIR, implementation of the proposed pr oject would not resu lt in any new or altered cumulative impacts beyond those addressed in the MEIR.

The analysis in the following CE QA Environmental Checklist dem onstrates that there are no site-specific or peculiar impacts associated with the project, and ident ifies uniformly applied standards and policies that woul d be applied to the project. The Project Requirements identified in the attached env ironmental analysis include requirements that must be implemented by the proposed project in order to ensure that any site-specific impacts or construction-related impacts are reduced to a less-than- significant level. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made a condition of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified.

Marisela Martínez 12-10-2020 Marisela Martinez, Planner Date 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out-
cropping, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

DISCUSSION

I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Fresno General Plan MEIR provides and re cognizes that the City of Fresno has not identified or designated scenic vistas within its General Plan. Although no scenic vista has been designated, it is ack nowledged that scenic vistas could provide distant views of natural landscape features such as the San Joaquin Riv er and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. These distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills are impeded many days during the year by the poor air quality in the Fresno region. Dis tant views of man -made landscape features incl ude the Downtown Fresno buildings that provid e a unique skyline. 14 Although the aforementioned feat ures may be considered to be scenic vistas, the trail is relatively flat and will not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vista.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, incl uding, but not limited to, trees, rock out- cropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015, the County of Fresno does not have any officially designated State Scenic Highways, but has three eligible State Scenic Highways. The nearest eligible highways are east of the Planning Area along State Route 180 and along State Route 168 east of the City of Clovis. Ther efore, given that the trail is in accordance with the Fresno General Plan and Fresno Municipal Code, the trail would not impact a designated state scenic highway. Additional scenic resources withi n the City of Fresno include landscaped open spaces such as parks, golf courses, bluff areas along the San Joaquin River due to the topographic variation in the relatively flat S an Joaquin Valley, and historic structures in Downtown Fresno because they provide a unique sky line. At its nearest point, the trail is located approximately five air miles from the San Joaquin River and two and a half miles from Downtown Fresno. Given the trail’s distance from the San Joaquin River and Downtown Fresno, the proposed proj ect will not interfere with public views of the San Joaquin River environs or the Downtown Fresno skyline.

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially de grade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vanta ge point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conf lict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The trail is located in an urbanized area and does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The trail is consistent with the planned trail in Figure MT- 2 of the Fresno General Plan.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The trail will not create a new sour ce of substantial light or gl are which would affect day or night time views in the project area given that the trail lighting will be shielded and developed in accordance with city standards. The City of Fresno Municipal Code includes various standards and requirements to minimize any impacts related to light and glare within the project area. Chapter 15-2015 Outdoor Lighting and Illumination of the City of Fresno Municipal Code provides standards to minimize any environmental impacts caused by outd oor artificial light.

According to Table 15-2015-B-2 (incorporated by reference), the maximum height of outdoor lighting fixtures on-site shall not exceed 25 f eet, and all light fixtures will be required to be shielded to not produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties.

Further, no outdoor lighting is allowed to cause significant, direct glare beyond the boundaries of the property. The trail will also be subject to the applicable mitigation measures pertaining to light and glare included in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015, which would require trail lighting to 15 be shielded away from roadway surfaces and to in stall low intensity light fixtures to minimize light spillover. Therefore, the trail’s impact will be less than significant.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigat ion measures incorpor ated, the proj ect will not result in any aesthetic resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

MEIR Mitigation
The proposed project shall impl ement and incorporate, as applic able, the aesthetics related mitigation measures as identif ied in the attached MEIR Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Ev aluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conser vation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timber land, are significant environm ental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the Ca lifornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment pr oject; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Fore st Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farm-
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito-
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning 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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X

DISCUSSION

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOR ESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environm ental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Ev aluation and Site Assessment Mo del (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an op tional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest re sources, including timberland, are significant env ironmental effects, lead agencie s may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forest ry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Fore st and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmla nd, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Pursuant to the 2016 Rural Land Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important Farmland Map of 17 the State of California Departm ent of Conservation, segment one to four are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Approx imately fifty percent of proper ty located to the east of segment five of the trail is designated as “Farmland of Local Importance.” “Farmland of Local Importance” is defined as farmland within Fresno County that does not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique farmland and land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervi sors and a local advisory committee. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy, poultry facilities, aquacu lture and grazing land. Howeve r, per the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mappi ng and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency included in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015, the trail will not conver t prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of stat ewide importance or farmland of local importance to non- agricultural use.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricult ural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The trail is not subject to a Williamson Act agri cultural land conservation contract. Therefore, the trail will not affect existing agriculturally zoned or Williamson Act contract parcels.

c) Conflict with existing zo ning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timb erland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The trail will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zo ned Timberland Production (as def ined by Government Code section 51104(g)) as there is no forest land or timberland in the project area.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The trail will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

See Section II(c) above.

e) Involve other changes in the existing en vironment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The trail will not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use above. See Sections II(a), II(b), and II(c) above.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed projec t would not result in any agriculture and forestry resource environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

18 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significan ce criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Result in 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
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X

DISCUSSION

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be reli ed upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ( e.g., 19 by having potential emissions of regulated criterion pollutants which exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Districts (SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds for these pollutants)?

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollut ion Control District (SJVAPC D) is the local regional jurisdictional entity charged with attainment planning, rulemaking, rule enforcement, and monitoring under Federal and State Clean Air Acts and Clean Air Act Amendments. To aid in evaluating potentially significant constructi on and/or operational impa cts of a project, SJVAPCD has prepared an advisory document, t he Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), which contains st andard procedures for addressing air quality in CEQA documents. In particular, the District’s GAMAQI states that the District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals. Section 65302.1 of the California Governm ent Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appr opriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing el ement revisions. The following Fresno General Plan policies are relevant to air quality and were analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015:
 Policy UF-1-c: Legible City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian - oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of prominent east west and north -south transit -oriented, mixed -use corridors with distinctive and strategically located Acti vity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi -purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.
 Policy UF -14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian -scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
 Policy UF-14-b: Local Street Connectivity. . Design local roadways to connect throughout neighborhoods and large private developm ents with adjacent major roadways and pathways of existing adjac ent development. Create access for pedestrians and bicycles where a local street must dead end or be designed as a cul- de-sac to adjoining uses that provide services, shopping, and connecting pathways for access to the greater community area.

As stated in the MEIR, the Fr esno General Plan supports t he implementation of SJVAPCD’s attainment plans. Furthermore, under the two tests conducted for the MEIR to analyze potential impacts to air quality based on population growth and project buildout, the effects were found to be less than significant. Given that the Mid-Town Trail is in accordance with Figure MT-2 of the Fresno General Plan and is in accordance with the policies, the impac ts of the trail are 20 considered to be less than significant.

Additionally, as presented in Chapter 8 of the GAMAQI, the District has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, which are based on District New Source Review (NSR) offset requirements for stationary sources. Stationary sources in the District are subject to some of the toughest regulat ory requirements in the nation. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of District offset requirements are a major component of the District’s air quality plans. Thus, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan”. As depicted in Table 3-1 of the NSR, the significance thresholds are as follows:

POLLUTANT THRESHOLD (POUNDS PER YEAR)
VOC 0
NOx 0
PM2.5
20,000 of direct PM2.5 emissions or
80,000 of sulfur dioxide emissions or
80,000 of nitrogen oxide emissions
PM10 30,000
SOX 80,000

In addition to being subject to the above thresholds, the trail will also be subject to District Rule 9510 (ISR). The ISR is intended to reduce a pr oject’s impact on air quality through project design elements or mitigation by payments of applic able off-site mitigation fees. The Indirect Source Review rule requires developers to mitigate:
• 20 percent of construction equipment exhaust nitrogen oxides; • 45 percent of construction equipment exhaust PM10;
• 33 percent of operational nitrogen oxides over 10 years; and • 50 percent of operational PM10 over 10 years.

To comply with the ISR requi rements, an applicant is encour aged to reduce as much air pollution as possible through on-site mitigation. T he facilities offered by the trail are included as on-site mitigation measures (bicycle paths and sidewalks). If the SJVAPCD were to find that the trail does not achieve the required baselin e emission reductions, the applicant will be required to mitigate the difference by paying off-si te mitigation fees to the Air District. The Air District will use these fees to achieve off-site emission reductions by funding clean air projects.

However, given that the trail offers alternatives forms of transportation that would help mitigate emissions from combustion of gaso line, oil, diesel fuel or w ood, which produce much of the PM2.5 pollution found in outdoor air, as well as a significant proportion of PM10, the trail would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the SJVAPCD air qualit y plans. Therefore, compliance with applicable SJVAPCD Rules, Fresno General Plan policies, and MEIR mitigation measures will result in a less than significant impact on air quality with respect to air quality plans and standards.
21 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable ne t increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
The trail will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The air quality thresholds of significance of the fo llowing criteria pollutant s are outlined in the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI:

Pollutant / Precursor Construction Emission
Emissions (tpy)
CO 100
NOx 10
ROG 10
SOx 27
PM10 15
PM2.5 15

Construction activity from t he project will only cause temporar y, short-term emissions of various air pollutants. Reactive Organic Gases and Nitrogen Oxides (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 (particulate matters) are emitted by construction equipment during various activities, which include but are not limited to grading, excavation, construction, or demolition. The project will be required to meet all of the SJVAPCD’s construction fleet and control requirements, which will reduce impacts from construction related activities to less than significant thresholds.

Therefore, fugitive dust and emissions impacts from construction activities are considered less than significant.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to subs tantial pollutant concentrations; and d) Result in other emissions (such as t hose leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
There are several sensitive receptors wit hin half-mile radius of the trail. Sensitive receptors include children, elderly, asthmatics and others who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. T he locations where these sensitive receptors congregate are considered sensit ive receptor locations. Sensitive receptors locations include hospitals, schools, and day care centers, and such other locations as the air district board or California Air Resources Board may determine (California Health and Safety Code § 42705.5(a)(5)). Public parks including Manchester Park (± 0.12 miles), Radio Park (± 0.5 miles), Reedy Park (± 0.07 mile s), Carroza Basin (± 0.38 miles), and Airways Municipal Golf Course (± 0.03 miles). Additionall y, there are several schools with in a half-mile radius of the trail. The schools within a half-mile radius ar e Manchester Gate Elem entary School (± 0.5 miles), San Joaquin Memorial High School (± 0.02 miles), Crescent View West Public Charter (± 0.2 miles), Birney Elementary School (± 0.12 miles), Wishon Elementary School (± 0.2 miles), McLane High School (± 0.25 miles), Mayfair Elementary School (± 0.3 miles), Yosemite Middle School (± 0.25 miles), Norseman Elementary School (± 0.13 miles), Ericson Elementary 22 School (± 0.25 miles), Ewing Elementary School (± 0.4 miles), and Fresno Adventist Academy (±0.35 miles). One hospital, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center , is also within a half-mile radius of the trail (± 0.4 mile s). Although the trail is in close proximity to various sensitive receptors, the proposed use, if approved, will be allowed on the subject site and will not expose sensitive receptors to substant ial pollutant concentrations as the trail will be utilized by bicyclists and pedestrians only. Therefore, the impact of the trail exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is less than significant. Fu rthermore, the proposed project is not proposing a use which will create objectionable odors more obnoxious than prior uses of the site and/or current surrounding residential and non-residential uses; therefore there will be no impact with respect to odors.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed projec t would not result in any ai r quality environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implem ent and incorporate, as applic able, the air quality related mitigation measures as identif ied in the attached MEIR Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
23 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in loca l or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California D epartment of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X

DISCUSSION

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
24 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sen sitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The trail is located in an ur banized area which provides poor quality habitat for any special - status species. Although a small portion to the east of segment five of the trail is categorized as “irrigated row and field crops” vegetative community, irrigated row and field crops are significantly disturbed with altered substrates, and, therefore, do not pr ovide suitable habitat for special-status plant species and limited habitat for special-status wildlife species. The trail would not directly affect any sensitive, special status, or candidate species, nor would it modify any habitat that supports them. Therefore, the impact of the trail will be less than significant.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? The trail is not located in an area identified as a riparian habita t or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulat ions or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, there would be no impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federa lly protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (includi ng, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No federally protected wetlands are located al ong the trail. Therefore, there would be no impacts to federally protected wetlands.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The trail will have no impact on the movement of migratory fish or wildlife species or on established wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites as there are no bodies of water or native wildlife nursery sites in the immediate vicinity of the trail.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordi nances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Construction of the trail shall comply with Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) Section 13-305 – Tree Preservation. Development of th e trail will specifically comply with the following regulations outlined in FMC Section 13-305-K:
1) Any tree growing upon public pr operty which is to be removed for construction purposes shall be replaced, if it is po ssible to do so in accordance with the city's tree planting policy. If the Director determines that a tr ee can be replaced, the person causing its 25 removal shall, at his/her own expense, re move and replace such tree with a tree in a location and of a size and species to be determined by the Director. If the Director determines that a tree cannot be replaced, the person causing its removal shall, at his/her own expense, remove the tree and pay to the city the replacement value of the tree, as fixed by the Director.
2) Any tree growing upon public pr operty near any excavation, construction or street work shall be sufficiently guarded and protected by those responsible for such work so as to prevent any injury to said tree. No pers on shall excavate any ditches, tunnels or trenches, or install pavement adjacent to any public tree without the written permission of the Director.

Development of the trail will require the removal of select trees to provide clearance for Fresno Irrigation District Clearance. However, additional trees and ground cover will be planted along the length of the trail. Therefore, by complying with the exis ting regulations listed above, the trail’s impact will be less than significant.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopt ed Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in the region pertain to the natural resources that exist on the project site or in their immediate vicinity. Therefore, the trail will have no impact on any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigat ion measures incorpor ated, the proj ect will not result in any biological resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the biological resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached ME IR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
26 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

DISCUSSION

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
There are no structures that ex ist within the project area that are listed in the National Local Register of Historic Places and the trail is not within a designated historic district. Therefore, the trail will not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There is no evidence that any archaeological resources exist on along the trail. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried site may exist in the area and be obscured by vegetation, fill, or other historic activities, leaving no surface activity. Due to the ground disturbing activities that will occur as a result of the project, the measures within the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist of the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 fo r the Fresno General Plan to address archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains will be employed to guarantee that should archaeological and/or animal fossil material be encountered during project excavations, then work shall stop immediately; and, that qualified professional s in the respective field are contacted and consulted in order to ensure that the activities of the proposed project will not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Therefore, the trail’s impact on cultural resources will be less than significant.

c) Disturb any human remains, includi ng those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Previously unknown paleontological resource s or undiscovered human remains could be disturbed during project construction. See Section V(b) above. 27 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigat ion measures incorpor ated, the proj ect will not result in any cultural resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall impl ement and incorporate, as applic able, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached ME IR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:

DISCUSSION

VI. ENERGY – Would the project:

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy res ources, during project construction or operation?
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adv erse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause 28 significant impacts on local and regional ener gy supplies or gener ate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conf lict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation. The trail would generate vehicle trips during the construction phase which would result in short-term impacts. Duri ng the operational phase, the trail will provide residents with an opportunity to reduce their use of wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary non- renewable energy sources by an alternative mode of transportati on that would not rely upon fossil fuels. While the trail will also use electricity to power trail lighting, existing streetlights will be retrofitted to be more energy-efficient. Therefore, the environmental impact of the trail due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary cons umption of energy reso urces, during project construction or operation is considered to be less than significant.

b) Conflict with or obstruc t a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The trail will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. See Section VI(a).

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigat ion measures incorpor ated, the proj ect will not result in any energy impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall impl ement and incorporate, as appl icable, the energy related mitigation measures as identif ied in the attached MEIR Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

29 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication

42. X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
30 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X

DISCUSSION

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
The trail would neither directly nor indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involv ing any of the events listed above. The City of Fresno has no known active earthquake faults and is not in any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. The immediate vicinity has extremely low seismic activity levels, although shaking may be felt from earthquakes whose epicenters lie to the east, west, and south. Known major faults are over 50 miles distant and include the San Andreas Fault, Coalinga area blind thrust fault(s), and the Long Valley, Owens Valley, and White Wolf/Tehachapi fault systems. The most serious threat to Fresno from a major earthquake in the Eastern Sierra would be flooding that could be caused by damage to dams on the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Development of the trail requires compliance with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno. A civil engineer or so ils engineer registered in this state shall complete a Soils Investigation and Evaluation R eport. The investigation will address the detail of the configuration, location, type of loading of the proposed structures and drainage plan. The report shall provide detailed recommendation for f oundations, drainage, and other items. The preparation of the Soils Investigation and Eval uation Report is an existing standard and shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially r esult in on- or off-site landslide, lateral 31 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
There are no geologic hazar ds or unstable soil conditions know n to exist along the trail. The existing topography is relatively flat with no apparent unique or significant land forms such as vernal pools.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? There are no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist along the trail.

Therefore, there will be no impact.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No use of septic tanks or al ternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, there will be no impact.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
There are no apparent unique or significant land forms such as vernal pools. See Section V(b).

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed proj ect would not result in any geology and soil environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implem ent and incorporate, as applic able, the geology and soils related mitigation measures as identified in the attached ME IR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
32 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

DISCUSSION

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The trail will not contribute subst antially or cumulatively to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly. The tr ail creates an opportunity for the reduction of emissions by providing residents with a safe, aesthetically inviting pedestrian and bicycle trail facilitating an alternative transportation choice. Therefore, the trail’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions will be less than significant.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, po licy or regulation adopt ed for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The General Plan and MEIR rely upon a Greenhous e Gas Reduction Plan that provides a comprehensive assessment of the benefits of city policies and proposed code changes, existing plans, programs, and initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan demonstrates that even though t here is increased growth, t he City would still be reducing greenhouse gas emissions through 2020 and per capita emission rates drop substantially. The benefits of adopted regulations becom e flat in later years and growth starts to exceed the reductions from all regulations and measures. Alt hough it is highly likely that regulations will be updated to provide additional reductions, none ar e reflected in the analysis since only the effect of adopted r egulations is included. As stated in Section VIII(a) , the trail will provide an alternative transportation choice and will t herefore provide an oppo rtunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will have an impact that is less than significant.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the trail would not result in any greenhouse gas emission environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan.

Mitigation Measures
33 The proposed project shall impl ement and incorporate, as ap plicable, the greenhouse gases related mitigation measures as identified in the attached ME IR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project 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, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the
project area?
X
34 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

DISCUSSION

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Pursuant to Policy 1-6-a of t he Fresno General Plan, hazardous materials will be defined as those that, because of their quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, pose significant potential hazards to human health, safety, or the environment. Specific federal, state and local definitions and listings of hazardous materials will be used by the City of Fresno. The trail will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of ha zardous materials as it will not transport, use, or dispose of any hazardous materials. Therefore, there will be no impact.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the en vironment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
There is no use of hazardous mate rials in the trail. Therefore, the trail will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and will have no impact.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ha zardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The trail will not emit hazar dous emissions or handle any haz ardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, there will be no impact.

35 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Segment four of the trail is located along the Fresno Air Terminal/Old Hammer Field site, which is listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (D TSC) EnviroStor database.

According to the DTSC EnviroStor database, the Fresno Air Terminal/Old Hammer Field is a hazardous cleanup site (i.e., Fresno Air Terminal /Old Hammer Field) with an active cleanup status as of 1/1/1990. The Fresno Air Termi nal/Old Hammer Field site (Envirostor ID 10450005) encompasses 1,598 acres northeast of downtown Fresno, consisting of the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Air National Guar d facility, Army National Guard Facility, and other governmental facilities and industrial warehouses/vacant industrial land. In 1989, the City of Fresno discovered volatile organic co mpound (VOC) contamination, including trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene, and entered into a C ooperative Agreement with the State of California for site remediation in 1994.

The Fresno Air Terminal/Old Hammer Field site was initially separated into 14 separate areas targeted for investigation. Area 1 was identified as the highest priority for investigation due to the past and present operations in Area 1 involving the use, storage, treatment, and potential spillage and disposal of materials and wast es categorized as hazardous. The primary environmental concern associated with Area 1 was chlorinated VOC in the soil and groundwater and a chlorinated VO C plume that extended southw est beyond the original boundaries of Fresno Air Terminal/Old Hammer Field site. The appropriate regulatory agencies investigated the remaining areas of the Fresno Air Terminal/Old Hammer Field site separately from Area 1, and no further concerns were identified.

Given that the Fresno Air Terminal/Old Hamme r Field site has been under remediation for decades, the site’s status on the DTSC EnviroStor database was taken into account during the preparation of the most recent Fresno General Plan and include d in the analysis of impacts contained within the MEIR SC H No. 2012111015. Additionally, t he impact discussion within the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 acknowledges dev elopment, in accordance with the Fresno General Plan, could occur on a site that is on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Se ction 65962.5. The proposed tr ail is to be developed in accordance with Figure MT-2 of the Fresno General Plan.

e) For a project 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The Mid-Town Trail is subject to the Fres no County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) given its proximity to the Fresno Yosemi te International Airport (FYI). The FYI is a joint use civilian and military facility used by co mmercial air carriers, air cargo operators, charter operators, the State of California, general aviation, and the United States military. The California National Guard uses a 58 -acre portion of the southeastern part of the Airport. The Army National Guard, the California Division of Forestry, corporate aviation businesses, and 36 two fixed base operators also lease facilities fr om FYI. The ALUCP contains criteria for development projects within the vicinity of an airport that are based upon 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77. The Federal Avia tion Administration (FAA) is charged with the review of construction activities that occur in the vicinity of airports. Its role in reviewing these activities is to ensure that new structures do not result in a hazard to navigation. The regulations in the Federal Air Regulations (14 CFR, Part 77) are designed to ensure that no obstructions in navigable air space are allowed to exist that would endanger the public.

Proposed structures are also evaluated against Terminal En Route Procedures, which ensure that a structure does not adversely impact flight procedures. Tall structures, including buildings, construction cranes, and cell towers in the vici nity of an airport can be hazardous to the navigation of airplanes. Federal Air Regulations Part 77 identifies the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstacle at any given point around an airport. The extent of the off -airport coverage that needs to be evaluated for tall structure impacts can extend miles from an airport facility. In addition, Federal Air Regulations Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports will be considered obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studi es to determine the pot ential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace. Furthermore, the ALUCP contains the following obstruction standards to minimize safety hazards:
a) An existing object, includi ng a mobile object, is, and a future object would be an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces:

1. A height of 499 feet above ground level (AGL) at the site of the object.

2. A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports , with its longest runway mo re than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet.

3. A height within a terminal obstacle clear ance area, including an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling a pproach area, which would result in the vertical distance between any M-56 point on the object and an established minimum instrument flight altitude within that area or segment to be less than the required obstacle clearance.

4. A height within an en r oute obstacle clearance area, including turn and termination areas, of a Federal Airway or approved off-airway route, that would increase the minimum obstacle clearance al titude. (5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any im aginary surface established under Sec.

77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. However, no part of the takeoff or landing area itself will be considered an obstruction.
37 b) Except for traverse ways on or near an airport with an operative ground traffic control service furnished by an airport traffic cont rol tower or by the airport management and coordinated with the air traffic control servic e, the standards of paragraph (a) of this section apply to traverse ways used or to be used for the passage of mobile objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are increased by:

1. 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance.

2. 15 feet for any ot her public roadway.

3. 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road.

4. 23 feet for a railroad.

5. For a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it.

Segment four and five of the trail are located within 100 feet of the FYI and are within the FAA runway protection zone. Segment five will require a Memorandum of Understanding between the FYI and the City of Fres no. Given that the tra il is relatively flat and does not conflict with the ALUCP, the trail will not re sult in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the surrounding area and its impact will be less than significant.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Fresno has an Emergency Operations Plan that describes what the City’s actions will be during a response to an emergency. The plan also describes the role of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the coordinat ion that occurs bet ween the EOC, City Departments, and other response agencies. T he plan establishes a requirement for the emergency management organization to mitigate any significant emergency disaster affecting the City of Fresno. The trail will not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with the Emergency Operations Plan in the City of Fresno as it does not change the role of the EOC or the coordination between the agencies mentioned above. Furthermore, the trail will not impair implementation of or physica lly interfere with an adopted emergency evacuation plan given that the city does not maintain formal evacuation routes, as the most appropriate routes away from an area that may have been affected by a major disaster would be determined by the location and type of incident. Plans for such incidents would also be heavily subject to change.

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The trail is not located within any wildland fire hazard zones. Therefore, there will be no impact.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the project will not result in any hazards and hazardous material impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

38 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and inco rporate, as applicable, the hazards and hazardous materials related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

i) Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

X
iii) create or c ontribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
39 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv) impede or redirect flood
flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

The MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 prepared for the Fr esno General Plan (collectively, the “MEIR”) contains measures to mitigate projects’ individual and cumulative impacts to groundwater resources and to reverse the groundw ater basin’s overdraft conditions, which would be uniformly applied to the project cons istent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Exemption.

DISCUSSION

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharg e requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; and b) Substantially decrease groundwater supp lies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proj ect may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Fresno has attempted to address water supply issues through metering and revisions to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The purpose of the management plan is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies in order to meet the future needs of the metropolitan area in an ec onomical manner; protect groundw ater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and, pr ovide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities. City water wells, pump stations, rechar ge facilities, water treat ment and distribution systems have been expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands and respond to groundwater quality challenges.

The adverse groundwater conditions of limi ted supply and compromised quality have been well-documented by planning, environmental impact report and technical studies over the past 20 years including the MEIR S CH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan, the MEIR 10130 for the 2025 Fresno General Plan, Final EIR No.10100, Final EIR No.10117 and Final 40 EIR No. SCH 95022029 (Fresno Metropolitan Wa ter Resource Management Plan), et al.

These conditions include water quality degr adation due to DBCP, arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations; low water well yields; limited aquifer 36 storage capacity and recharge capacity; and, intensive urban or semi-urban development occurring upgradient from the Fresno Metropolitan Area.

In response to the need for a comprehensive long-range water supply and distribution strategy, the Fresno General Plan recognizes the Ki ngs Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and ci tes the findings of the City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan (U WMP). The purpose of thes e management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies to meet the future needs of the Kings Basin regions and the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and, provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities.

The 2010 Urban Water Management Pl an, Figure 4-3 (incorporated by reference) illustrates the City of Fresno’s goals to ac hieve a ‘water balance’ between supply and demand while decreasing reliance upon and use of groundwater . To achieve these goals the City is implementing a host of strategies, including:
 Intentional groundwater recharge through reclamation at t he City’s groundwater recharge facility at Leaky Acres (located nor thwest of Fresno-Yosemite international Airport), refurbish existing streams and canals to increase percolation, and recharge at Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) storm water basins;  Increase use of existing surface water entitle ments from the Kings River, United States Bureau of Reclamatio n and Fresno Irrigation District fo r treatment at the Northeast Storm Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) and construct a new Southeast Storm Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF); and
 Recycle wastewater at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and re-use for irrigation, and to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. Further actions in clude the General Plan, Poli cy RC-6- d to prepare, adopt and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan.

The City has indicated that groundwater wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment and distribution system s shall be expanded incrementa lly to mitigate increased water demands. One of the primary objectives of Fresno’s future water supply plans detailed in Fresno’s current UWMP is to balance groundwater operations through a host of strategies.

Through careful planning, Fresno has designed a comprehensive plan to accomplish this objective by increasing surface water supplie s and surface water treatment facilities, intentional recharge, and cons ervation, thereby reducing gr oundwater pumping. The City continually monitors impacts of land use changes and development project proposals on water 41 supply facilities by assigning fixed demand allocations to each parcel by land use as currently zoned or proposed to be rezoned.

Until 2004, groundwater was the sole source of water for the City. In June 2004, a $32 million Surface Water Treatment Facility (“SWTF”) began providing Fresno with water treated to drinking water standards. A second surface water treatment facility is operational in southeast Fresno to meet demands anticipated by the growth implicit in the 2025 Fresno General Plan.

Surface water is used to replace lost groundwater through Fresno’s artificial recharge program at the City-owned Leaky Acres and smaller fac ilities in Southeast Fresno. Fresno holds entitlements to surface water from Millerton Lake and Pine Flat Reservoir. In 2006, Fresno renewed its contract with the Un ited States Bureau of Reclamat ion, through the year 2045, which entitles the City to 60,000 ac re-feet per year of Class 1 wa ter. This water supply has further increased the reliability of Fresno’s water supply.

Also, in 2006, Fresno updated its Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan designed to ensure the Fresno metro area has a reliable water s upply through 2050. The plan implements a conjunctive use program, combining groundwater , treated surface water, artificial recharge and an enhanced water conservation program.

In the near future, groundwater will continue to be an important part of the City’s supply but will not be relied upon as heavily as has historically been the case. The City is planning to rely on expanding their delivery and trea tment of surface water supplie s and groundwater recharge activities.

In addition, the General Plan policies require the City to maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage, and includes conservation programs such as landscaping standards for drought tolerance, irrigation control devices, leak detection and retrofits, water audits, public education and implementing US Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for wate r conservation to ma intain surface water entitlements.

Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Ki ngs Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, City of Fresno UW MP, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Res ource Management Plan and the applicable mitigation measures of approved environmental review documents will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the project.

Furthermore, the trail’s irrigation system will be subject to review prior to issuance of building permits. Pursuant to FMC Section 15-2309, all new landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system designed to provide adequate and efficient coverage of all plant material and said irrigation systems shall comply with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code and/or the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and/or the California Plumbing Code as may be amended. Therefore, the trail will not violate 42 any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially degrade surface of ground water quality, substantially decrease groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the a ddition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site:
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage syst ems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Short-Term Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts
Construction activities will result in ground -disturbing activities. Such earthmoving activities would increase the potential for erosion and sedi mentation, particularly during storm events.

Additionally, construction equipment and vehicles could deposit constituents such as diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, oil, and exhaust into the environment that co uld be conveyed within stormwater runoff to surface waters or gro undwater. Construction activities use concrete, solvents, glues, oils, paints, and generate trash, all of which, if they come into contact with rainfall or stormwater runoff can cause pollution in stormwater. While temporary, all of these construction activities and products, including ground -disturbing construction activities could still result in the pollution of st ormwater runoff that leaves t he construction site that could contribute to downstream surface waters or groundwater degradation. Th ere are regulatory mechanisms in place that would reduce the effects of construction activities on water quality, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. Development would be required to co mply with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit. The NPDES Permit Program, which is administered in the City of Fresno by the Central Valley RWQCB, helps control pollution in stormwater by regulating sources of pollution at construction sites that w ould result in the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater and subsequent receiving wate rs during both construction and operations activities. Any development project disturbing one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009 -0009-DWQ). Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Among other mandated items that are included in a SWPPP, are features designed to eliminate contact of rainfall and stormwater runoff with sources of pollution that occur on construction sites, of which a primary source is soil erosion as a re sult of unstabilized soils coming in contact with water and wind.

These features are known as Best Management Practices (BMP s). Common BMPs to limit pollution in stormwater runoff from construction sites include maintaining or creating drainages 43 to convey and direct surface runoff away from bare areas and installing physical barriers such as berms, silt fencing, waddles, straw bales, and gabions. The required preparation, implementation, and participation with the Construction General Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce project construction impacts on water quality to less than significant levels. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

Long-Term Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts
Long-term impacts of the trail would include an increase in impervious surfaces which would increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes over the rates and volumes from undeveloped land. The Fresno Metropolitan Fl ood Control District (FMFCD) is responsible for developing and implementing the Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Fresno. In general, as land is developed, the FMFCD works with developers and the City to implement the storm drainage system to collect and dispose of the increased runoff rate s and volumes and prevent them from entering local surface waters, includi ng the San Joaquin River , local creeks, and numerous irrigation canals that cross through t he Planning Area. Here, the City of Fresno is the project applicant and will be responsible to implement the storm drainage system. The storm drainage systems that are im plemented for the Planning Area consist of streets, curbs and gutters that direct runoff to storm drain inlets, which direct runoff to underground pipelines.

The underground pipelines convey stormwater to retention and urban detention (water quality) basins located at strategic locations within the Planning Area. The stormwater retention basins dispose of runoff through percola tion into the groundw ater and, in emer gencies, through pumping to designated irrigation canals. The urban detention (water quality) basins discharge to the San Joaquin River. Discharges from the retention basins and the urban detention (water quality) basins could affect wate r quality in the receiving waters by potentially increasing the concentration of sediment and pollution found in stormwater. However, the FMFCD works with the developers within their jurisdiction to im plement a storm drainage system to collect and dispose of the increased runoff rates and vo lumes and prevent them from entering local surface waters, including the San Joaquin River, local creeks, and numerous irrigation canals.

Therefore, the short-term and long-term impacts are considered to be less than significant.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No segment of the trail is loca ted in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Therefore, the trail does not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The trail will not conflict with or obstruct impl ementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. See Section X(a) and X(b).

CONCLUSION
44 In conclusion, with MEIR mitigat ion measures incorpor ated, the proj ect will not result in any hydrology or water quality impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the hydrology and water quality related mitigation measur es as identified in the atta ched MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

DISCUSSION

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?
The trail will not divide an established community as the trail is primarily located along the Herndon Canal and in t he public right-of-way. The enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities will provide enhanced neighborhood connectivity for residents without or choosing not to rely upon motor vehicle transportation.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The trail is surrounded by various planned land use designations and is consistent with Figure MT-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan. Furthermore, as stated in the MEIR, the City of Fresno Planning Area does not occur within the boundaries of any approved or draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or other adopted local, regional or state HCP. Therefore, development of the trail will not cause a significant 45 environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigat ion measures incorpor ated, the proj ect will not result in any land use and planning environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X

DISCUSSION

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a kn own mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The trail is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery, therefore, will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The trail is not delineated on a local general plan , specific plan or other land use plan as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site ; therefore it will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral source.

CONCLUSION
46 In conclusion, the proposed proj ect would not result in any mineral resource environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X

DISCUSSION

XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Short-Term Noise Impacts
Construction of the trail involves both short-te rm, construction related noise, and long-term noise potentially generated by increases in foot traffic, nearby stati onary sources, or other transportation sources. The Fresno Municipal Co de (FMC) allows for construction noise in excess of standards if it complies with the section below (Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 10-109 47 – Exemptions). It states that the provisions of Article 1 – Noise Regulations of the FMC shall not apply to:

Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construc tion permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparatio n and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

Thus, construction activity would be exempt from City of Fresno noise regulations, as long as such activity is conducted pursuant to an app licable construction permit and occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p. m., excluding Sunday. Therefore, s hort-term construction impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant.

Long-Term Noise Impacts
The project is a pedestrian and bicycle trail that pr ohibits motorized vehicle. The trail creates the potential to reduce the long-term noise impac ts by reducing motorized vehicle use while facilitating modes of travel that generate less noise impacts than motor vehicles do.

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Long-term project activities associated with buildout of the trail would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significa nt levels of ground vibration. Increases in ground -borne vibration levels attribut able to the project would be primarily associated with short-term construction activities.

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is located within the Ai rport Influence Area under the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and within the FYI 60 dB airport noise contour. To reduce potential project-specific and cu mulative impacts of public and private airports on future development, the General Plan incorporates objectives and policies, which include but are not limited to the following:
 NS -1-Policy. Airport Noise Compatibility. Implement the land use and noise exposure compatibility provisions of the adopted Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Fresno -Chandler Downtown Airpor t Master and Environs Specific Plan and the Sierra Skypark Land Use Policy Plan to assess noise compatibility of proposed uses and improvements within airport influence and environs areas.

Policy NS-1 would require the City approve only noise compatible land uses and limit noise- sensitive land uses, including residential uses, as defined by the Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The “Airport Land Use Nosie Compatibility Criteria” table found in the Fresno Yosemite In ternational ALUCP notes land uses that are compatible, 48 conditional, and incompatible d epending on the exterior noise exposure from the airport.

Outdoor recreation uses are co nsidered compatible, which means the activities associated with the project may be carried out on-site with essentially no interference from aircraft noise.

Therefore, the proposed pr oject would not expose people work ing or residing in the project area to excessive noise levels from public or private airports, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed proj ect would not result in any noise environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incor porate, as applicable, the noise related mitigation measures as identif ied in the attached MEIR Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (f or example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

DISCUSSION

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned population grow th in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
49 The trail does not propose the development of any new homes or businesses. The trail will improve pedestrian and bicycle facilitie s, but will not occur at an in tensity or scale that would induce substantial unplanned populat ion growth. Therefore, the impact of the trail on population and housing will be less than significant.

b) Displace substantial numbers of exi sting people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
There are no existing or planned residences on any segment of the trail; ther efore the trail does not have the potential to displace existing housing or residents and will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in any population and housing environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall im plement and incorporate, as applicable, the population and housing related mitigation measures as identifi ed in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
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 public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
50 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental faciliti es, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construc tion of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to mainta in acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
 Fire protection?
The trail will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire stations. City Fire Station No. 5 is located at the southwest corner of East Shields Avenue and North Fresno Street. City Fire Station 1 is located approximately

0.4 miles south of Segment 4 of the trail. City Fire Station No. 10 is located approximately 0.2 miles west of Segment 5 of the trail. The existing fire stations will serve the trail location.  Police protection?
The trail is located within the existing Central Policing District and will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the pr ovision of new or physically altered police stations.
 School?
Any future development occurring as a result of the trail may have an effect on the school district’s student housing capacity. The school district, through local funding, is in a position to mitigate its shortage of cl assrooms to accommodate planned population growth for the foreseeable future. Any future developers will pay the appropriate impact fees at the time of building permits.
 Parks?
The trail has the potential to o ffset the need for parks by provid ing an alternative recreational site for pedestrians and bicyclists.
 Other public facilities?
The trail is within the boundaries of the Fresno Metropolitan Fl ood Control District (FMFCD).

Prior to permit submittal, the applicant shall meet with the FM FCD staff to discuss drainage options. Currently, water mains exist to serv e the proposed project with irrigation water for limited landscaping. Water facilities are available to provide service to the site. If the development creates additional water demands beyond the levels allocated in the current 51 version of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, it shall be offset in a manner approved by the Department of Public Utilities. The us e of the trail will no t generate wastewater containing human waste, which is required to be conveyed and treated by the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility. There will not be any onsite wastewater treatment system.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed project would not re sult in any public services environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall impl ement and incorporate, as appl icable, the public services related mitigation measures as identified in the attached ME IR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and r egional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X

DISCUSSION

XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood a nd regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical dete rioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
52 Segments of the trail are within a quarter mile of the Discovery Center, Manchester Park, and Airways Municipal Golf Course. The trail has the potential to both increase and decrease the use of the surrounding parks. Wh ile the trail has the potential to increase pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the trail route and draw residents to the aforementioned facilities, the trail also has the potential to decreas e the use of surrounding recreati onal facilities by attracting residents away from the facilities and to the trail. Therefore, the impacts of the trail will be less than significant and will not be at a scale beyond what was analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

b) Does the project include recreational f acilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The trail will provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities for public use. The trail will not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities and will, therefore, have no impact.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed proj ect would not result in any recreation environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall impl ement and incorporate, as applic able, the recreation related mitigation measures as identif ied in the attached MEIR Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
53 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X

DISCUSSION

XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:

a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The trail does not conflict wit h any programs, plans, ordinanc es, or policies addressing the circulation system given that th e proposed project is sp ecifically identified in Figure MT-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan. Furthermore, the trail is lo cated along the Herndon Canal, East Shields, East McKinley, and North Clovis Avenues. In the Fresno General Plan Circulation Element, East Shields, East McKinley, and North Clovis Avenues are identified as arterials. A designated arterial is a four- to six-lane divided roadway, where called for by the General Plan, a trail may be required instead of a sidewalk. Theref ore, the trail does not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2 013, and codified in the CEQA Guidelines in January 2019, changes the way transportation impacts are analyz ed in the CEQA process. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces auto delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for transportation impact determination. SB 743 took effect statewide on July 1, 2020. In order to assist the member agencies in their shift from delay based LOS approach to VMT analysis, Fresno Council of Governments (COG) prepared the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines guide. The document discusses the context for VMT analysis, project screening, VMT significance thresholds, VMT analysis for l and use development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans, and feasible mitigat ion strategies applicable for the Fresno region. In the document, the technical advisory provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research lists a series of projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel and wh ich would, therefore, not requi re an induced travel analysis.

These include the addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi -use paths, or other off -road 54 facilities that serve nonmotoriz ed travel. Therefore, the project does not conflict with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) and should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The trail will not substantia lly increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The trail will be located within the existing public right-of-way.

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
See Section IX(f).

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the project woul d not result in any transportati on/traffic environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the transportation related mitigation measures as identif ied in the attached MEIR Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:

55 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in PRC section 5020.1(k),
or,
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evi-
dence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

DISCUSSION

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC section 21074 as ei ther a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the Ca lifornia Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section 5024.1. In applying the cr iteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section 5024.1, the lead agency sha ll consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The trail will not cause a substantial adverse c hange in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in PRC section 21074. The trail is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local regist er of historical resources as 56 defined in PRC section 5020.1(k) or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be signi ficant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section 5024.1. Segments 2 and 3 of the trail are adjacent to a canal built more than 120 years ago in what is cu rrently an urbanized area and is surrounded by urban uses of medium to medium high density residential. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, ex isting federal, State, and local laws and regulations as well as the mitigation measures of the Fresno General Plan MEIR will require construction activities to cease until such ar tifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resources professional.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, with implementation of the ME IR Cultural Resource Mitigation measures, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall impl ement and incorporate, as app licable, the tribal resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached ME IR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
57 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water 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?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

DISCUSSION

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

a) Require or result in th e relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or st orm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construc tion or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effect?
The trail will primarily be served by existing utilities which will be protected in place during construction. The trail will, however, require minor additions and relocations of existing utilities such as the installation of two Caltrans storm drain inlets and a storm drain line on East Shields Avenue at the Highway 41 SB onramp, the relocation of select utility boxes, and the relocation of select utility poles along the trail. Given that the trail will not require major upsizing of water, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, or tele communication facilities the impact of the trail will be less than significant.

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 58 As discussed under the Hydrology and Water Qualit y section of this environmental checklist, the City has adequate water supply and the app licant will be required to comply with all requirements of the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities to reduce the project’s water impacts to less than significan t. In addition to being subject to water management plans, the trail will be subject to the regulations set forth in the Fresno Municipal Code including, but not limited to, Chapter Six and Sect ion 15-2309. Furthermore, the tr ail’s irrigation system will be subject to review prior to issuance of buildin g permits. Pursuant to FMC Section 15-2309, all new landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system designed to provide adequate and efficient coverage of all plant material and said irrigation systems shall comply with the requirements of the Californi a Green Building Standards Code an d/or the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordi nance and/or the Ca lifornia Plumbing Code as may be amended.

c) Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
The proposed trail is within the City of Fresno limits. The Department of Public Utilities Wastewater Management Divisi on has made the preliminary det ermination that the waste water generated by the drinking fountains located at the rest areas along the trail would have no impact to capacity. This form of waste water generation is commonly discharged into landscaping or drywells. Therefore, the trail will have adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commi tments and will result in no impact.

d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainme nt of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, st ate, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As stated in the Hydrology and Water Quality sect ion of this environmental checklist, the trail will not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigat ion measures incorpor ated, the proj ect will not result in any utilities and service system impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the utilities and service systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 21, 2020.

59 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsib ility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X

DISCUSSION

XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;

60 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wi ldfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or ot her utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; and
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The trail is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, Section XX. Wildfire does not apply.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in any wildfire environmental impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife populatio n 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?
X
61 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) 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)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to 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?
As discussed in the Biological Resources secti on of the environmental checklist, the trail is located in an urbanized area which provides poor quality habitat for any special-status species, is not located on a sensitive natural community i dentified in local or regi onal plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service, and will have no impact on the movement of migratory fish or wildlife species or on established wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites as there are no bodies of water or native wildlife nursery sites in the immediate vicinity of the trail.

b) Does the project have impacts that ar e individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 62 project are considerable when viewed in c onnection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The trail does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The trail is specifically identified in the Fresno General Plan and its impacts have been previously considered in the City of Fresno MEIR (SCH# 2012111015).

c) Does the project have environmental e ffects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The trail is considered to be of a size and scope that is not a direct or indirect detriment to the quality of the environm ent through reductions in habitat, popul ations, or examples of local history (through either individua l or cumulative impacts) and does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environm ent or reduce the habitat of wildlife species and will not threaten plant communities or endanger any floral or faunal species. Furthermore the trail has no potential to eliminate im portant examples of major periods in history. Therefore, as noted in preceding sections of this In itial Study, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that incremental environmental impacts facilitated by this project would be cumulatively significant.

There is also no evidence in the record that the trail would have any adverse impacts directly, or indirectly, on human beings.

In summary, given the mitigation measures required of the proposed project and the analysis detailed in the preceding Initial Study, the proposed project:
 Does not have environmental impacts whic h will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly nor indirectly;
 Does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish/wildlife or native plant species (or cause their population to drop below self-sustaining levels), does not threaten to eliminate a native plant or animal community, and does not threaten or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal;
 Does not eliminate import ant examples of elements of California history or prehistory;
 Does not have impacts which would be cumulatively considerable even though individually limited; and
 Does not have environmental impacts whic h will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Therefore, there are no mandatory findings of significanc e and preparation of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report is not warranted for this project.

Fresno City CouncilSeptember 3, 2026

Fresno City Council
September 3, 2026