Draft Urban Gardens Ordinance - City of Fresno

October 10, 2013
AGENDA ITEM NO. '5 :OOprv

COUNCIL MEETING: 10/10/2013
APPROVED BY
FROM:
THROUGH:
THROUGH:
BY:
Jennifer K. Clark, Director
Development & Resource Management Department
Mike Sanchez, Planning Manager ffiJ I
Development Services
Will Tackett, Supervising
Development Services Division '\j
Sandra Brock, Planner III
Development Services Division
..
DE;PA TENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. TA1302
AND RELATED FINDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.
TA-1302, INITIATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AND SPONSORED BY
GRANVILLE HOMES, INC. (CITY-WIDE APPLICABILITY)
A. Consider Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02 and adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for purposes of the proposed project.
B. BILL - Amending Fresno Municipal Code to classify agriculture (cultivation
of plants) and community gardening in open space, exclusive agricultural,
and single- and multi-family residential districts in the City of Fresno, and to
establish special standards of practice and regulation which would pertain
to agricultural and community gardening activities.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Environmental Assessment No.
TA-13-02.
2. ADOPT BILL approving Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 to classify agriculture
(plant cultivation) and community garden uses in residential and open space zone districts of
the City, and to establish standards of practice and regulation for these uses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes to classify agricultural activities relating to plant cultivation and community
gardening in the City's open space, agricultural, and single- and multi-family residential zone districts,
and to apply special standards of practice and regulation to prevent adverse impacts on resources
and adjacent parties. The purpose of this project is to allow interim use of currently vacant parcels to
grow crops and ornamental plants which would ameliorate current nuisances associated with vacant
properties while providing nutritional and economic benefit to the community.
REPORT TOTHECITY COUNCIL
Text Amendment No. TA-13-02
October 10,2013
Page 2
Opposition to the text amendment has been expressed by residents of West Fresno, who have
concerns about potential environmental and economic impacts of farming in their area, and by
community gardening advocates who do not want that use/activity to be subject to zoning classification
or regulation until the 2035 General Plan and new Development Code are adopted.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 proposes to define "Community Garden" (adding
Subsection 12-105-C-19.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (Fresno Municipal Code), to amend several
subsections of the Code to classify that use and agriculture (limited to plant cultivation) in the City's
open space (Open Conservation), Exclusive Agriculture, and single- and multi-family residential zone
districts, while establishing special standards of practice and regulation to prevent significant adverse
impacts to adjacent parties and resources. The proposed changes in the Fresno Municipal Code
(FMC) are detailed in the attached draft Ordinance Bill.
BACKGROUND
Cultivation of crops and ornamental plants on properties classified with residential and open space
zoning has been ongoing in the City of Fresno for decades, yet these activities have not been
specifically listed as permissible uses in the Zoning. This cultivation is a scalable continuum of
activities, ranging from commercial agriculture with commodities sold to wineries and brokers, to small
"truck gardens" with field crops sold at farmer's markets and roadside stands. There has been recent
interest expressed in "urban farming," very small-scale artisanal agriculture conducted in backyards
and vacant residential parcels.
Earlier this year, the owner of Granville Homes acquired the 360-acre site in West Fresno formerly
known as the "Running Horse" golf course/residential project. The site has been re-named "Mission
Ranch" and has been cleared of debris and re-graded with the intention of establishing an almond
orchard as an interim use of the property, pending improvement in market conditions which would
support filing a new development plan for the property.
Before investing the large amount of capital necessary to establish a large almond orchard, the owner
wanted clear authority to farm the site, which has retained its R-1, Single Family Residential District
zoning. (Under the City's current Zoning Ordinance, a use has to be classified in order to be
permitted.) Therefore, Granville Homes submitted an application for a text amendment that would
amend the zoning ordinance to provide for agriculture in the R-1 zone district as a "by-right" permitted
use, with a private well being allowed to irrigate such operations when the operation comprises 20
acres or more. In pre-application consultation with Development Services staff, the similar lack of
express zoning ordinance clearance for community gardening was discussed, and the text amendment
sponsor agreed to include that use in the request. A copy of the resulting March 15, 2013 application
letter is attached.
While the Zoning Ordinance has not expressly permitted agricultural activities in Fresno except in
specified zone districts (such as Exclusive Agricultural/AE and Rural Residential/R-A), crop growing
has long occurred on vacant parcels, in backyards, and on fringe area parcels adjacent to many
developed neighborhoods in the city.
The recent economic downturn has stalled construction of several subdivisions which have prime
agricultural soil. There has also been a trend over the past decade toward large, phased development
REPORT TOTHECITYCOUNCIL
October 10, 2013
Page3
projects which have buildout periods spanning several years. Interim agricultural and horticultural
activities would utilize vacant land in those projects which could otherwise pose a nuisance and incur
public expense. Having vacant properties actively maintained and supervised will avoid weed
abatement nuisances (including vegetation fires) and illegal dumping, including dumping of hazardous
materials which could endanger future housing development on vacant land.
Community gardening, a cultivation activity that is being advocated as a way of increasing the
availability of fresh fruit and vegetables to assist with Fresno's "food deserts" and the economic
hardship experienced by many households. Fresno was ranked fifth in the nation in "food insecurity,"
according to a 2011-2012 Gallup survey which asked households nationwide, "Have there been times
in the past twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family
needed?" In Fresno, 22.4 percent of households answered in the affirmative. This figure correlates
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2011 poverty data showing that some 25% of Fresno's
population are in poverty.
In 2007, the City of Fresno committed to enacting Code changes which would provide for greater
availability of fresh produce throughout the City. In 2008, a text amendment was processed to allow
farmer's markets in all commercial zone districts and in the Single Family Residential District by
conditional use permit. The Development and Resource Management Department further stated an
intention to include community gardening in the General Plan and Development Code update by 2011.
Unfortunately, those projects have taken unexpected time to be realized. A February 8, 2013 online
article about the Lowell Community garden notes, "Currently, zoning issues and urban sprawl block
many new gardens from forming... " (see attached printout of articles posted on the Lowell
Neighborhood Organization website).
The Lowell Community Garden exists on a remainder property which was acquired by Caltrans for
Freeway 180 right-of-way and subsequently leased to the City. Three community gardens have been
incorporated into City parks (see the attached Fresno Metro Ministry 2011 status report on community
gardens). One is operated by Wesley United Methodist Church (southeast corner of Barstow Avenue
and Fourth Street.)
The Development and Resource Management Department (DARM) has fielded inquiries for community
gardening projects. In 2012, the Current Planning section drafted a handout to provide information on
this activity; however no text amendment was initiated to classify the use. Adding "community
gardening" as a classified use in City's Zoning Ordinance would authorize additional gardens on
properties owned by private entities. Privately owned locations could include under-utilized apartment
complex common areas; parcels formerly used for private drainage basins, and parcels which have not
rebuilt after demolition. Codifying the process to establish and operate a community garden will give
better guidance to the groups who wish to sponsor them, will facilitate early intervention if problems
occur, and will improve City oversight with issues such as to water use.
With this need in mind, the text amendment request was broadened in scope. It was expanded to
cover all the zone districts where agricultural and community gardening activities could reasonably and
beneficially occur. The project sponsor was also advised that the range of possible agricultural
activities would be narrowed, because certain farming endeavors are not compatible with many
residential zone districts in Fresno's hot, dry climate (i.e., livestock, poultry and beekeeping). The
project sponsor was further advised that the text amendment would include standards and restrictions
to protect adjacent properties and the environment from potential adverse effects, thereby
Text Amendment No. TA-13-Q2
October 10,2013
Page4
incorporating mitigation into the project itself to protect natural resources and adjacent parties. The
project sponsor was in agreement with these changes in the scope and content of the proposed text
amendment.
Prior to formal initiation by the Development and Resource Management (DARM) Department Director
(one of the three initiation methods allowed under Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-402-A), staff
evaluated all pertinent zone districts (open space, agricultural, and residential), reviewed DARM's
current written policy for community gardening; and reviewed the Property Development Standards
section of the Zoning Ordinance (FMC 12-306) for existing regulations pertaining to agricultural
activities. Staff also consulted with agencies having regulatory oversight for various aspects of farming
and water use. The resulting expanded text amendment was formally initiated and circulated for inter-
agency review and comment on April 23, 3013.
As provided by FMC Section 12-402, an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance must be
initiated by the Development and Resource Management Department Director, the Fresno Planning
Commission, or the City Council. While this text amendment has been requested and sponsored by a
private party, the Planning and Development Department Director has initiated these proceedings.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING
From the outset, staff recognized that any proposal to allow cultivation and community gardening in the
City should be clearly subject to regulations to protect water supplies and air quality, and to minimize
potential undesirable effects that could result from juxtaposition of cultivated properties and
neighboring land.
A long list of requirements was been included in the special standards of practice and regulation
subsection pertaining to cultivated properties (a proposed expansion of Fresno Municipal Code
subsection 12-306-N-11, which currently only deals with greenhouses.). Many of the proposed
requirements of Text Amendment No. TA-13-02 reflect the regulations of state and local agencies
which oversee various aspects related to the growing of crops. Other requirements are being set by
the City itself through the special standards of practice and regulation of TA 13-02" to institute
setbacks and ensure adequate protections for adjacent properties and resources.
Water balance and groundwater recharge are particular concerns of the City, as reflected in the list of
rules outlined in proposed subsection 12-306-N-11.e. The City's Urban Water Management Plan and
Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan contain several measures aimed at ameliorating
groundwater overdraft and preventing contamination of groundwater and surface water. These plans
have to be implemented in all activities, including irrigating crops and community gardens. The
Department of Public Utilities Water Division is charged with reviewing and approving water usage by
agricultural and community gardening operations.
The requirement for paying recharge fees for use of private water wells has been memorialized in the
City's Master Fee Schedule for well over a decade. This text amendment would allow the Water
Division to consider an alternative mitigation for groundwater extraction. (It should be noted, however,
that the text amendment does not require the Water Division to automatically accept alternative
mitigation in lieu of recharge fees--the Water Division has the option to approve or reject a grower's
mitigation proposal based on its adopted plans, policies, agreements, and local conditions.)
REPORT TOTHE CITY COUNCIL
October 10,2013
Page5
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Development and Resource
Management Department staff evaluated the proposed text amendment project in accordance with the
land use and environmental policies and provisions of the 2025 Fresno General Plan and its related
Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) No: 10130 (SCH No. 2001071097) and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) No. A-09-02 (SCH No. 2009051016) for the Air Quality Update to the
General Plan (Plan Amendment No. A-09-02). The special standards of practice and regulation
incorporated into proposed Section 12-306-N-10 and -11 of the text amendment are intended to
prevent significant adverse impacts.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15304 provides for a "Class 4"
Categorical Exemption for minor alterations to land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve
removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. Listed examples in the CEQA Guidelines include, but are not
limited to, gardening and landscaping. Given the incorporation of measures into the special standards
of practice and regulation to make the project self-mitigating, a Finding of Class 4 Categorical
Exemption for Minor Alterations to Land was recommended for the text amendment on August 6, 2013.
On the day of the Planning Commission hearing on Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02, a letter
was emailed to the City by the "Leadership Counsel for Accountability and Justice" (hereinafter referred
to as "Leadership Counsel"), challenging the scope of the text amendment on the grounds that
agriculture and community gardening were too dissimilar to include in a single text amendment, and
asserting that the proposed Class 4 Categorical Exemption was insufficient to protect public health and
safety, and that it did not provide residents of West Fresno with an opportunity for input on the
environmental review (a copy off the August 21, 2013 letter from "Leadership Counsel" is attached).
A second letter, from the Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministry (hereinafter, FIRM") was
received on August 21
5t
, asking that no regulations for community gardening be codified through this
text amendment because the City had committed to not regulating the use until the General Plan and
Development Code Update were approved (a copy of FIRM's August 21 letter is also attached).
At the August 21 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission did not open the public hearing on
the project and referred it back to staff for further analysis with direction to address the objections.
A full Environmental Assessment Initial Study was prepared to respond to the objections raised by
"Leadership Counsel." Through the Initial Study process, further mitigations were proposed, and have
been incorporated into the September 18, 2013 revised draft of the text amendment as additional
special standards of practice and regulation. (The project sponsor is in agreement with the additional
restrictions.)
During lunch hour on the date of continued Planning Commission consideration of the text amendment,
a letter was received signed by several parties. This letter objected to the project and its
environmental finding, and asked for buffer zones including )/,;-mile and Yz-mile between agricultural
activity and residences. After 4 pm on September 18, another letter was received from "Leadership
Counsel," taking issue with the proposed finding of Mitigated Negative Declaration and relating the
same requests for buffer zones. Those September 18
th
letters are attached, with staff response
following.
October 10, 2013
Page 6
PLANNING ANALYSIS
California has long recognized the need to protect agriculture via land use regulations. In 1963, the
State Legislature adopted the Knox-Nisbet Act, which originated Local Agency Formation Commissions
(LAFCOs) charged with preventing urban sprawl by regulating expansions of city boundaries and
municipal service entities. The current iteration of that law is the 2000 Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act, chaptered into the California Government Code. Protection of
farmland is a prime directive of those regulations.
In 1981, the state legislature further protected agricultural operations by adopting the California Right to
Farm Act, California Civil Code Section 34285. Its provisions are broad and supersede local
ordinances to protect property owners who wish to farm land that has a history of three years of being
cultivated in conformance to nuisance codes. (A copy of the Right to Farm Act is Attachment 5 to the
Environmental Assessment appended to this report.)
In 1965, the first state legislation regarding Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts was passed. The
law was successively revised and incorporated into the California Constitution; it is commonly referred
to as "the Williamson Act." Recorded agreements are used to ensure that appropriate agricultural
activity is maintained on qualifying productive farmland; in exchange, significant property tax relief is
given to property owners. Contracts can be cancelled only under review and recommendation by the
California Department of Conservation and the County which is signatory. Alternatively, a property
owner may file a Notice of Nonrenewal when contemplating urban development of this farmland and
the contract successively diminishes the tax break each year for the next ten years, until it expires.
The Williamson Act is considered one of the most important tools for limiting urban sprawl and
premature development of productive farmland.
In early 2008, when budget constraints were projected to eliminate state subvention funds given to
counties to subsidize Williamson Act tax breaks, Fresno County held a workshop on the program to
consider whether to continue participating. At the time of the February Board of Supervisors workshop,
140 parcels and 3,667 acres within the City of Fresno Sphere of Influence were under Williamson Act
contract. County staff tabulated economic value of agricultural production near incorporated cities
(using the most current verified crop data, from 2006).
Within the two-mile radius analyzed in the study, the City of Fresno garnered $94 million of agricultural
production. This was nearly twice the production value within two miles of the next city on the list
(Kerman). This is not an unexpected finding, since Fresno has long been a major participant in the
agricultural economy. It has the largest large sphere of influence of any incorporated city in Fresno
County, and it is located in Fresno Irrigation District, which has the most senior water rights in the
Kings River Water Association as well as Friant Unit Bureau of Reclamation allocations.
The County concluded that the economic benefit of using the Williamson Act to keep farmland in
production within cities' spheres of influence was worth the subsidy. Fresno County reaffirmed that
conclusion in February of this year, when 2012 total crop production for Fresno County had risen some
35% since 2006, to $6.59 billion dollars of total revenue.
The 2025 Fresno General was the first general plan update to include an Economic Development
Element. Providing land for cultivation of crops and ornamental plants in Fresno enhances the City's
economic input, whether at a commodity or small "truck gardening" scale, or at the level of
neighborhood and household food security and dietary enhancement provided by community
October 10,2013
Page 7
gardening. A 2011 Fresno State study, "California Agriculture's Role in the Economy and Water Use
Characteristics" (http://www.califomiawater.org/cwi/docs/AWU Economics.pdf) validated that
agricultural activity has an economic multiplier effect that more than doubles the gross revenue of crop
production.
The City of Fresno has the utility capacity, transportation infrastructure, educational facilities, and
worker population to parlay local crop production into added-value products, capturing this multiplier
effect and spreading the economic benefit of agriculture to households not directly involved in
cultivation. The City currently has efforts underway to parlay local agricultural products into business
centers and "farm to table" fine dining.
Preservation of important farmland is an important component of project analysis required by CEQA.
In 1981, the state initiated its farmland mapping program, and by 1984 had created the first edition of
its Important Farmland map. Every two years since then, updates to these maps have been published,
by the California Department of Conservation, along with data on farmland converted from agricultural
to other uses. (The "AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES" section of the Initial Study for TA-13-02
and its Attachments 7 and 8 provide data and the most recent county data and Fresno-Clovis
Metropolitan Area map available.)
Most cities deal with the issue of farmland conversion on the "macro" scale, when updating their
General Plans. San Joaquin Valley cities typically conclude that loss of farmland within the urban
sphere of influence is a potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impact. Cities use policies and
mitigations that they deem feasible to limit sprawl and other encroachments that would take farmland
out of production, and include farmland impact findings in their Statements of Over-riding Consideration
when certifying general plan environmental impact reports.
This was the outcome of the City of Fresno's 2025 Fresno General Plan Master EIR. The City of
Fresno 2025 General Plan was initiated in 2000 and approved in November of 2002 and projected
nearly twenty-five years of future population growth and development. The City is only halfway through
the projected life cycle of the 2025 Fresno General Plan, which means that considerable land at the
urban fringe remains undeveloped and available for cultivation.
While no "agricultural reserve" land was designated in the 2025 Fresno General Plan Urban Form
Element, no policies in the plan called for a cessation of farming. Instead--in recognition of property
owners' right to farm and in recognition of the economic benefits of farming--General Plan objectives
and policies, and MEIR mitigation measures, were put in place to keep agricultural activity viable.
Several General Plan's goals provide over-arching direction to support agricultural and community
gardening activities:
Goal I. Enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Fresno and plan for the projected
population within the moderately expanded Fresno urban boundary in a manner
which will respect physical, environmental, fiscal, economic and social issues.
Goal 10. Provide quality open space, park and recreational facilities and programs to
support the projected population.
October 10, 2013
Page8
Goal 11. Protect, preserve, and enhance significant biological, archaeological, and
paleontological resources and critical natural resources, including, but not limited
to, air, water, agricultural soils, minerals, plants, and wildlife resources.
Goal 14. Protect and improve public health and safety.
Goal 15. Recognize, respect andplan for Fresno's cultural, social, andethnic diversity.
Goal 16. Work cooperatively with the local agricultural industry to conserve prime
farmland and respect its importance as Fresno County's base economic resource.
Growing food is also a deeply rooted cultural practice for most Fresno residents, and the option to raise
artisanal or "heritage" specialty crops helps to preserve and promote Fresno's diverse ethnic heritages
(reflecting General Plan Goals 1 and 15). Providing for community gardening in open space and park
settings fosters community involvement and improves neighborhoods' sense of ownership and
stewardship of those sites (also reflecting 2025 Fresno General Plan Goal 1 as well as goal 10).
Most General Plan objectives and policies oriented toward agricultural land were directed toward
avoiding "premature" conversion of agricultural land and preserving agriculture on land that was not yet
needed for development. Unfortunately, the General Plan did not have an effective metering standard
that would determine what projects at the urban fringe would be considered "premature." There was
no regulatory mechanism to effectively prevent large enclaves of agricultural land (with productive
farming operations), from being rezoned for residential use and approved for tentative subdivision
maps. The population projections and permissive lending climate of 2002 through 2007 spurred what
was tantamount to a "land rush" for development throughout the nation, and Fresno was fully involved
in it. Tract maps were filed throughout the fringe area, out to the edge of the Sphere of Influence line,
regardless of intervening viable farming between the City boundary and the proposed development
project.
Other properties with active agricultural operations, or with soils highly suitable for agriculture and
community gardening, have been zoned and prezoned into City residential classifications. The
required squaring off of annexation boundaries has required inclusion of land which was not subject to
any urban development applications or entitlements. Owners of these parcels had no intention to stop
or avoid agricultural activities; they were not actively seeking annexation or urban residential zoning but
were passively included (or included despite their opposition) when LAFCo processed annexations to
the City pursuant to its annexation standards.
A collapse of real estate lending and depressed economic conditions subsequently occurred
(commonly known as "the Great Recession"), causing many approved projects to fail to progress
toward construction. The State of California has sequentially extended the expiration dates of
approved tentative subdivision maps, and the residential zoning and prezoning remain in place as
approved by the Fresno City Council; but economic conditions (notably, household income and full-
time employment rates) have not yet recovered sufficiently for the projects to begin construction.
While some parties have suggested that these properties should be put back into one of the City's
exclusive agricultural zone districts, residential zoning is required to remain in place for two main
reasons:
October 10, 2013
Page 9
1. These properties cannot be rezoned to a City agricultural zone district because the City's
Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance, and the Zoning Consistency Matrix (Table 2)
in the 2025 Fresno General Plan, require zoning to conform to the General Plan's
planned land use. Since the land in question is planned for residential development and
other urban uses, it cannot be rezoned for agriculture. A plan amendment to re-
designate this land for agricultural use via City plan amendment is also not feasible for
the following reason.
2. The California Department of Housing and Community Development requires that an
adequate inventory of land planned and zoned for housing to meet community needs be
maintained, as memorialized in the City's adopted 2008 Housing Element. While the
City of Fresno's current inventory of such land is currently more than adequate to meet
this commitment, it would introduce unnecessary cost for housing development if a plan
amendment and rezone subsequently had to be filed to re-establish a residential plan
designation and zoning.
As noted previously, it was realized during promulgation of the 2025 Fresno General Plan that not all
land designated for urban development would (or could) build out during the life cycle of the Plan.
In addition to the policies intending to protect farming from urban sprawl, the 2025 Fresno General Plan
contained two specific policies directive for farming land inside the city.
G-6-a. Policy: Allow for continued agricultural use of vacant land in the city
consistent with standards for the protection of the environment,
public safety and well-being, and the planned, orderly, and
efficient development of the urban area.
G-5-g. Policy: In the San Joaquin River Bottom, accommodate agricultural
uses that do not stimulate unplanned growth or conversion of
designated open space land to urban uses.
Policy No. G-6-a expressly acknowledges that there are areas within City boundaries which are, and
have been, cultivated; and that agricultural use of property in the City is a longstanding practice. It
should be additionally noted that this longstanding practice has not resulted in hazardous material
incidents or Widespread nuisance problems (see response to the letters received on September 18,
2013, attached to this staff report). Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 serves as an
implementation measure for these 2025 Fresno General Plan policies.
Implementation of Relevant 2025 Fresno General Plan Policies
After adoption of the 2025 Fresno General Plan, consideration of development projects included a
review of relevant plan policies and Master EIR (MEIR) mitigation policies for protecting agriculture.
Numerous City land division maps were processed with a requirement that subdividers record Right to
Farm covenants, binding on all subsequent land owners, requiring acceptance of the usual effects of
living in proximity to land being actively cultivated.
In 2006, the City Council enacted Resolution No. 2006-130, establishing procedures for the City to
administer land conservation (Williamson Act) contracts. This allowed parcels subject to these
contracts to be annexed to the City--and to be assigned residential zoning--without a Cancellation or
Notice of Nonrenewal filed for the contract. This Council action specifically authorized continued
October 10, 2013
Page 10
farming on an economically significant scale for portions of phased development projects where no
construction was contemplated in the short term for the contracted land.
In 2007, the City formalized its "Fresno Green Strategy" and initiated a "Food Planning" activity in the
DARM Current Planning section. This led to the 2008 text amendment which was approved to allow
farmer's markets in all commercial zone districts and in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone
district by conditional use permit. Also in 2008, the first formal budget appropriation for community
gardening was approved by Council for the PARCS Department.
The year 2008 also saw City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-10, a text amendment creating
the "ANX" (Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) District for "maintaining the rural
residential lifestyle for annexed properties." This was another Council action which expressly allowed
all levels of agricultural use which had been legal on properties that had County Agricultural and Rural
Residential zoning prior to annexation. However, this zoning was not applied for projects which
received City zoning or prezoning prior to 2008, and it was not applied to the parcels which were
included in urban development applications, just the other parcels around development sites which
were passively being annexed due to LAFCo policies. The ordinance is also limited to properties
having an established residence; it does not apply to parcels which were vacant (or were vacated),
which precludes use of this district to authorize agricultural activity on most development projects in
limbo.
While it was the intention of the City's "Food Planning" activity to establish zoning authorization for
community gardens by year 2011, funding and staffing constraints prevented that from being prioritized
within the Current Planning section. (No text amendments at all were initiated in 2012 and some
initiated by the City in 2011 and 2010 did not go forward.) Three community gardens were established
as part of the uses authorized by a generic "public facility" conditional use permit on City park sites
(see attached Fresno Metro Ministry community Gardens status report from 2011). Because there was
interest in additional locations, Planning staff compiled a handout with some issues and considerations.
However, the use of "community garden" has not been defined or classified in the Zoning Ordinance,
and there was no comprehensive interdepartmental and interagency review when the handout was
compiled (as there would have been with a full text amendment application).
As explained in the "Background" section of this report (on page 2), a development company which has
acquired one of the projects that is economically infeasible to build out at this time has paid the
processing fee for a text amendment that would formally classify "agriculture" and "community garden"
in the Zoning Ordinance, with special standards of practice and regulation to protect resources and
adjacent parties, in order to formally establish those uses in the zone districts specified in Text
Amendment Application No. TA-13-02.
Approval of this text amendment would be consistent with the above-noted General Plan goals and
MEIR mitigation strategy, and would directly implement General Plan Policies Nos. G-6-a and G-6-g.
2035 General Plan and Development Code Update
The City's Long Range Planning team has been engaged in updating the 2025 Fresno General Plan
since 2009. Work has been underway for the past year to also comprehensively update the Zoning
Ordinance and fashion a modernized Development Code.
October10,2013
Page 11
A presentation of the proposed "Healthy Communities Element" has been posted online
http://auth.fresno.gov/NRlrdonlyres/4AFA7942-86D9-4EOF-AEF9-
8CA43812A086/0/PCHealthyCommunitiesPresentationFeb132013.pdf
as has a workshop discussion draft for that element
http://auth.fresno.gov/NRlrdonlyres/E30C8BBD-7E40-4617-B5FE-
01OD76FC637C/0/GPUCh1OHealthyCommunitiesFeb12013.pdf
A workshop discussion draft has also been posted for the 2035 General Plan Economic Development
and Fiscal Sustainability element, which contains several strategies for building on the local agricultural
sector of the economy
http://auth.fresno.gov/NRlrdonlyresI704B1444-C979-44B6-A820-
CA6E865EBF9F/0/GPUCh2EconomicFiscalSusMay32013.pdf
The Advanced Planning Team had not prepared any detailed draft Development Code provisions
relating to agriculture or community gardening. Each successive draft of Text Amendment Application
No. TA-13-02 was provided to the Long Range Planning Team for evaluation and comment. Their
response was that the provisions of the proposed text amendment were consistent with direction
outlined in the pending General Plan Update and Development Code.
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ELEMENT Objectives and Policies, February 13,2013
Objective HC-S: Promote access to healthy and affordable food
Policy HC-S-g: Urban Agriculture. Promote a full range of urban agriculture
activities, including farmer's markets, farm stands, community
gardens, on-site garden produce market stands, and urban farms and
encourage associations to support these activities. Under this policy,
the City will undertake the following:
Amend the zoning ordinance and streamline permitting
procedures to include provision for Community Gardens, On-
site Garden Produce Market Stands and Urban Farms that allow
sale offoods grown locally.
Permit community gardens as land uses allowable by right
under the following conditions:
On vacant residentially zoned lots under two acres in size
through the filing of an agreement with the City between a
recognized community group and a land owner; and
On developed land operated and owned or leased by a
community institution such as a church, community center
or school.
Consider a policy of reduced planning application and plan
check fees for urban agriculture projects.
October 10, 2013
Page 12
Make publicly available an inventory of City-owned surplus
land that could be used for urban agriculture.
Continue to allow and promote community gardens III City-
owned parks.
Encourage community gardens to be planted within walking
distance of high-density residential areas to compensate for the
reduced amount of open space in these areas.
Allow small livestock of adult size at or below 25 pounds as
appropriate and defined by the Citywide Development Code:
Except that TA-13-02 does not provide for keeping livestock (25 Ibs in size or otherwise), does not limit
community gardens to two acres in size or restrict them to institutional property; does not include any
amendments to the Master Fee Resolution or direct preparation of a City vacant land inventory; and
does not expand the current permissible level of retail activity associated with agriculture, the content of
the TA-13-02 conforms to the policy direction outlined in the draft 2035 General Plan Healthy
Communities Element. The final draft of the General Plan Update and new Development Code may
further refine policy direction and zoning regulations relating to agriculture and community gardening. :
The workshop discussion draft of the 2035 General Plan Economic Development and Fiscal
Sustainability Element is consistent with the proposed applicability of the text amendment to
agricultural activity in general. Relevant portions of this Element include:
Agriculture remains the economic base of the San Joaquin Valley the most productive
agricultural region in the country and a critical area for the nation and world's food supply.
Fresno County is at the heart of this region and still sees a significant number of its jobs in
the agricultural sector-both in direct farming and in related food processing, storage, and
shipping.... the sector still retains its importance and is expected to remain an important
driver of related industries moving forward.
Fresno has a substantial array of opportunities to act upon for long-term economic
development and job creation potential. These include its strategic geographic location within
the California market, world class agriculture industry, urban water resources, and climatic
capability for fully capitalizing on renewable energy and energy efficiency....
These opportunities and issues represent major themes for this element such as...
Identifying business and industry sectors that build on Fresno's inherent strengths,
such as agricultural and food value industries....
Industries well-suited to Fresno's location and workforce include warehousing and
distribution centers, as well as agricultural services (brokering and export) and food
processing facilities and other manufacturers.
Recommendation
Approve
Approve
Approve
Approve
Approve
Approve
Approve
Approve
October 10,2013
Page 13
Integrating the "Food Value Chain." Following the example of several agricultural
communities elsewhere in the state, Fresno can take its industry targeting one step further to
fully take advantage of its strategic advantage in agricultural-related employment by
developing a strategy to more closely integrate businesses involved in food production,
processing, storage, distribution, and marketing. Working with current and potential
employers to identify shared needs and resources will help create a "cluster" of agricultural
industry that is innovative and attractive to new businesses.
TA-13-02 conforms to the policy direction outlined in the draft 2035 General Plan Economic and Fiscal
Sustainability Element by providing for sources of agricultural commodities close to the urban
processing and commercial facilities which would add value. Reduced travel distances between field
to processing facility provide for a fresher and better quality raw product, reduce energy inputs (costs)
. of transport, and reduce potential air pollutant emissions.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Council District Plan Implementation and Design Review Committees
When the initiated draft of Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 was routed for comment, it was
provided to the City's Council District Implementation Committees and Specific Plan Committees. The
applicant and staff met with each committee, responded to questions and concerns. All of the City's
advisory bodies unanimously recommended approval of the text amendment except the Council
District 5 Implementation Committee which had one member abstaining. Copies of the committee
voting records or action agendas are attached:
Committee
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Fulton-Lowell
Tower Design Review
Airport Land Use Commission Action
All text amendments are required to be reviewed by the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), a body established under the Public Resources Code and currently staffed by the Council of
Fresno County Governments. Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 was presented to the ALUC
for review and comment as to its consistency with their adopted airport plans on June 10, 2013. By a
vote of 6 - 0 (with 1 member absent), the ALUC found Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 to
be consistent with ALUC plans, given the inclusion of a special standard of practice and regulation
subsection that requires agriculture and community gardens in airport safety areas to conform to any
adopted airport Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plans. A copy of the draft ALUe Minutes are attached (the
ALUe has not had a subsequent meeting that afforded an opportunity to approve its June 10, 2013
minutes).
October 10, 2013
Page 14
Stakeholder and Interest Group Meetings
After the first scheduled Planning Commission hearing on August 21
st
, the Long Range Planning
Session scheduled a meeting with community gardening representatives and urban agriculture
advocates. On August 28, 2013 one representative from each group met to review the provisions of
TA-13-02 in detail and discuss concerns.
There was an objection to the requirement for a conditional use permit (CUP) application for
community gardens.
Response: It had been the understanding of staff that all community gardens in the City
of Fresno were on properties already subject to a CUP, such as parks and church
properties. The only way to revise a CUP is by amending the CUP or getting an approved
Revised Exhibit to the CUP; the original draft of the text amendment directed that the least
expensive option for amending a CUP be used. To materially address this objection, and
in light of the over-arching goal of improving the quality of life for residents, the draft text
amendment was revised to allow new community gardens "by right:" in residential zone
districts they would need to amend any prior site plan review; or if there was no prior site
plan review, they could develop with a plot plan and with the operational statement
information required in draft FMC subsection 12-306-N-11 for establishing a community
garden.
There was an objection to the requirement for a grading permit (which has to be prepared by
a licensed engineer).
Response: Properly managing stormwater and runoff from a community garden is a
concern for the City's urban stormwater management system, mosquito abatement
districts, and adjacent property owners. However, small parcels under an acre in size in
the urban area are expected to have already been graded to conform to Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District standards (drainage directed toward the street and not
toward abutting land), so the draft text amendment was revised to substitute functional
requirements for those small parcels in lieu of a formal grading permit.
There was an objection to the wording of backflow prevention requirements.
Response: The draft text amendment was revised to clarify that an approved backflow
prevention device would only be needed when an agricultural or community gardening
property had water supplied by both the public utility and a private water well (to guard
against well water entering the public potable water lines), and that commonly available
vacuum breakers would be the type of backflow prevention devices needed on hose bibs
and irrigation systems when the sole source of water for cultivation was the public water
system.
There was an objection to the text amendment because a separate category of "urban
agriculture" was not included, to distinguish it from "commercial agriculture."
Response: This objection could not be addressed within the scope of the draft text
amendment. Staff looked into the issue, and found that there was no generally accepted
legal definition that would provide a demarcation between "commercial" agriculture and
"urban agriculture."
October10, 2013
Page 15
Black's Law Dictionary (2
nd
Online Edition) defines "Agriculture" as "The financial practice
of growing food or raising livestock.... " This legal dictionary goes on to provide refinement
of the definition through established case law:
"The science or art of cultivating the ground, especially in fields or large areas,
including the tillage of the soil, the planting of seeds, the raising and harvesting of
crops, and the rearing oflive stock.." - Dillard v. Webb, 55 Ala. 474. And see
Bin- zel v. Grogan, 67 Wis. 147,29 N W 895;
Simons v. Lovell, 7Ileisk. (Teun.) 510; Springer v. Lewis, 22 Pa. 191.
"A person actually engaged in the "science of agriculture" (within the meaning of
a statute giving him special exemptions) is one who derives the support of himself
and his family, in whole or in part, from the tillage and cultivation of fields. He
must cultivate something more than a garden, although it may be much less than a
farm. If the area cultivated can be called a held, it is agriculture, as well in
contemplation of law as in the etymology of the word. And if this condition be
fulfilled, the uniting of any other business, not inconsistent with the pursuit of
agriculture, does not take away the protection of the statute."
- Springer v. Lewis, 22I'a. 193.
This dictionary is used by the City when defining terms which are not expressly described
in the Zoning Ordinance. Black's Law Dictionary does not define "urban agriculture."
However, a commonly acceptable definition was found on the USLegal.com website:
"In plain language[,] urban agriculture means farming in the city. It refers to the
system of cultivating, processing and distributing food in a town or city. It also
denotes animal husbandry, aquaculture, agro-forestry and horticulture carried on
in a city or town. The cultivation carried out in peri-urban areas is also called as
urban agriculture. Urban agriculture is also called as urban farming.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has defined urban
agriculture as an activity that produces, processes, and markets food and other
products, by using intensive production methods, natural resources and urban
wastes, on land and water in urban and peri-urban areas to yield diversity of crops
and livestock."
These definitions hold that "agriculture" is an all-encompassing term for growing crops and
livestock in order to make money; and that "urban agriculture" is a term that can simply
mean "farming in a city." Therefore, it is staff's position that no separate classification for
"urban agriculture" should be added to Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02.
There was an objection to the text amendment because it did not provide for keeping poultry
Response: Staff determined early in the process-when scoping the first draft of the text
amendment-that the potential adverse effects of allowing livestock (or aquaculture) in the
city could generate effects and health risks that make them undesirable for inclusion in
TA-12-02. With regard to the cultivation of plants, however, the text amendment remains
framed for the broadest possible inclusion of types of farming and modes of community
Text Amendment No. TA-13..Q2
October 10, 2013
Page16
gardening, excluding only practices that could cause unnecessary problems for adjacent
property, and including regulations needed to prevent adverse effects.
On September 5, a larger meeting was held with several community gardening and urban agriculture
advocates, some concerned West Fresno residents (with "Leadership Counsel" representation), the
Executive Director of Fresno County LAFCo, the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner, the Fresno
County Farm Bureau, and the project sponsor (the sign-up sheet for this meeting is attached).
The purpose of this meeting was to review the history of the text amendment to clear up
misconceptions about its origination, to review the revised content of the text amendment, and to air
remaining concerns.
Community gardening interests requested that the proposed definition of that use be modified to more
closely conform to one used by their national organization. This has been done and is reflected in
wording in draft FMC subsection 12-105-C-19.3 defining "community garden."
Most remaining concerns were addressed, except for the following:
An urban agriculture advocate wanted farm stands to be permitted in residential front yards.
The text amendment makes reference to FMC subsection 12-306-N-18, which regulates
temporary structures such as farm stands. Currently, only the City's Exclusive Agricultural
zone districts allow farm stands. The proposed project would allow sales of agricultural
produce in residential zone districts, but it does not propose allowing temporary retail
structures in front yard setbacks of all zone districts subject to the proposed text
amendment, due to considerations of pedestrian, and traffic safety (sight lines for people
backing out of their adjacent driveways).
A West Fresno resident stated that he did not want the text amendment to go forward,
because he felt that the existence and effects of farming would impede good development in
his area. He said he could instead support rezoning property to agriculture
Reasons for not being able to accommodate this rezoning are explained in detail in the
Land Use Analysis section of this staff report (the General Plan Zoning Consistency Matrix
and Fresno's Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance would not allow a rezoning to
agriculture, and it could conflict with the City's General Plan Housing Element).
The most important responsive point is that the text amendment does not prevent
development of zoned residential land anywhere in Fresno, it merely allows agriculture
and/or community gardening to be established as an interim use pending improvement of
economic and market conditions that would make urban buildout of the property feasible.
The prices of land in Fresno with urban residential zoning and available utility services do
not make it financially feasible to farm the property in the long term, even though buildout
of a property may not be financially feasible in the short term.
The West Fresno resident expressed concerns about effects on local water wells.
It was pointed out that the text amendment provides for Water Division control of water
usage and that it requires recharge by paying fees into the Citywide recharge program, or
by arranging for local recharge. These protections are not required of farming that has
been occurring on un-annexed property in the area. Development of housing on the
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
October 10, 2013
Page 17
vacant property could also have adverse cumulative and local impacts on groundwater
supply: the Kings Basin (and Fresno's Sole Source Aquifer) have been declining due to a
"cone of depression" from overdraft caused by urban water consumption. On the other
hand, farming that has been done with some types of surface water irrigation has long
been considered a plus for its incidental groundwater recharge benefit.
Another alternative mentioned was that owners of parcels who want to continue farming
(legally, with the use classified for their zoning) could de-annex from the City.
This alternative is infeasible for many properties, because the Local Formation Agency
Commission has policies against creating islands or irregularities in City boundaries that
would be peninsular projections. Even if de-annexation proves feasible, concerns of
residents with regard to resource protection and effects on nearby residents would not be
as well addressed as farming under the provisions of the proposed text amendment,
because County Agricultural and Rural Residential zone districts do not regulate activities
as TA-13-02 is proposing to do. For instance, the County does not prohibit use of hail or
bird cannons or require setbacks for pedestrian travel along roadways; the County Zoning
Ordinance does not require mitigation for groundwater withdrawal. Issues of concern for
properties adjacent to farming would be better addressed, if the properties being farmed
at the urban fringe were to remain in the City and subject to the special standards of
regulation and practice in the proposed text amendment.
"Leadership Counsel" reiterated objections from its August 21
51
letter.
Responses to those issues (uses covered in the proposed text amendment, levels of
approval for community gardening, dust, noise, human health) are found throughout this
staff report and in the attached Initial Study, as well as in the attached response to the
"Leadership Counsel" subsequent September is" letter.
With regard to pesticide concerns in particular: At the September 5
1h
meeting, staff and
the Agriculture Commissioner explained that there are three levels of pesticides, and that
his office regulates the two levels of these compounds which are not commercially
available to the public. The Agriculture Commissioner enforces rules against applying
hazardous pesticides near sensitive land uses. ("Leadership Counsel" did not explain why
the regulations would not be adequate protection.)
The Agriculture Commissioner went on to state that he was concerned about the risk that
community gardeners might use publicly available pesticides in ways contrary to labeling,
and the shared nature of their activities might mean that someone could pick something
from someone else's treated crop. (The text amendment requires that community
gardens provide an operational statement. Planning staff will review the operational
'statements for proposed user rules regarding pesticide use in the gardens.)
The September 5
th
meeting ended on a cordial and positive note; however, many of the parties who
attended went on to sign one of the letters submitted the day of the September 18
th
continued Planning
Commission hearing on this text amendment.
REPORT TOTHE CITYCOUNCIL
October 10,2013
Page 18
PLANNING COMMISSION
As noted previously, two letters in opposition to the proposed text amendment were received on the
afternoon prior to the Commission hearing, and one letter in support was received from the Fresno
County Farm Bureau. After a presentation by staff and testimony from the project sponsor, the
Commission opened the meeting to public testimony.
A Fresno Veteran's group leader testified that his organization was in favor of the proposed text
amendment. He stated that his organization had conferred with the project sponsor after it acquired
the land surrounding the Veteran's Home and that they were satisfied that farming would be an
amenity for the Home.
Eighteen persons testified against the proposed text amendment.
Community gardening and urban agriculture participants reiterated concerns they had stated earlier.
They wanted no zoning regulation for their activities until the 2035 General Plan and Development
Code update were completed.
Responses to those issues have been made earlier in this staff report and in the attached
response to opponents' letters received on September 18
th
One community gardening advocate specifically objected to the draft text amendment's requirement
that there be a designated responsible party for a community garden.
Response: When the Text Amendment was being drafted, Planning staff contacted Fresno Police
Department regarding the former "Tower District Community Garden," which had generated
several police calls and public complaints. The Police Department advised that the main
underlying problems with that community garden were (1) there was no one actually in charge of it,
so no one ensured that reasonable behavior was being maintained and the Police Department had
no one to contact when problems were reported; and (2) that garden was in a commercial area,
without oversight from residents or any ability to control entry.
Several West Fresno residents expressed a range of concerns about potential health impacts,
including a physician concerned about health effects on the residents of the new Veteran's Home.
Potential health issues from dust and pesticides have been evaluated in the Environmental
Assessment, and are addressed in the attached response to the Leadership Counsel
September 18, 2013 letter.
One West Fresno resident testified that agriculture presented an unacceptable risk of Valley Fever.
Response: "Valley Fever" is also known as "coccidiomycosis," an infection that occurs in the
Southwestern U.S. and is endemic to Arizona and counties of the San Joaquin Valley. It is caused
by the fungus Coccidioides immitis which lives in soil (and is more prevalent around rodent
burrows). Infection usually occurs via inhaled spores when airborne dust is generated; events
which cause this include disking weeds and plowing fields, grading and construction, windy
days/storms, and earthquakes. Spores can travel many miles from the source of dust, and still
cause illness. Approximately 3% of the population in endemic areas becomes infected each year;
therefore, most residents of the San Joaquin Valley have had Valley Fever or will catch it. Sixty
percent of those infected have a subclinical case (they never know they were infected); forty
percent have noticeable illness. Symptomatic cases can range from influenza-like symptoms
October 10,2013
Page 19
which clear up, to chronic severe illness and even death. Certain ethnic groups, including African-
Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, are more likely to develop severe forms of the
disease. Efforts to create a vaccine for this disease have been ongoing for over 30 years, but
there is no effective vaccine yet available. The Centers for Disease Control just published an online
article (in Emerging Infectious Diseases) which surveyed California hospitalizations due to
coccidiodomycosis over the past decade. http://dx.doLorg/10.3201/eid1910.130427. The text
amendment's proposed special standards of practice and regulation restrict tillage and other dust-
generating activity to times when wind speed is under 12mph, which is a lower limit than that used
by the Valley Air Pollution Control District for its Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust rule. Agricultural
activity typically maintains soil moisture levels which inhibit dust; for several crops (including
almonds), cultivation practice includes dust control and mulches to inhibit mite infestations and
maintain product quality for leafy vegetables. Agricultural activity also includes rodent control,
which will reduce the numbers of burrows where the fungus seems to be harbored. On the other
hand, leaving property vacant and unused would increase risk of Valley Fever in two ways: no
ongoing control of rodents whose burrows harbor the fungus; and springtime weed abatement
deadlines which require dust-generating mowing and disking when there are seasonally higher
wind speeds.
At the conclusion of public testimony, the Commission deliberated the matter and asked several
questions. A proposal to "bifurcate" the text amendment into separate projects (one for agriculture,
one for community gardening) was ruled out of order by the Deputy City Attorney advising the
Commission, because FMC Section 12-402 limits the Commission's allowable actions after a text
amendment is heard to denying it, approving it, or approving it with non-substantive changes;
separating the text amendment into two projects would have been a substantial change. A motion to
continue the hearing and obtain a City Attorney opinion failed for lack of a second. A motion to
recommend denial of Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02 and the project failed on a split vote.
A motion to recommend approval of the EA and text amendment was approved; also on a split vote.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 13230 is attached memorializing the Commission's action.
After the Commission's hearing, a letter to the Editor was published in the Fresno Bee on Sunday,
September 22, 2013, written by one of the persons who testified in opposition to the text amendment
and expressing an objection to the Commission's recommendation for approval.
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
In accordance with provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code, a notice of this City Council hearing was
published in the Fresno Bee on Friday, September 27,2013. Notification was also provided by email
to parties who provided contact information
As of the date of preparation of this City Council agenda report (September 27,2013), no further public
comments or letters have been received by the Development and Resource Management Department.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION
Currently, vacant land is an expense for the City of Fresno. At least three major vegetation fires
occurred in the city this summer. Code Enforcement and City crews expend many staff hours on weed
abatement, and complaints are repeatedly lodged on vacant properties for trash and tire dumping.
As noted previously in this report (on page 3), in the attached Lowell Community Garden information
and the 2011 Fresno Metro Ministry Community Garden status report, and in the information included in
October 10, 2013
Page 20
the draft Healthy Communities Element of the 2035 Fresno General Plan, Fresno has a high
percentage of its residents living in poverty. These persons would materially benefit-economically,
nutritionally, and socially--from increased access to fresh produce generated by agricultural activities
and from expanded opportunities to participate in community gardening.
Information was also presented earlier in this report (on pages 6-7 and 12) on the importance of
agricultural commodities produced in the Fresno area drivers of an economic engine that creates jobs,
supports processing and service industries, and maintains the City's profile as the regional capitol in the
world's most productive agricultural region. This text amendment.would have measurable economic
benefit by increasing availability of high-quality agricultural land to cultivate crops on an interim basis
pending resolution of economic factors which have inhibited the buildout of planned urban
development.
Below is a list of economically significant crops from the 2012 Fresno County Crop and Livestock
Report (http://www.co.fresno.ca.uslWorkArealDownloadAsset.aspx?id=55145), showing production
value per acre for each crop. Applying the threefold "multiplier effect" for raw agricultural production will
give an idea of the approximate economic benefit that the City could derive from putting vacant parcels
back into production, even on an interim basis.
COMMODITY LISTED IN THE 2012
FRESNO COUNTY CROP REPORT
GRAPES
ALMONDS
PISTACHIOS
WALNUTS
TOMATOES
GARLIC
OTHER VEGETABLES
MELONS
PEACHES
PLUMS
NECTARINES
CITRUS (ALL TYPES)
NURSERY
GROSS CROP PRODUCTION
VALUE PER ACRE
$ 4,336
$ 6,188
$ 5,764
$ 4,282
$ 4,090
$ 8,664
$ 5,118
$ 5,928
$ 9,661
$ 8,665
$ 9,157
$6,424
$86,761
It should be noted that the above figures represent gross crop sales revenues, not revenue net of costs
of production. Most of these figures do not approach the per-acre income that could be obtained from
real estate development of the land (which is why fringe area properties were sold for development and
came to be zoned for residential use). However, when economic conditions do not support
construction of planned urban development, agricultural revenue can provide an interim benefit to the
community and will help to pay property taxes and other carrying costs.
REPORT TOTHE CITYCOUNCIL
October 10,2013
Page 21
Improving annexed property with agricultural plantings and irrigation systems can also increase
property tax revenue to the City, particularly since the Resolution No. 2006-130 does not allow annexed
property to enter any new Williamson Act contracts and most existing Williamson Act contracts within
the incorporated area are expiring pursuant to Notices of Nonrenewal filed years ago.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the finding of Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02 and approve the draft Ordinance Bill to approve Text
Amendment Application No. TA-13-02.
Attachments: Application letter from project sponsor, dated March 15,2013
Lowell Neighborhood Organization online articles relating to its community garden
Fresno Metro Ministry 2011 Community Garden Status Report
Letter from FIRM, dated August 21, 2013
Letter from Leadership Counsel, dated August 21, 2013
Letter signed by multiple parties objecting to Text Amendment No. TA-13-02, dated
September 18, 2013
Second letter from Leadership Counsel, dated September 18, 2013
Staff response to September 18, 2013 letters
Letter from Fresno County Farm Bureau, dated September 18, 2013
Project review records from Council District Implementation Committees and the
Fulton-Lowell and Tower District Design Review Committees
Draft minutes of the June 10, 2013 Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission
meeting
Sign-in sheet from September 5,2013 meeting with interested parties
City Council hearing published notice
Planning Commission Resolution No. 13230
Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02, dated August 28,2012, with MEIR
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist and Project-Specific Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Checklist
Draft Ordinance Bill for Text Amendment Application No. R-11-06
This page intentionally left blank.
March 15, 2013
Will Tackett
Development Department, City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Proposed Text Amendment
Dear Mr. Tackett,
As per our previous conversations, I am herby requesting that the City of Fresno process a 'Text
Amendment' to the R-l zone District (12-211;FMC).
We would like to propose that the wording in section 12-211 .1E be changed as follows:
"Private greenhouses, horticultural collections, flower gardens and community gardens and
commercial agricultural operations on an interim basis." (Commercial agricultural operation over
20 acres in size may utilize private groundwater wells or surface irrigation water 01' both.)
We believe that the Text Amendment will serve to support a greater variety of agricultural
facilities in the City and that this change will help implement the current and future General
Plans.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Jeffery T. Roberts
Granville Homes
JR/ang
1396 West Herndon Avenue Sutte 101 Fresno, Callfornla 93711 Telephone: 559,436.0900 Facsimile: 559.436.1659 Web: www.gvhomcs.cor
THE LOWELL COMMUNITY GARDEN
for $35 a year, you can rent your own plot!
December 28,2012
The Lowell Community Garden is a new service dedicated to neighborhood residents. You can benefit
from the garden located on the southwest corner of Belmont and Poplar avenues.
For $35 a year, you can rent your own plot and have access to gardening tools. This includes compost,
water (drip lines with timers!) and free education.
Rebecca Ortiz and her family have been using the community garden since May.
"Gardening is something we can all do together: said Rebecca Ortiz. "We have taught our children how
plants grow, how to harvest and how to eat healthy."
The garden has 32-different plots and four raised beds for wheelchair access. Gates to the garden are
locked and only gardeners have the combination to enter.
"It has been a great and educational experience for us as parents and for our children," said Ortiz.
"Planting our own fruits and vegetables helps us save money."
There is currently a wait list for garden plots, but you can still benefit by starting a garden in your own
home.
For more information on how to get started, contact Tom Matott at 559.485.1416 or
tom@fresnometmin.org.
(http://Iowellfresno.org/community-in-the-garden)
THE LOWELL COMMUNITY GARDEN
cultivating a community
February 8, 2013
As technology seeks to connect people via virtual webs, the residents of Fresno's Historic Lowell
Neighborhood, with the help from Fresno Metro Ministry, have found a way to reconnect with their
neighbors while also providing healthy food for their families, cleaner air for their community, and stress
relief from tough economic times. The Lowell Community Garden celebrated its first growing season
Aug. 17,2012 and provides the neighborhood with more than just a hobby; instead neighbors say it has
provided a sense of ownership in their community that reaches deeper than their small garden plot.
The Lowell Community Garden was the product of over two years of dedication and perseverance by
the neighborhood and various local agencies dedicated to seeing positive change in the county. After
the Fresno City Council voted against using money from the General Fund in December of 2010, the
project hit a major roadblock. However, in March of 2012, PG&E presented Fresno Metro Ministry with
a $20,000 donation to fund this important project. A month later a group of Americorp interns came to
the neighborhood to trench for sprinklers, run PVC pipe, install faucets, create raised beds, add
compost and construct granite pathways. Their hard work paid off as the land was first planted in May
of 2012 and the seeds of the community began to grow. With 32 plots, and a waiting list, Lowell
neighbors are now able to grow their own fruits and vegetables to provide healthy options for their own
families as well as meet, mingle, and share with other neighbors.
Through efforts of the Lowell neighbors, the once abandoned plot at Belmont and Poplar Avenues is
now a lush, thriving testament to the change one community can make to their landscape. Tom Matott,
Community Gardens Coordinator for Fresno Metro Ministry, remembers working on the Lowell
Community Garden and having neighbors drive by thanking him and the volunteers for the garden. He
says, "They may not even be gardeners, but they appreciate the fact that there's this thing that has
changed the landscape of that corner. Now the neighbors are in there with their kids, growing food. It's
a positive productive space."
Community gardens can do more than just bring an abandoned piece of land back to life. In the 2012
Community Gardens Status Report, facilitated by Fresno Metro Ministry, 98.4% of gardeners sited the
opportunity to "Grow culturally traditional foods" as one of their reasons for gardening. Additionally,
93.7% said that the ability to "Preserve green space" was a beneficial factor, as well as "Reducing
stress", which was sited 90.5% of the time. In a time when the nation is seeing a rise in unhealthy
eating habits, and diseases caused by chronic obesity, the Fresno community gardeners also felt that
the "Opportunity for recreation", receiving 97.6% of the votes, was another important reason for
community gardening.
Even more important is the positive effects Community Gardens can have on the nation's hunger crisis.
The Food Research and Action Center's (FRAC) study on food hardships in Metropolitan Statistical
Areas reported that Fresno ranked number two in the country for food hardships. This means that
24.3% of people residing in the Fresno Metropolitan Area did not have enough money to buy needed
food at times in the last 12 months. In an area that has an agriculture industry reaching well into the
billions, the FRAC study proves that more needs to happen to protect the people of Fresno to insure
that they receive the benefits of our growing region as well. Community Gardens seek to help this issue
by allowing a low cost option for families to eat healthy while also providing a positive family activity.
Currently, zoning issues and urban sprawl block many new gardens from forming, but new legislation
within the local oovernment is tNino to make it an attainable ootion for other communities. "BeinGable
to have a place that you can go and grow and cultivate something, Matott feels IS a valuable option for
the entire community, "There's something to gardening itself. It's an act of nurturing. There's always
the opportunity for regeneration. Gardeners have to believe in a positive future or else they wouldn't put
a seed in the ground." .
The Lowell Community Garden is proof of the difference one seed can make in a neighborhood. To
change the landscape it takes nurturing, patience and the belief that things will always regenerate,
there will always be another season, and one seed can change a community.
For more information on how to start your own community garden contact Tom Matott at
tom@fresnometmin.org or visit the Fresno Metro Ministry website for a downloadable Community
Garden Toolkit
FRESNO ~ j I t\ 1ST R Y
2012 Community Gardens
Status Report
USDA
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODS 2
GARDENERS ATA GLANCE 3
COMMUNITY GARDENING IN FRESNO 4
CONCLUSION 10
INTRODUCTION
Fresno Metro Ministry (Metro) is a multicultural, multi-faith, non-profit organization that promotes
social, economic and environmental justice to create a more respectful, compassionate and inclusive
community. Metro advocates for positive change in community and institutional systems and policies through
collaboratives involving individuals, organizations, elected officials and religious institutions. As advocates
dedicated to community action for more than 40 years, Metro continues to work on issues surrounding Hunger
and Nutrition, Health Care Access, Clean Air and Healthy Environments, Coordinated School Health and Youth
Violence Prevention by empowering residents to become better advocates for themselves, their families and
their neighborhoods. Programs within these areas focus on underserved areas in order to connect individuals
and families in need with the crucial supportive services necessary to be productive members of society.
For the past three years, the Hunger and Nutrition program has been working on several community-
based solutions to food insecurity in the City of Fresno- the most visible is that of Community Gardens.
Gardens not only give people the opportunity to feed themselves and neighbors, but help to develop deeper
community ties in often struggling neighborhoods. In order to enhance and create opportunities to access
nutritional foods as well as increase the food choices available, the Community Gardens have been located
in underserved communities throughout the City. Currently, Metro manages three community gardens: (1)
AI Radka Park, (2) lowell Community Garden and (3) Peachand Butler. Through these community gardening
endeavors, Metro enables residents to supplement what food they are able to buy with fruits and vegetables
they grow themselves. Objectives for Community Gardens include: (1) providing families with the opportunity
to grow healthy and organic foods, (2) creating opportunities to supplement participants' food budget and
(3) enabling gardeners to grow a variety of food that are culturally specific. In order to measure these
objectives and outcomes, Fresno Metro Ministry developed a survey to determine how the Community
! Gardens benefit the local residents and neighborhoods.
METHO
r
Community gardens allow residents to plant hard to find fruits
or vegetables. These chili peppers-currently being grown at
the AI Radko gorden-ore one type of pepper not so easily found
in a supermarket.
The purpose ofthis report is to evaluate
Metro's three community gardens located
in Fresno. More specifically, the report aims
to answer the question of what value the
gardens are to community gardeners and the
City of Fresno. Asurvey adapted from both
the Community Food Security Coalition's
Community Food Project Evaluation Kit and
the Fresno Community Gardener's Survey:
A Baseline Assessment was utilized. The
32-question survey contained closed-ended
questions that ranged from gardener demographics to the impact of the community gardens on gardener
life. The survey also contained open-ended questions that allowed gardeners to explain their reasons for
participating in the community gardens as well as allowed for other comments.
The survey was also disseminated several ways. To overcome low-response or no response, several
methods were made available to gardeners. First, registered gardeners were mailed letters notifying them
of the upcoming survey and that individuals from Fresno Metro Ministry would call to set up appointments
for surveys. The letter also provided a link to the online survey. In addition to the online option, three
additional options were made available to gardeners: face-to-face, over the phone and having the gardeners
complete the surveys via a hard copy. To further increase response rate, surveys were available in both
Hmong and English. Gardeners who opted for face-to-face or phone surveys had the option of having
surveys conducted in their preferred language; therefore, surveys were conducted by individuals fluent
in Hmong and English or Spanish and English. Responses to open-ended questions that were in either
Hmong or Spanish were translated immediately into English while the survey was being given. The data took
approximately one month to compile.
GARDENERS AT A GLANCE
Do Not Participate Other WIC SNAP
Figure 2. Participation in Government Programs
463%
Lowell Peach & Butler
F!gure Identifi.cation
AI Radka
A total of 85 responses were collected from
174 registered gardeners with Fresno Metro
Ministry- a response rate of 48.9%. Of the
collected responses, 25 surveys were from the
garden located at AI Radka Park, 46 from the
Peach and Butler site and 14 from the Lowell
Community Garden. There were more than
twice as many women (69.5%) surveyed than
men (30.5%). Gardeners also ranged in age
with most falling into the category of 45 to
54 years old (31.8%). In terms of racial identification, an overwhelming majority (79.8%) identified as Asian
or Pacific Islander-many of whom further identified as Hmong or Hmong American. Those who identified
as White or Caucasian comprised 14.3% of those surveyed, 2.4% identified as Hispanic or Latino and the
remaining 3.6% identified as being of a bi-racial or multi-racial background. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of
garden participation by ethnicity.
The majority of the gardeners have either a high school diploma or lessthan a high school education
(63.1%) but a few graduated from college (10.6%) and others also had advanced degrees (8.3%). Interms of
employment level, an equal number are employed (41.0%)-those who identified as employed either part-time or
full-time-and unemployed (41.0%). The remaining 18%identified as students, retirees or homemakers. Similar
to employment level, income is also roughly
equal at both sides of the spectrum with
22.6% making $50,000 or more and 27.4%
with income levels under $9,000. Some
individuals also participate in government
programs such as WIC- Women, Infant
and Children (12.2%) and SNAP- the
Supplemental Nutrition AssistanceProgram
(39.0%) SeeFigure 2. Household size is
much more varied, ranging from 1 to 15
with an average of 6.05 persons.
GARDENERS AT AGLANCE
While the aggregated data may present the average gardener as an Asian or Pacific Islander woman
shows that it is actually very dynamic. The individuals who have chosen to participate in the Metro and City of
I
'
I.!
with a large family and from a low socio-economic background, a closer look at community gardening in Fresno
I
Fresno's commitment to fostering community gardens come from a wide variety of backgrounds whether of
high or low income or from small or large households.
COMMUNITY GARDENING IN FRESNO
A commitment to community gardening can be seen in how gardeners continue to garden year after
year. With the exception of gardeners from the Lowell Community Garden-which is still fairly new- most
gardeners continue from one year to the next. In fact, 14.1% of gardeners have been gardening for one year.
Most have passed their one year mark (57.4%) with a few who have already been gardening for four years
(3.7%). Because there are currently only three locations, some gardeners travel a great distance to get to their
gardens.
in southeast Fresno, within zip code 93727. The
gardeners come from all over the city as well as
neighboring cities, such as Clovis and Sanger, to
tend their gardens. The gardeners travel from
a range of distances to their gardens as well as
different modes- some walk the distance. In
The gardens are located in different areas
of Fresno, California. While Lowell Community
Garden is located in the 93701 zip code area-
closer to Downtown Fresno-both gardens at
Peach and Butler and AI Radka Park are located
Gardeners can save money on groceries by growing their
own fruits, like these watermelons grown at the Lowelf
Community Garden.
total, gardens are from 13 different zip codes from
throughout the City. Gardeners at AI Radka live between .3 miles and 9.1 miles, with an average of 4.33 miles
from their gardens. For those at the Lowell Community Garden, the distance is much shorter, ranging from .1
miles to 1.8 miles and averaging .51 miles. While those at Peach and Butler average a distance of 3.91 miles
from their gardens with a range of 1.5 miles to 10.7 miles.
Despite the distance, many of the gardeners tend to their gardens daily (22.9%) or go at least 2 to 3

times a week (57.8%). Plots range from as
small as 72 square feet to 4200 square feet;
however, for many of the gardeners (48.2%),
their current plots are in fact not large enough.
Currently, many gardeners grow such foods
as corn, eggplant, peppers and tomatoes
but many of the gardeners who expressed
concern about the lack of adequate plot size
were frustrated with being constrained to
Hmong cucumbers, as one gardener called them, are
cammon at the AI Radko Park Garden.
growing only a few types of vegetable rather
than a variety of vegetables that would allow
them a more culturally diverse harvest. As many of the gardeners have voiced, to plant squash meant to
forgo planting such other things like greens or cilantro because squash needs room to grow.
In addition to inadequate plot size, vandalism and/or theft (30.6%) is also a large concern as many
expressed they would come to the garden to find their vegetables, such as squash or peppers, missing.
Gardeners are also challenged with not having enough time for their gardens (29.4%) and lacking gardening
knowledge (29.4%) (See Figure 3). Despite these various challenges, the majority of gardeners still view their
gardening experience positively; 42.2% rated their experience to be excellent and another 51.8% rated their
experience with the community garden to be a good one.
Despite challenges, there are many reasons that prompted residents to begin their gardening
endeavors. Some have invested
more in their gardens than others.
On average, gardeners invested
$56.60 on their gardens every
three months, with some reported
having spent as little as $3 to others
spending as much as $450 every
three months. However, the amount
of money saved per quarter was
smaller by comparison. While the
Figure 3. Gardening Challenges
lackofTransportatlon
28.2/"
lackofSources forSeeds/Cuttlnqs 17.6%
Lack ofSources forSeeds/Cuttings 30.6(Vo
lackofWater
8.2%
lackofland 48,2Q'o
lackofGardening Equipment 20.0CJi>
lackofllme 29.4%>
Lack ofGardening Knowledge
29.4C),o
money at all (28.8%). With an
average saved was $40.57, many
of the gardeners reported not
having been able to save any
97.6%
81.3%
47.6%
1190.5%
93.7%
11160.5%
111
98
.4%
StopCrime
Reduce Stress
Preserve greenspace
Figure 4. Reasons for Community Gardening
Nosupermarkets nearby
Opportunity for recreation
Growculturally traditional foods
Affordto buy fruits and vegetables
average loss investing in their
gardens, it can be reasonably
inferred that money is not
necessarily the reason individuals
continue to garden. Responses
from the individual gardeners
confirm that saving money is not the only reason taken into consideration when choosing to participate in
(
I
I
Figure 5. Gardener Reasonsfor Participation
Exercise accounts for 26% of their
community gardening (See Figure 4). Nearly all gardeners agreed on four factors. Participating meant the
opportunity to grow culturally traditional foods (98.4%); created opportunities for recreation (97.6%); allowed
for the preservation of green space (93.7%); and gardening would help to reduce stress (90.5%). Further
analysis also shows underlying reasons for gardening.
In addition to agreeing or disagreeing with the above statements, the survey allowed each community
garden participant to share personal thoughts about their involvement with the community gardens. The
subjects brought up multiple times by gardeners were treated as a code or reason for participation. The
community gardeners displayed nine reasons for their participation. (See Figure 5) In terms of health,
community gardeners felt that
-'_115.0%
-'_115.0%
~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.0%
time along with 12%for Relax/
Reduce Stress when working in
the gardens. Furthermore, Health
(5%) and Chemicals/Pesticides
Not Wanted (5%) came up several
Community participation
Provide my own vegetables ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.0%
Save Money /111I11III4.0%
Health
Chemicals
Relax/Reduce Stress . ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12.0%
4.0%
-'__6.0%
times as community gardeners
prefer to plant Fresh/Organic
Vegetables (6%). Ownership and
companionship also came up
Fresh/OrganicVegetables
Exercise ."II1IIII1IIII1IIII1III11IIII11IIII11IIII11IIII11IIII11IIIl1lil1lil1li 26.0%
I wantto plantmyownvegetables . ~ 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I f I 22.0%
Others
COMMUNITY GARDENING IN FRES
as Want to Plant My Own Vegetables
accounts for 22% of the responses and
Community Participation corresponds
for 9%of the time. Indeed, Saving
Money was the least of concerns being
the least response from community
gardeners (4%). Similarly, the code
Others (4%) was also the least present
response. Others include unrelated
responses. Unrelated responses are
as important because they represent
special intentions that were not
FresnoMetro Ministry educates gardeners on how to decrease pesticide
use by creating a natural habitat around the perimeter of the garden-
like the one shown here from the Peach and Butler site-for predator
insects, which can then go into the gardens and eat "the bad bugs."
frequently mentioned. Of particular significance was that of bond between mother and daughter: "My mother
has a little plot and so do I. I'm having her teach me a life skill. This is our mother/daughter time that I will
cherish forever."
Additionally, mental health factors seemed to be the primary reason for community participation
for most gardeners. Most responses suggests that home disputes (e.g. personal/family conflicts, arguments,
bills, etc.) leads to higher stress level as 9%of the responses corresponds to Tired of Home/Nowhere to go.
According to the coded sheet, stress level also occurs outside from personal affairs. For example, community
Father and son who live in apartments next to Lowellspend
quality time together.
gardeners respond that "staying at home

and has no job makes me think too much
about stress and increase my depression"
and "dizzyat home and lots of stress;
food isn't healthy; I don't make enough
money to live off of so it makes me very
stressed." Working in the garden helps
gardeners by Reducing Stress/Depression
Level accounting for 69% of the responses
and allowing them Exercise (9%) outside
69.0%
as a factor
it's difficult to farm. The garden
the house. Participants claim that
working in the garden is the only
opportunity for exercise and are
more relaxed as there is nothing to
do at home (e.g. I get a chance to
exercise, be more physicallyfit. I'm
better in health). One gardener
forces me to be active, walking to
stated, "because Iam old and sick
13.0%
Others Tired of home!
No where to go
9.0%
Stress! Depression
Level
Exercise
the garden and help make my body
strong." Important factors that makes Others important, reveals that some gardeners live alone and cannot
afford groceries, while others took on a religious approach (e.g. working with my hands, seeing results of my
work, quiet in the garden in the early morning and evening, pleasant conversations with neighbors- the Zen
of the garden is calming, I feel like I meet God there). (See Figure 6)
Tomatoes are an example affruit currently being grown at
the Lowell Community Gorden.
to unwind and connect with the neighbors"
According to analyzed responses, working in a community garden has had positive impacts for
local gardeners. There is reduction in stress levels benefitting in physical and mental health for community
gardeners from continuous exercises and positive social experience (e.g. It is relaxing to garden and it feels
good to cultivate and grow something
positive - healthy food and relationships
with neighbors). Gardeners respond with
a high rate of Reduce Stress/Depression
Level of S4%along with an 11% in
Exercise. Sociolize with the Community at
communicating in the garden gives "time
conjuncture with the community lessens
their stress; for example, they claim that
13%, gardeners suggest that working in
COMMUNITYG
Figure 7. HowGardens Have HelpedWith Stress
54.0%
An AI Radko gardener waters her flourishing plat.
Others
Exercise
Socialize
LessMoney
StresslDepression level
and "I get to meet new people
and make new friends, talking
to people makes me feel happy,
not lonely or bored." Spending
Less Money accounts for 4%as
some gardeners claim to save on
store-bought groceries. Overall,
the community garden serves
for maintaining healthier life
style for givinggardeners various
opportunities for socializing,
exercising, and "a strong, familiar community- where everyone knows each other, learns from each other and i
shares with one another helps LOTS with mental health" (See Figure 7).
Gardening has significantly contributed to positive changes and healthier lifestyles. Namely, 79%
reported a decrease in their consumption of fast food, 91.6% increased their consumption of fruits and
vegetables because of the garden. Due to gardening, many of the gardeners also concluded they were
eating more culturally traditionally foods (90%) as compared to before. Additionally, with many having said
the garden would create opportunities for recreation, 95.2%confirmed being more physically active after
participating in community gardening.
Participants also attributed a decrease in
spending on food (87.8%) to community
gardens, as well as being able to better
provide for the family (91.6%). There have
also been knowledge gains in gardening
skills (90%) and working with others
(88.2%).
Community gardening also signifies
the possibility of a more participatory
community. These positive changes have
translated to self-perceived stronger ties
A youth group volunteers at the AI Radko garden.

to the community. Of those surveyed,
88.6% felt a stronger connection to
their community along with 81.3% who
felt a stronger connection their culture.
Additionally, more than two-thirds of
gardeners (85.5%) feel that they are
making a difference in their community.
In fact, friends and family have often
been the beneficiaries of what is
produced in the gardens, with 76.5% of
gardeners having been able to share what
they grow with their relatives and friends. After participating in the gardens, 87% agreed they are now more
likely to participate in their community. Overall, 91.3% of gardeners feel their quality of life has improved
since their participation in the community gardens.
CONCLUSION
For over 40 years, Fresno Metro Ministry has advocated for the underserved communities of the Central
Valley. With great motivation and passion to make a difference, Metro has successfully managed a program that
has empowered participating residents to lead healthier lifestyles with access to healthy foods and alternatives to
stress relief. To measure the effectiveness and benefit of Metro's community gardens, this survey was developed
to analyze the output and outcomes of their gardens in Fresno.
The Community Gardens have proven to be an asset to all participating members ofthe community.
Gardeners come from all over the City as well asfrom different parts of the spectrum from low-income to higher
income as well as from different cultural backgrounds. The community gardens also have proven to be useful
in: (1) reducing stress, (2) increasing recreation opportunities and (3) bringing community neighbors closer
together. In leading healthier lifestyles, the data show gardeners have decreased their consumption of fast foods
and increased their fruits and vegetables intake. Other interesting findings are the decrease of spending cashon
foods grocery and ability to provide healthy foods for their families. Just as important, the positive impacts of the
community gardens go beyond the gardeners. Family and friends have benefitted from these fresh foods. The
A Lowell gordener uses his plot to relax ot the end of the doy.
CONCLUSION
gardeners are also more likely to participate
inthe community as compared to before
they started gardening. These outcomes
are valuable information and are cues to
community leaders, policymakers and
private institutions that a vacant lot can
provide many solutions for the underserved
population.
These achievements illustrate that
the usage of lands from the Cityof Fresno
have been an opportunity to alleviate food insecurity and eliminate hunger. These same results also create
an opportunity for eliminating obesity in the community by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to the low-
income families. More community gardens would improve residents' quality of lives. This capacity could
create new public policy regarding the distribution of nutrition foods to the underserved communities by
having a strong community-based food system.
The Community Gardeners
USDA
....
COUNSEL
JUSTICE &. ACCOU;-.:TAHII.JTY
August 21, 2013
SENT VIA EMAIL TO: cecilia.lopez@fresno.r;ov and jennifer.dark@fresno.gov
City of Fresno Planning Commission
Development and Resource Management Department
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: Proposed Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 and Related Finding for
Environmental Assessment to Provide for Agricultural and Community Garden Uses
in Residential and Open Space Districts
Dear City of Fresno Planning Commissioners:
We are writing on behalf of residents of West Fresno with regards to Text Amendment Application
No. TA-13-02 (Text Amendment) and related Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02 which will
be before the Planning Commission for consideration at its meeting on August 21,2013.
The proposed Text Amendment threatens to violate state and federal civil rights law and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, the Text Amendment proposes bad
public policy that threatens the health and well-being of Fresno residents and fails to further its
stated goal of promoting community gardens. We urge you not to recommend adoption of the
Text Amendment and Environmental Finding to the City Council and, instead, allow adequate time
for its review and modification to ensure that any change to the Zoning Code complies with the
law and benefits all Fresno Cityresidents.
The Report to the Planninr; Commission Inappropriately Connates Commercial/Chemical-
Intensive Ar;riculture with Small-Scale Community Gardenjnr;
The Report to the Planning Commission conflates its discussion of commercial agriculture and
community gardening, though the nature, scale, and environmental effects of these activities often
differ dramatically. Byconflating its discussion of these two separate topics, the Report obscures
the purpose and potential impacts of the proposed Text Amendment on Cityresidents and on
residents of West Fresno in particular, where the 360 acre property that embodies the very
motivation for this policy change is located. To allow full and dear consideration of the separate
Page 2
August 21, 2013
land-use and environmental issues raised by the proposed alterations to the Zoning Ordinance
provisions relating respectively to commercial agriculture and to community garden, the Text
Amendment must be divided into two separate policies, with distinct environmental, social and
economic analyses, and presented to the Planning Commission and CityCouncil as separate
agenda items.
The Proposed Text Amendment Undermines the Health and Well-being of Fresno Residents
By allowing commercial crop and ornamental plant production in residential zoned areas by-right,
the proposed Text Amendment would facilitate further environmental degradation of West Fresno
and other vulnerable residential neighborhoods by permitting chemical-intensive agriculture near
residences and other sensitive uses while providing no opportunity for resident input or
environmental review to determine potential impacts of dust, noise, pesticides and other impacts
on the neighboring community.
The proposed Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-306-N-11 which the Staff Report states will
protect property owners and the public from the proposed agricultural uses provides no
particular protection for residents who would live in close proximity to such uses from the effects
of pesticide drift, dust, noise and other impacts which could affect resident health and property
values.
The Proposed Text Amendment Threatens to Violates the Civil Rights of Fresno Residents
California Government Code 11135 prohibits recipients of state funding from acting in a
discriminatory manner or in a manner that causes a disproportionate negative impact on people
based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or other enumerated characteristics. The West Fresno
residential community is characterized by extremely high rates of concentrated poverty
(previously ranked first in the United States by the Brookings Institute) and is composed of
approximately 97% people of color. In June 2013, data released by the California Environmental
Protection Agency and the Officeof Environmental Health Hazard Assessment indicated that the
93706 zip code - the zip code which encompasses West Fresno - is the zip code most burdened by
multiple sources of pollution in all of California. The use of certain high-hazard, high-volatility
pesticides was among the indicators included for assessing residential exposure to pollution. If
adopted and acted upon, this Text Amendment would directly contribute to the increase in use
and impacts of pesticides in the West Fresno residential community which is already
disproportionately saturated with polluting uses. The proposed Text Amendment, therefore,
threatens to violate Government Code 11135 and other civil rights laws.
Page 3
August 21,2013
The proposed text amendment prefers commercial farming to community gardens
Despite the Text Amendment's stated - and worthy - goal of promoting community gardens, it in
fact does far more to promote commercial agriculture than community gardens. Notably, the
proposed amendment allows commercial agricultural uses by right yet requires a Conditional Use
Permit for community gardens in residential and other land use zones. This discrepancy facilitates
commercial agricultural uses while doing little to facilitate community gardens, yet leverages
political support for community gardens to strengthen the viability of the proposal.
The Proposed Text Amendment is Not Eligible for Exemption under CEQA
The proposed Text Amendment is not eligible for exemption under Section 15304(b) of the CEQA
guidelines as the staff report suggests. As the Staff Report notes, Section 15304(b) provides a
CEQA exemption for "minor alterations to land", including "gardening" (defined by Collins Concise
English Dictionary as "the planning or tending of a garden", defined as "an area of land, usually
planted with grass, trees, flowerbeds, etc., adjoining a house'"] or landscaping." Commercial
agriculture, including pesticide-intensive agriculture in excess of 20 acres as envisioned by the
Staff Report and Text Amendment, is not "gardening" or "landscaping". An alteration of the Zoning
Code provisions pertaining to residential land uses to permit commercial agriculture without any
conditional use permit or other requirement ensuring public input is not a minor amendment
As the Text Amendment is not exempt from CEQA, the Planning Commission must consider and
adopt an adequately prepared Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA that assesses and, if necessary, identifies ways to
mitigate the environmental impacts of this project.

"

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please feel free to contact me by email at
pseaton@leadershipcounsel.orgorbyphone at 310.980.6494 to discuss this matter in greater
detail.
Sincerely,
Phoebe Seaton, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
cc: Ashley Werner, Attorney, California Rural LegalAssistance.Inc,
INTERIM CO-D1REcrORS
Rev. SophiaDeWitt
Paula Cha
BOARD CHAIR
Rev. Tom Sims
BOARD TREASURER
Lubov Pavluk
BOARDSECRETARY
Mary Johnson
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Office Manager
Lorna Bosavanh
Financial Manager
Linda Bowman
Bookkeeper
Tony Bounthnpanya
PROGRAMS &
MINISTRIES
Employment & Mentoring
Neighborhood Ministries
HmongHealthCcllaboratlvc
CommunityOrganizing
Lead Programs
Slavic FamilySupport
Healthy Homes
Family Advocacy
Elder Programs
Citizenship Services
CommunityGardens
Theological Education
FIRM, Inc.
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries
1940N. FresnoStreet,Fresno, CA93703Website: www.firminc.org.
Telephone(559) 487-1500FAX(559)487-1550 Email: sophiad@firminc.org
"Sharing Christ's Love to Build Communities of Hope With NewAmericans"
August 21, 2013
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Planning Conunissioners:
I am writing in regards to Text Amendment Application TA-13-02, submitted by Granville
Homes. As a nonprofit organization that currently sponsors several conunnnity gardens in the
City of Fresno, I am concerned that the proposed amendment will actually end up restricting
conununity gardens 10the City, instead of expanding them.
The staff report you have been provided seems to indicate that conununity gardens and other
agricultural uses would he allowed "by right" 10R-l districts and open space areas. However,
the explicit text of the amendment suggests the opposite. In fact, in all of the zone districts
covered under the amendment, conununity gardens are only allowed subject to a Conditional
Use Permit(CUP).
While this is consistent with current City policy and the 2025 General Plan, it would be
inconsistent with the policies drafted for the 2035 General Plan which DO allow for
conununity gardens "by right". These draft policies were developed after extensive
conununity input, which raised the importance of conununity gardens to residents seeking a
healthier and safer conununity.
We are concerned that adoption of this text amendment as written could permit a
"grandfathering in" of policies into the new General Plan that continue to make the
development of eonununity gardens difficuft-in opposition to the desires of conununity
residents.
I urge you, if you adopt this amendment, to first revise it so that conununity gardens are truly
allowed "by right", along with other agricultural uses. This respects conununity voice and
allows for the flourishing of many more gardens in the future.
Sincerely,
.--) .-- C'
! _ c". " ,i, , .',
T\ eu '\)J.J'" UCe
Rev. Sophia DeWitt
Interim Co-Director
"D ., ,.1,
, ',', 1' : " f j - i ~
',',,," (, l.C.i:.l. t.
"L'm laying a FIRMfoundation ... no one who trusts itt it will ever be disappointed." Isaiah 28:16
September 18, 2013
SENT VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
City Hall
Fresno, California 93721
Re: Text Amendment Application No. TA 13 02 and Related Environmental Finding for
Environmental Assessment No. TA-I3-02
To the City of Fresno Planning Commissioners:
We are a collection of individuals and community-based organizations that share concerns about
the proposed text amendment and environmental assessment before you. For the reasons stated
below, we ask that you deny the text amendment and environmental assessment as proposed at
this time and direct staff to postpone consideration ofsuch a text amendment until completion of
the 2035 General Plan Update.
I. Community Gardens and Agricultural Provisions Should Receive Full Public Process
Afforded to the 2035 General Plan Update
For over two years, residents and community advocates have been engaging with City staff to
update Fresno's General Plan, ensuring an equitable planning process that meets the needs of all
Fresno's residents, including as they relate to community gardens and agricultural land-uses.
Community garden advocates at one point approached City staff to request amendments to the
zoning ordinance to facilitate community gardens and small-scale urban agriculture in Fresno,
but were told that they should wait to address the matter through the 2035 General Plan Update
Process. Advocates have been and will continue to engage in the 2035 General Plan Update
process to help develop a comprehensive community gardens policy.
Shortly before the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 21,2013, community
advocates learned ofthe proposed text amendment at issue and communicated to City
representatives that they were concerned about both their lack of inclusion in the formation of
the text amendment and substantive deficiencies in the text amendment itself.' Ifthe City
approves this text amendment it would demonstrate differential treatment ofone private
developer as compared to the public at large, undermine ongoing public processes occurring
through the 2035 General Plan Update and undercut representations by City staff made to and
relied upon by community advocates.
I Contrary to what theStaff Report states, community advocates' abstention from sponsoring a textamendment
relatingto its community garden goals was not for lackof moneyto paytheapplication fee.
Sandra Brock
September 18, 2013
Page 2
2. One Text Amendment Should Not Address Both Community Gardens and Large-Scale
Agriculture
This Text Amendment would affect changes to the zoning ordinance relating to a sweeping
variety of agricultural practices, from small scale, environmentally mindful agricultural practices
for home consumption or sale at farmers markets to large-scale, chemical intensive monoculture
commercial agriculture for sale on the world market. The Text Amendment does not provide
adequate definitions and distinct provisions appropriate for the varying forms of agriculture
which it encompasses. We believe that adoption of this Text Amendment despite these
inadequacies will result in a missed opportunity to expand environmentally-mindful and
economically beneficial community garden and small scale urban agricultural activities for
Fresno residents. We further believe that the very different environmental impacts associated
with various types of agriculture, particularly according to the scale of the activity, makes
adequate environmental review of this Text Amendment, with its failure to clearly distinguish
between different types of agricultural activity, impossible. If this Planning Commission
chooses to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance related to community gardens and other
agriculture, we ask that it do so by way of separate text amendments.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project Does Not Incorporate Adequate
Mitigation Measures for Potentially Significant Impacts
As fully detailed in Leadership Counsel's correspondence on this matter, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) associated with this proposed Text Amendment does not adequately identify
potentially significant impacts nor does it incorporate critical measures to mitigate potentially
significant impacts. Strong mitigation measures are particularly important to West Fresno
residents, where a significant proportion of vacant residential zoned lots - the subject of this Text
Amendment - are located. This includes the Project Sponsor's intended 360 acrel50,000 tree
commercial almond orchard which may subject surrounding residents, Veterans Home members,
and school children to negative environmental impacts of exposure to hazardous pesticides and
fugitive dust and groundwater depletion and contamination, among other factors. This also
includes the many other vacant residentially zoned parcels located among residences, schools,
day care centers, facilities serving senior citizens and other sensitive populations.
Environmental review of this proposed Text Amendment must, but unfortunately fails to,
identify all significant impacts, identify mitigation measures corresponding to each impact, and
determine which impacts are not mitigable.
While adequate environmental review that identifies all significant impacts is necessary, we have
included below some possible mitigation measures that could address the potential impacts of
this Text Amendment on residents throughout the City, and West Fresno residents in particular:
Sandra Brock
September 18, 2013
Page 3
Mitigation ofGroundwater Depletion:
Provide a clear definition of t'altemative measure" as used in the Text Amendment's
provision for the payment of a recharge fee or an "alternative measure" at the discretion
of the City of Fresno Department of Public Works Water Division to provide for
enforceability of and accountability with respect to the provision as a groundwater
depletion mitigation measure.
Other measures to protect existing residents from groundwater depletion by large scale
agriculture, especially those residents relying on private wells.
Mitigation ofAir Quality Impacts Due to Fugitive Dust:
Prohibit the use of mechanized equipment at wind speeds above 5 mph
Mitigation 0.(Air Quality Impacts from Pesticide Applications:
Require buffer zone distances of at least ~ mile from residential areas and at least Y2 mile
from sensitive public areas such as schools, places of worship, and hospital populations.
Require buffer zone distances at a 95% protection level or above for each pesticide
application as set forth by the Department of Pesticide Regulation mitigation standards
for each chemical.
Permit and enforce only Total Impenetrable Film (TlF) only fumigant applications.
Require and enforce that pesticide spray jets be shut off when turning around at the end
of crop rows.
Notify residents in all threshold languages at least one week in advance of application
time to provide residents adequate time to plan (i.e., ensure windows are sealed, kids are
inside, etc.)
Require buffer zone distances of at least y,; mile from residential areas and at least 1/2
mile from sensitive public areas like schools, churches, or hospitals.
4. Eliminating availability of residentially zoned land could threaten housing element
compliance
We are also concerned that the City of Fresno is effectively rezoning at least 360 acres of
residential parcels, and potentially hundreds more parcels of residentially zoned land, as
agricultural, and thus rendering those parcels unavailable for housing supply during the current
housing element's planning period. The Housing Element identifies housing need and requires
that sufficient parcels are available for housing for all income levels. It is our understanding that
the current Housing Element was adopted and approved based on the assumption that those
parcels zoned residential are, accordingly, available for residential use. To the extent that any of
those parcels are rendered unavailable for housing, the City of Fresno risks being out of
compliance with its housing element.
Sandra Brock
September 18, 2013
Page 4
We appreciate your consideration of our comments. We would be happy to mcet with staff to
discuss these comments in more detail. Please feel free to contact Ashley Wemer by phone at
(559) 369-2790 or by email at awerner@leadershipcounsel.org to arrange a meeting.
Sincerely,
Tom Mattot
Community Gardens Coordinator
Fresno Metro Ministries
Mary Curry
Chair
Concerned Citizens of West Fresno
Christine Barker
BHC FLARE Together Coordinator
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries (FIRM)
Rev. Sophia DeWitt
Interim Director
FIRM
Robert Mitchell
Golden Westside Planning Committee
Cesar Campos
Coordinator
California Environmental Justice Network
Ashley Wemer
Attorney
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Kiel Schmidt
Tower Urban Family Farm
Cc: Sandra Brock, Planner, City of Fresno
Jeff Roberts, Granville Homes
Staff response to the September 18, 2013 letter signed by multiple parties:
Regarding point "1 ," on the first page of the letter:
In 2007, the city's "Food Planning" program had committed to adopting Zoning Ordinance
provisions by 2011 to allow widespread implementation of community gardens, but that process
was delayed. The Development and Resource Management Department (DARM) was,
meanwhile, receiving ongoing inquiries regarding instituting community gardens in locations
other than City public parks, and recognized that this use could be beneficially located in many
zone districts, on private, quasi-public, and public properties, to better serve Fresno's residents.
While workshop drafts of the 2035 General Plan Healthy Communities and Economic
Development & Sustainability elements have been compiled, these draft plan elements and
proposed Development Code Update provisions have not been initiated; they have not been
fully reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies; no CEQA review has been completed for
them; and they have not been adopted. Therefore, they do not yet have any force or effect and
cannot be relied upon or used to evaluate or approve proposals to create community gardens.
Until "community garden" is a use classified in the Zoning Ordinance, the Development and
Resource Management Department does not have the authority to approve this activity on
private properties. This leaves many potential garden sites throughout Fresno unused.
Current planning staff has repeatedly explained that the project sponsor had no intention of
being an interloper on the matter, and there was no "political ploy" involved in adding community
gardens to the text amendment. There is no "differential treatment of one private developer"
involved in Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02. Any party, public or private, may apply
for a text amendment and that application may be modified by the Director through the early
project consultation and scoping stage.
The DARM Planning Manager asked if this project sponsor would include "community gardens"
in his text amendment application, because the DARM department was aware that the use was
becoming more popular and more important for household food security in Fresno, but no other
public or private party had paid the fees necessary to process the text amendment to add
"community gardening" to the Zoning Ordinance. The City itself did not have funds available to
process a text amendment for "community gardens" on its own.
Each successive draft of the text amendment was provided to the City's Long Range Planning
staff for review, and the comment received was that it was consistent with the policy direction of
the pending 2035 General Plan and Development Code Updates. Long Range Planning
management did not inform the Current Planning staff that there had been any commitments
made regarding delaying the classification of "community garden," nor did the City's General
Plan Update website indicate that there had been any appointed advisory body working on the
issue.
As the October 10, 2013 report to the City Council demonstrates, the text amendment achieves
implementation of almost all of the draft policies for community gardens outlined in the 2035
General Plan Healthy Communities Element, with the exception of allowing livestock up to 25
Ibs, changing the Master Fee Schedule, and limiting community gardens to two (2) acres in size.
Through the ongoing public review of the draft 2035 General Plan and Development Code
Update, further refinements in zoning regulations for "community gardens" may be achieved.
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 has simply expedited the classification of this use by
developing the definition, proposing a range of zone district classifications that would be useful
Response to the September 18, 2013/etter signed by multiple parties Page 1
for implementing community gardens in proximity to residents, and elaborating appropriate
requirements for this use in consultation with responsible and trustee agencies.
Regarding point "2," on the second page of the September 181elter signed by multiple parties:
It is within the discretion of the Development and Resource Management to scope and draft text
amendments that are initiated by the Director. The DARM Department has processed several
"omnibus" text amendments over the past decade (nicknamed "Variety Pak" text amendments)
to increase cost effectiveness and to reduce demands on staff time. In this case, the two uses
being classified, agriculture with community gardening, are very similar. Both involve cultivation
of land on parcels of all size. The range of agricultural activity is a continuum: some of
Fresno's existing community gardens are larger than some of the smallest sites engaged in
agriculture (i.e., being farmed for income as a business proposition).
All cultivation done at a scale beyond private backyard gardening for personal enjoyment can
affect nearby land; the text amendment makes it clear that all parties engaging in cultivation
activities have responsibility for potential resource and neighbor impacts. Those impacts are
scalable; many provisions of the text amendment's special standards of practice and regulation
would not apply to non-mechanized cultivation or operations where no pesticides are employed.
Consideration of both uses with a single text amendment and environmental assessment is
appropriate and even necessary, because:
Both uses can occur on any size of parcel (Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02
does not propose minimum or maximum acreages for either use because the potential
scale of cultivation activities under either use is variable.);
Both uses can generate dust (Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 does not
prohibit use of mechanized equipment, and small hand-held mechanized equipment
used in a community garden can generate considerable dust.);
Both uses may involve pesticides and fertilizers (Even organic farming utilizes
compounds classified as pesticides, and manures and compost are fertilizers which can
have deleterious effects if application and runoff are not controlled.);
Both uses have the potential to generate stormwater runoff (Text Amendment
Application No. TA-13-02 provides performance standards for drainage from small
parcels, and a formal grading permit for parcels over 1 acre in size commensurate with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements for grading.);
Both uses have the potential to over-use water;
Both uses can involve associated retail activity;
Both uses may occur in airport safety zones and require wildlife hazard mitigation to
prevent aircraft bird strikes;
Both uses require safeguards against being instituted on land formerly contaminated by
hazardous material use or disposal;
Both uses may involve fencing; etc.
As noted above, the pending Development Code update provides ample opportunity to further
refine classifications of agricultural uses and implement a new classification for "urban
agriculture." Current Planning staff did not find a clear-cut definition of "urban agriculture" that
would fit within the scope of the text amendment and its proposed environmental finding. For
instance, the "urban agriculture" advocate has requested adding poultry that could be raised in
Response to the September 18, 2013 letter signed by multiple parties Page 2
backyard "urban agriculture" operations. That would have required a much more in-depth
environmental review, taking potential poultry and livestock diseases/pests, animal waste and
offal disposal, and requiring modification of Fresno Municipal Code provisions located in
chapters other than the Zoning Ordinance.
Regarding point "3," on the second and third pages of the letter signed by multiple parties:
The following response to the September 18, 2013 "Leadership Counsel" letter will suffice to
address this point. It is noted that this letter signed by multiple parties was submitted to the
DARM department during lunch hour on September 18, but the longer letter by "Leadership
Counsel" did not arrive until after 4 p.m.
Regarding point "4," on the third page of the September 18 letter signed by multiple parties:
There is no rezoning, nor any "effective" rezoning, of residential parcels and the text
amendment does not interfere with implementation of the Housing Element. The 2025 Fresno
General Plan recognized that residential construction would not occur immediately on all
agricultural and rural residential land located within the City's entire 140+ square mile Sphere of
Influence boundary, and provided policy direction that encouraged ongoing agricultural use of
property which was not yet built out. By adding "agriculture" and "community garden" to the
range of permissible uses in residential zone districts, Text Amendment Application does not
change the zoning classification or the plan designation of property having residential zoning.
For the past decade, active agricultural operations have been cleared with alacrity to make way
for housing projects in the City of Fresno; the existence of farming on property has not impeded
buildout of housing according to assigned plan designations and zoning. Text Amendment
Application No. TA-13-02 merely provides for interim agricultural use and community gardening
use on available land which may have residential zoning, according to policy direction in the
2025 Fresno General Plan and agricultural land mitigation measures in the Master
Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) certified for that General Plan.
When the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2006-130 to allow continued administration of
Williamson Act contracts on land annexed to the city and rezoned to residential and other urban
there was likewise no rezoning in fact or in effect of those parcels from residential to agricultural
use--in consideration of the fact that it is possible to cancel a Williamson Act contract summarily,
and that virtually all of the Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts located within Fresno's
Sphere of Influence have already had Notices of Nonrenewal filed. When the City Council
approved Ordinance Bill No. 2008-10 to enact the ANX (Annexed Rural Residential Transitional
Overlay) District to allow for continuing agricultural use of rural residential properties, there was
no removal of this residential-zoned land from the inventory of land planned and zoned to
construct housing within the City's corporate boundaries.
Neither the preceding Resolution or Ordinance Bill rendered those parcels un-available for
housing; they merely provided for interim agricultural use until housing was constructed on the
land. Those parcels will not be removed in fact or in effect from the Housing Element inventory
of land available to construct homes. Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 will also have
no effect on availability of land that could be developed for housing. The following pages depict
City of Fresno tentative tract map and final tract map activity. Pursuant to State law and City
ordinance, the tentatively approvals of these maps have been extended several years and they
are developable as soon as a final tract map application may be approved for them.
Response to the September 18, 2013 fetter signed by multiple parties Page 3
.3
01='

--;D,=J
==.
TtlltIun..".

_
o
f..!=t
Central
..

'-'-.........""', "")." -
,"Jr. "_.
Tentative Map Activity
City of Fresno
Public Works Department
NOTE: Parcels with diagonal red and yellow striping, denoting "Annexation Required: remain under Fresno
County jurisdiction and zoning; those parcels have no restrictions with regard to agricultural activities
except as the Fresno County Zoning Ordinance regulates uses, as Williamson Act contract restrictions
on non-agricultural uses may apply, and as federal, state, regional, and local agency regulations may
pertain to farming.
Final Map Activity 1990-2013
City of Fresno
Public Works Oeparunent
e
"
l'! s
.
"'
i
<
0
o
{;

c,
'"
0 c
0
<0
<0
..
Ne.SO
Bu1b.rd
j j
cr<r.tetlj

Nielsen
...
,,,, ,
.::;..........-:: =". .

C4!n:rJ!1
F"maJ Jjbps
lliZllJ

Ia
Zl ll
_%lIO
1 I "'"
11=
-=
1.=
-=
1iiI!!!!I=

I",:,.<'.}.',':' !2X<l-2:Xl1
t.w4J esc-uss

Su:lnr
A ~ " "
411'",;:-'\> \\ ,
t.,;;::- LEADERSHIP COUNSEL
----FOR---
~ JUSTICe'" ACCOllNTAHlLlTY
September 18, 2013
SENT VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Sandra Brock, Planner
City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department
City Hall
Fresno, California 93721
Re: Comments on Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02
Dear Ms. Brock:
We are writing to submit comments on behalf of Concerned Citizens of West Fresno pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 in order to assist the City of
Fresno Planning Commission in making its decision as to whether to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02. These
comments aim to identify for the Planning Commission potentially significant environmental
impacts of the Project, as called for by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15204(b).
In particular, these comments address the potentially significant impacts on City residents and
other vulnerable populations, including but not limited to the existing and future residents of the
area surrounding the "Mission Ranch" Property which the Project Sponsor would conduct
almond orchard operations pursuant to this ordinance.
CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) where there is
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the Project may
have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code 2I080(d)). CEQA creates a low
threshold for preparation of an EIR and an agency's "decision not to require an EIR can be
upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." Sierra Club v. County of
Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.d" 1307, 1316-1317. Here, this Project at issue would permit
commercial agriculture - an activity associated with numerous and significant environmental and
health impacts' - in residential and open space zone districts city-wide without restriction as to
1 See e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Agricnltural Nonpoint Source Factsheet, March 2005,
hllp://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agricultureJacts.cfmllagrunnff; Joanna Jurewicz, et al, Prenatal and Childhood
Exposure lO Pesticides and Neurobehavioral Development: Reviewof Epidemiological Studies, Intl Journal Occup.
Med. & Envtl Health, Vol. 21, Iss. 2 (Jul 2008) (The findings of the studies reviewed imply that children's exposure
to pesticidesmaybring about impairments in their neurobehavioral development); Michael Alavanja, et al, Health
Effects of Chronic Pesticide Exposure: Cancer and Neurotoxicity, Ann. Review ofPub. Health, (Apr 2004) Vol. 23,
155-197 (Epidemiologic studiesindicate that, despite premarket animal testing, current exposures areassociated
with risks to hnman health): Natural Resources Defense Council, Our Children at Risk, The Five Worst
Environmental Threats to Their Health, November 25, 1997, Ch. 5, htlp://www.nrdc.nrglheallh/kids/ocar/chap5.asp
Development and Resource Management Department, City of Fresno
Page 2
scale or variety and, absent another finding, should trigger comprehensive environmental
. ,
review.:
Furthermore, the concentration of vacant, residential parcels (thc parcels impacted by this
Proposed Text Amendment) in the Western and Southern portions of the City (see Attachment 2,
MND), areas with the highest rates of poverty and greatest existing pollution burdens, adds to the
potential for the project to create individually and cumulatively significant environmental
impacts. The proximity of the Mission Ranch Property to residential subdivisions, schools, and
places of worship and a new Veterans Home that also implicates potential significant impacts for
which the MND does not adequately account or provide adequate mitigation measures.
Therefore, The City Planning Commission and Council must decline to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and must require the preparation of an EIR or an amended Mitigated
Negative Declaration in order to fully ascertain the potential significant environmental impacts
of the Project and adopt adequate mitigation measures under CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code
21080(d), CCR 15064(a)(I)).
!: Separate Text Amendments Are Necessary to regulate Community Garden and
Commercial Agricultural Uses
As noted in correspondence submitted by Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
along with several other organizations and residents, consideration ofone text amendment to
address both community gardens and conventional commercial agriculture is not appropriate
given the distinct natures, purposes, and environmental impacts of these activities. We will
therefore direct the comments included herein to proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to Commercial Agriculture.
II. Failure to Consider Potential Impact of Text Amendment
The proposed text amendment allows for commercial agricultural uses on all vacant residentially
zoned and open space zoned properties with no further discussion or distinctions of agricultural
use by type or scale. Any environmental review must include a complete analysis that takcs into
account the full breadth ofpossible environmental impacts that could occur as a result ofthe
proposed change. With no parameters for the nature of the agricultural operations that will occur
pursuant to the proposed Text Amendment, the environmental effects offarming generically, at
any scale and of any type, that may occur pursuant to the Text Amendment cannot be adequately
assessed. Indeed the MND frequently refers to agriculture generally with no indication of
potential variations in impacts of projects depending on scale and nature. The MND thereby
does not fulfill its purpose of enabling decision-makers understand and appropriately mitigate
potential significant impacts of the proposed Project.
2Wilh thesecomments, we do not concede that thechangetheText Amendment proposes - by-right commercial
agriculture of any scale inresidential zone districts - couldinanycircumstance be appropriate, particularly given the
extremedegreeof environmental stressors already concenlrated incertain areas of thisCity.
Page 3
For a sufficient environmental assessment to be possible under CEQA, the Text Amendment
must be revised to include specific definitions of the agricultural activities permitted that include
parameters according to scale and type of agricultural activity.
III. Lack of Citations to Reference Materials Undermine the Utility of the MND
The page of the MND entitled "Evaluation of Potential Impacts" indicates that a "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. While a List of Agencies and Sources
Consulted is attached to the end of MND, few citations to references are included in the body of
the MND, including the discussion and identification of mitigation measures, and no citations
with page numbers are provided, leaving the reader to guess or wonder about what supporting
materials the MND's author rests her discussion, conclusions, and mitigation measures. A new
MND must be issued with citations that identify for the public and decision-makers the
supporting authority relied upon throughout the MND.
IV. The MND Lacks Adequate Assessment of Potentially Significant Cumulative
Effects
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines require consideration of cumulative
impacts when a project's incremental effects, when viewed in connection with the effects of
other past, current, and probably future projects, are cumulatively significant. Pub. Resources
Code 15130. The MND's assessment of potential cumulative impacts of the Project is limited
to a general reference to itself, the MND, and the mitigation measures contained therein with no
further explanation (p. 45). As discussed further below, the MND lacks adequate analysis of and
mitigation measures for potential cumulative impacts of the project under CEQA.
V. Mitigation Measures Providing for Requirements in Zoning Ordinance Not
Sufficient
The MND states that, "the City has not taken zoning enforcement action" against annexed
vineyards and orchards which do not comply with the zoning ordinance because the properties
have been zoned for residential uses (p. 11). The City's open admission that it does not enforce
its own rules and regulations as they relate to agricultural activities calls into question the
efficacy ofmitigation measures relied upon in throughout the MND that require compliance by
agricultural operators with proposed and existing Municipal Code provisions in order to bring
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, such mitigation
measures are not in and of themselves sufficient. At a minimum, an adequate MND must
provide for additions to the Text Amendment that would require City enforcement ofthe
requirements incorporated as mitigated measures therein.
VI. Impacts on Visual Aesthetics on Surrounding Residential Land-Uses and
Schools
The MND finds that the Project will have "No Impact" with respect to the visual character or
quality of sites subject to development under the Ordinance and surrounding sites (p. 6). The
Page 4
MND explains that this is so, "because the height of crops associated with agricultural uses are
consistent with, or less than, those of current viewsheds in the City" (Id.). This assessment does
not account for the potentially significant visual impacts on residential land-uses, schools, or
other sites of barbed wire fences and other fences which the Staff Report and Text Amendment
indicate will be used on properties with agricultural land-uses.
Neither does the MND consider or incorporate mitigation measures for the potential impacts
vehicle and truck traffic to and from previously vacant land. The Project Sponsor for this Text
Amendment would pursue the development and operation of a 360 acre almond orchard with
50,000 trees and result in vehicle and truck traffic on and off-site for the transportation of
employees, supplies, waste materials, and product. The traffic generated by this one
development alone will create significant impacts to the visual aesthetics for residents of
surrounding properties through the presence of income and outgoing vehicles in and of
themselves and through the likely impacts sustained by roadways. While the impacts of this one
development alone are potentially individually significant, the impacts will be cumulatively
significant as well considering the existing substantial truck traffic through residential streets in
that area. The MND includes no analysis ofor mitigation measures with respect to the visual or
other impacts that may occur from the full scope of agricultural operations that will be initiated
and conducted pursuant to this text amendment.
VII. Impacts on Air Quality on Nearby Schools and Residential Communities
This Project is located in area designated as in Extreme Non-Attainment of federal and state
clean air standards and with high levels of childhood and adult asthma and asthma mortality.
(MND p. 13) According to the MND, this results in the frequent contraindication ofphysical
activity, which itself has secondary cardiopulmonary effects. (p. 14). The adverse impacts of
poor air quality on human health is exacerbated by the elevated proportion of sensitive persons
(children and elderly) in the local population. Id. Given Fresno's existing poor air quality and
high ratio of sensitive individuals, the MND must thoroughly consider the Project's potential air
quality impacts, including cumulative impacts, and adopt sufficient mitigation measures to
reduce impacts to less than significant. As discussed below, the MND fails to do so.
a. Air Quality Impacts from PesticideApplications
The MND states that, "there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the proposed project
could have an adverse effect on health and safety with regard to hazardous materials, given
compliance with pesticide labelling and regulations." In fact, though the MND does not cite to
such materials, a myriad of health impacts have been repeatedly documented with proximity to
pesticide applications for agricultural operations (p. 27). The drift of spray and dust from
pesticide applications can expose people, wildlife, and the environment to pesticide residues that
can cause health and environmental effects and property damage.' Hospitals, schools, daycare
J U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide Spray and Dust Drift, 2009,
htlp://www.epagov/pesticides/factsheets/spraydrift.htm#actions
Page 5
facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities, known as "sensitive receptors". have
populations found to be especially sensitive to the effects ofhannful air contaminants, including
pesticides. Special precautions must be taken when dealing with contaminants and pollutants in
close proximity to areas recognized as sensitive receptors. 4
The existence of state laws and regulations, upon which the MND bases a number of its
mitigation measures on this subject have not been sufficient to prevent negative health impacts of
pesticides' Further, the MND's indication that. "The existing great extent of interface between
agricultural activities and residences in Fresno has caused no hazardous release incidents
involving cultivation activities" (p. 27), does not account for immediate and long-term impacts
of pesticide exposure through drift and potential significant individual and cumulative impacts
from enhanced pesticide applications in residential zone districts that may occur as a result of
this Text Amendment.
Over 50 types of pesticides are used just in the cultivation of almond trees. These pesticides
include but are not limited to 1,3 Dichloropropene or 1,3 D, a known carcinogen and neurotoxin
with developmental and reproductive toxicity and Chlorpyrifos, a hormone dispruptor and
neurotoxin." This does not include the hundreds of pesticides that could potentially be used for
other agricultural operations on residentially zoned land and thus permitted by this text
amendment.
According to the recently released CalEnviroScreen, the zip code that encompasses the proposed
almond ranch and other vacant, residentially zoned properties is already among the top 10% of
zip codes in California negatively impacted by pesticides and other environmental stressors."
Increased agricultural activities in these areas resulting from the adoption of the Text
Amendment, would lead to a corresponding increase in air contaminants associated with
pesticide applications. Given the poor air quality of Fresno as a whole and the existence of
neighborhoods in the Southern areas of the City burdened by particularly poor air quality and
pesticide exposure, such an increase in contaminants could constitute an individually and
cumulatively significant impact. The planned Mission Ranch almond orchard stands would have
potential significant air quality impacts on residents in adjacent subdivisions, children at Sunset
Elementary School, and the disabled, elderly, and ill at the Veterans Home.
The MND does not include adequate consideration of and mitigation measures to address the
serious air quality impact of pesticide applications from agricultural operations. The MND relies
in large part on the operator compliance with laws and regulations enforced by government
4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, What Are Sensitive Receptors?
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/eco/uep/sensitivereceptors.html
S See e.g. references sited in Footnote 1.
b Pesticide Action Network Pesticides Database- California Pesticide Use,
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_ChemUse.jsp?Rec_Id=PC336 I0
'Mark Grossi, California EPA puts West Fresno atop cities with high health risks, Mar. 17,2013, Sacramento Bee.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/17/5269301/caIifornia-epa-puts-west-fresno.html; to view a statewide map with
CalEnviroScreen 1.1 indicator databyzipcode, visit
htlp://oehha.rnaps.arcgis.comiappslOnePanelbasicviewer/index.html?appid=Id202d7d9dc84 120ba5aac97f8b39c56
Page 6
agencies other than the City with little to analysis as to whether such reliance is reasonable and
whether and how, if compliance occurs, mitigated of the specific impact at issue will be result.
The MND does not explain why its buffer zone mitigation measures to prevent blockage of street
and pedestrian right-of-ways will adequately mitigate impacts on nearby sensitive populations
nor is a street width sufficient buffer space to do so. The buffer zone provision furthermore
applies only to "permanent" crops, which are not clearly defined, rendering the provision
enforceable.
To adequately mitigate the individually and cumulatively significant impacts of pesticide
applications resulting from the Project on air quality and resident health, the MND must adopt
the following measures:
Require buffer zone distances of at least \4 mile from residential areas and at least Y, mile
from sensitive public areas such as schools, places of worship, and hospital or elderly
populations.
Require buffer zones distances at a 95% protection level or above for each pesticide
application as set forth by the Department of Pesticide Regulation mitigation standards
for each chemical.
Permit and enforce only Total Impenetrable Film (T1F) fumigant applications.
Require and enforce that pesticide spray jets be shut off when turning around at the end
of crop rows.
Notify residents in all threshold languages at least one week in advance of application
time to provide residents adequate time to plan (i.e., ensure windows are sealed, kids are
inside, etc.),
b. Air Quality Impactsfrom Dust
As noted by the MND, agricultural activities such as tillage, harvesting, application ofsprays and
dusts, ground sweeping and other activities conducted pursuant to this Text Amendment will
likely cause dust which may impact surrounding residential school and other sensitive
populations (p. 15). Fugitive dust - dust suspended in the air by wind or human activities - can
reduce visibility and thereby create hazardous road conditions, impact human health if inhaled,
and deposit itself on surrounding property requiring costly clean-up measures. B The MND does
not discuss or address these potential significant impacts. During the meeting that took place on
September 5, 2013 with City planning staff and community advocates, the Fresno County
Agricultural Commissioner confirmed that an operation such Granville's proposed Mission
Ranch almond orchard will result in dust impacting residents of surrounding properties. The
Commissioner suggested that residents could close their windows for the duration of any dust
events.
As a mitigation measure for air quality impacts associated with dust, the MND states that the
proposed Text Amendment would prohibit mechanized cultivation activities that could generate
S California Air Resource Board, Fugitive Dust Control Self-Inspection Handbook, p. 1.
Page 7
fugitive dust when "moisture levels are too low to adhere dust particles to surfaces and when
wind speed is 12 mph or greater and capable of entraining dust" (p. 16). This mitigation, based
off of one study from Maricopa, Arizona, will not adequately mitigate the potentially significant
effects (and in the estimation of the Agricultural Commissioner, likely significant effects) of air
quality impacts ofdust associated with this Text Amendment (p. 16). The phrase, "when
moisture levels are too low to adhere dust particles to surfaces" is insufficiently clear to provide
direction to enforcement staff or farm operators. Further, advocates for safe farming practices
state that potential impacts of fugitive dust arise at wind speeds around 5 mph, significantly
lower than the 12 mph provided by the MND.
To adequately mitigate potential significant air quality impacts of dust resulting from this Text
Amendment, a mitigation measure should simply prohibit the use of mechanized equipment at
wind speeds above 5 mph.
c. Air Quality Impacts from Vehicle Emissions
The MND includes no discussion of or mitigation measures for potential air quality impacts of
vehicle emissions associated with agricultural operations on previously vacant land that would
take place pursuant to the Text Amendment. The 360 acre 50,000 tree almond orchard planned
by the Project Sponsor would seemingly result in significant car and truck traffic and associated
air quality impacts at a now unoccupied site, with concentrated localized impacts. In an area of
the City recognized for its extremely poor air quality" and in a region designated as Extreme
Non-Attainment of national air quality standards, these impacts would likely also constitute
cumulatively significant impacts. Other operations initiated pursuant to this Ordinance may also
result in potentially significant air quality impacts when considered both individually and
cumulatively. The MND must be supplemented to include adequate discussion and analysis of
potential air quality impacts from vehicle emissions and include appropriate mitigation measures.
d. Air Quality Impacts from Hazardous Materials
The MND provides the following measure to mitigate potentially significant impact of
cultivation of hazardous material sites:
"If a property appears on one of the agency lists that comprise the overall list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, any
re-use of the contaminated site requires approval of the agency with clean up jurisdiction.
Mitigation for this potential impact is to augment the proposed special standards of
practice regulation to require that properties proposed for cultivation not be on the list of
hazardous materials sites or if they are, require that the appropriate registration agency
provide a clearance letter affirming that persons involved in cultivation activity and
? See California Environmental Protection Agency, CalEnviroScrcen 1.0dataset.
Page 8
persons consuming the produce grown on the site would not be adversely impacted by
any hazardous material residues on the premises." (p. 28)
This mitigation measure does not account for potentially significant impacts of fugitive dust
from hazardous waste sites on nearby sensitive receptors. The EPA has recognized that soil
particles from contaminated surfaces of hazardous waste sites can be entrained into the air,
transported offsite by the wind, and result in human exposure by direct inhalation. I 0 High levels
of activity that disturb the surface (such as agricultural cultivation) will exacerbate this.
To adequately mitigate potentially significant impacts of the Project relating to human exposure
to hazardous materials, the MND must adopt a mitigation measure that protects nearby sensitive
receptors as well as potential employees and consumers.
e. Mitigation Measures Requiring Compliance With State Law Are Insufficient
The MND asserts generally that applicable state laws and Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
regulations "should mitigate air pollutants" from the Project, "as the APCD Rules form the main
strategy for attaining National and State Ambient Clean Air Standards," while not providing
citation to specific laws or regulations or explaining how exactly those laws or regulations will
mitigate the potentially significant impact to less than significant (p. 15). On the other hand, the
MND acknowledges that the Project area is designated as in Extreme Non Compliance with
these standards and that compliance in the region is not anticipated until the year 2024.
Mitigation measures requiring compliance with state law and Air District rules and regulations
then will not necessarily result in the mitigation of Project-specific potentially significant
impacts. Further, without the incorporation of provisions requiring City enforcement of
compliance with these laws, rules, and regulations, the mitigation measure would not in fact
ensure any additional mitigation of Project air quality impacts from that now provided by said
laws, rules, and regulations.
VIII. Potential Soil Depletion from Pesticide and Fertilizer Intensive Agriculture
The MND states that. "Since those cultivating land at any scale work to improve soul quality to
improve moisture retention, deep drainage capacity, and nutrients, the proposed project would
improve soil conservation practices." (p. 21) The MND cites no support for its claim that "those
cultivating land at any scale work to improve soil quality". Agricultural impacts on soil quality
in fact vary based on the nature ofthe agriculture, with chemical intensive and monoculture
agriculture tending contribute to soil erosion!'. The MND must address soil quality impacts
associated according to the range of agricultural activities that would be permitted under the Text
Amendment
10 EPA Handbook Dust Conlrol at Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA.540/2-85/003 Nov. 1985
II See, e.g., Lobb, Soil movement by tillage and other agricultural activities. (2009) Applications in Ecological
Engineering. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-444-534484, Blanco, et ai, Tillage erosion. Principles of Soil
Conservation and Management. (20 I0) Springer. ISBN 97890-481-8529-0.
Page 9
IX. Impacts on Green House Gas Emissions from Increased Car and Truck Traffic
and Chemical Pesticide and Fertilizer Use
Without citing to any supporting authority, the MND states, "In and of itself, the proposed text
amendment would mitigate global climate change by improving vegetative cover on otherwise
bare [and in Fresno, serving as a means of 'carbon capture:". Regardless of whether any given
agricultural operation would entail carbon capture and mitigate global climate change (some
sources indicate that agriculture actually contributes to climate changej'", the MND does not
examine potential Green House Gas Emissions (GHG) associated with increases in vehicle
traffic to and from agricultural land-uses conducted pursuant to this Text Amendment and
cursorily states that "updated engine and tire efficiency standards would apply to vehicles that
travel to the cultivated properties." (p. 25). As mentioned above, this Text Amendment could
residential in a significant increase in car and truck traffic to and from properties developed
pursuant thereto, including the to and from the almond orchard at the Mission Ranch property the
Project Sponsor would develop and operate, and consequently to greenhouse gas emissions
impacting climate change. Furthermore, chemical pesticide and fertilize production and use in
agriculture is also associated with GHGs. 13 The MND must adequately consider these potential
impacts and provide suitable mitigation measures.
X. Impacts on Hydrology and Water QuaUty
a. Impacts 011 Groundwater Levels
The MND states that the aquifer level has been declining and localized water supply limitations
with low well yields and limited storage capacity in portions of the semi-confined aquifer have
evolved. As a mitigation measure for potential groundwater depletion resulting from the
agricultural operations conducted pursuant to the Text Amendment, the Text Amendment
provides for the payment ofa recharge fee or an "alternative measure" at the discretion of the
City of Fresno Department of Public Works Water Division (p. 33). No definition of"alternative
measure" is provided. To serve as an effective and enforceable mitigation measure, the
provision must clearly define and justify the "alternative measures" that fall within the measure.
b. Impacts 011 Groundwater Quality
The MND states that surface water treatment and distribution has been implemented in the
northeastern part of the City, but the City is still subject to an EPA Sole Source Aquifer
designation (p. 30). The Sole Aquifer Designation applies in areas with few or no alternative
sources to the ground water resource, and where if contamination occurred, using an alternative
source would be extremely expensive. EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one
12Sec, e.g., Food andAgriculture Organization, WorldAgriculture: Towards 20]5/2013
hltp:/Iwww.fao.orgldocrep/004/y3557e/y3557ell.htm
D Audsely, et al. Estimation of thegreenhouse gas emissions from agricultural pesticidemanufacture and use.
Cranfield University, Petersborough. 2009.
Page 10
which supplies at least fifty percent (50%) of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying
the aquifer. "These areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) which could
physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking
water.''"
The MND reports that adverse groundwater conditions in the City have been documented and
groundwater degradation has occurred in the region due to pollution from pesticides, on-site
nitrates, and the overuse of fertilizers on domestic and agricultural properties (p. 30-31). It
further states that Fresno also has naturally occurring contaminants such as arsenic, iron,
uranium and manganese and that increasingly stringent water quality regulations have greatly
increased the cost and difficulty ofsupplying municipal needs via water wells (p. 31).
Though the MND recognizes the degraded water quality in groundwater in certain areas of the
City and that agricultural activities have contributed to this degradation, the MND does not touch
upon potential impacts of groundwater degradation through pesticide and fertilizer seepage into
the water table. The MND must include specific mitigation measures to protect groundwater
quality from further degradation from new agricultural activities pursuant to the Proposed Text
Amendment.
As in other areas of the document, the MND identifies mitigation measures for groundwater
quality impacts that rely on or require compliance with other government agencies', such as the
Fresno County Certified Unified Program Agency and Fresno Agricultural Commissioner's,
rules and regulations. The MND must explain how such compliance will mitigate to less than
significant the specific impacts considered and include additional requirements that the City
enforce compliance for continued operations to be permitted.
XI. Impacts on Compliance with Land Use and Planning Rnles
In answer to whether the Text Amendment would conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, including but not limited to
the GP, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)", the MND states, "No
Impact" (p. 34). In support of this finding, the MND asserts that the Text Amendment would
further a number of 2025 General Plan goals and General Plan Policy G-6-a. The 2025 General
Plan goals and policy cited are not in fact enhanced by this Text Amendment, which in fact runs
counter to their purpose.
Goal I: Enhance the quality oflife for the citizens ofFresno and plan for the projected
population within the moderately expanded Fresno urban boundary in a manner which
will respect physical. environmental.fiscal, economic and social issues."
As explained in this letter, the location of commercial agriculture of unlimited scale on
residential zoned properties and in immediate proximity to sensitive residential, school,
and other populations will not enhance the quality of life for Fresnans; will not "plan for
1 ~ California EPA, http://www.epa.gov/region2/water/aquiferl
Page I I
the project population" as it will eliminate housing opportunities; and will not do so in a
manner that respects physical, environmental and social issues of residents who may be
negatively impacted by enhanced agricultural operations.
Goal J0: Provide quality open space, park and recreationalfacilities and programs to
Large scale agriculture permitted in open spaces will not increase but actually limit space
for recreational opportunities and further degrade air quality, thus undermining healthy
participation in open space, park and recreational activities and programs.
Goal JJ. Protect, preserve, and enhance significant biological.. ..and critical natural
resources, including but not limited to air, water, agricultural soils, minerals, lants and
wildlife resources.
As discussed in this letter, expanding permissible agricultural uses to residentially zoned
property will threaten air, water, and soil quality.
Goal 14. Protect and improve public health and safety.
Air, water, and soil quality impacts of additional agricultural operations in residential
zone areas runs counter to public health as does restricting available housing
opportunities through use of residential zone sites for agricultural activities.
Goal 15. Recognize, respect andplanfor Fresno's cultural. social. and ethnic diversity
State and federal civil rights laws prohibit government action that would discriminate
against or result in a discriminatory impact based on race, ethnicity or other protected
status. As a significant amount of vacant residentially zoned parcels that would be
subject to this Text Amendment, including the proposed 360 acre almond orchard, are
located in West Fresno, the area of the City with the highest concentration of racial and
ethnic minorities, West Fresno residents stand to be most greatly impacted by the
negative environmental and health impacts of agricultural activities in residential zoned
areas, In that sense, the Text Amendment does not "recognize, respect and plan for
Fresno's cultural, social, and ethnic diversity" but rather threatens to violate state and
federal civil rights law.
G-6-a Policy: Allowfor continued agricultural use ofvacant land in the city consistent
with standards for the protection ofthe environment, public safety and well-being, and
the planned orderly and efficient development ofthe urban area. (p. 35)
As indicated above, the Text Amendment is not consistent with standards for the
protection of the environment, public safety and well-being.
Noise Impacts
The MND's section addressing potential noise impacts of the proposed Text Amendment does
not address noise impacts from potential car and truck traffic generated by new agricultural
Page 12
operations near residential, school, and hospital facilities and places of worship. The MND must
consider and include adequate mitigate measures for noise-related impacts.
Impacts on Population and Honsing
In response to the question of whether the proposed Project will "displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere", the MND
concludes there will be "No Impact" and states:
"The project would not result in diminution of the inventory ofland available to construct
housing, because it would not involve amending the planned land use to anything other
than residential or zoning the land to anything other than residential."
The fact that the Project would not involve amending the planned land use from residential
zoning has no bearing on the practical reality that this Text Amendment will permit land
designated for residential land use to be developed and occupied for agricultural operations, thus
diminishing in practice, whether in the near or long-term, the land available to construct housing.
The MND also states:
"Property with residential zoning and provision for urban utilizes is more cost-effective
to develop with homes than property that has not been zoned or pre-zoned for residential
use. Therefore when market demand and financial conditions support development of
housing on this land, cultivation activities would end and planned residential
development would proceed as provided by its assigned residential zoning. For this
reason, its interim use tor cultivation would not induce population growth outside of
areas planned for residential uses. No mitigation is required for population and housing
impacts." (p. 39)
This statement offers bare promises without matching factual support. Despite the Staff Report
and MND's characterization of such agricultural operations, including those ofthe prospective
Mission Ranch almond orchard, as "interim", the MND provides no explanation for the meaning
of "interim" for its purposes or any guarantee as to when land zoned residential will in fact be
used for residential purposes if at all. Further, the MND includes no analysis, discussion or
mitigating measures to address possible negative impacts agriculture use may have to the
residential property market for the site and surrounding properties. The MND must be revised
accordingly.
XIV. Impacts on Recreation
The MND states that, "The proposed project will not pose any adverse impacts on recreation and
no additional mitigation is necessary... " (p. 41). As mentioned above, agricultural operations
which result in increased truck traffic and application of harmful pesticides will negatively
impact resident recreational activity. The Plan must consider this impact and provide adequate
mitigating measures in order to comply with CEQA.
Page 13
XV. Impacts on Transportation and Traffic
The MND provides that, "Land that is cultivated does not generate sufficient vehicle trips to
necessitate or justify exaction of the City's urban level of street improvements." (p. 42) The
MND cites to no supporting authority for this assertion. On the other hand, as discussed above,
the almond orchard which the Project Sponsor would pursue, not to mention increased
agricultural activity on other residentially-zoned parcels, will likely result in significant effects to
transportation levels on surrounding roadways with associated street impacts and air quality
impacts on surrounding land uses. Heightened traffic in areas of intensive agricultural operations
additionally poses a public safety risk to pedestrians and other traffic.
XVI. Failure of Existing MND to Analyze Potential Impacts and Offer
Adequate Mitigation Measures
The MND must include adequate analysis of these impacts to permit decision-makers to
understand the possible impacts and must include adequate mitigation measures or issue a
statement ofoverriding consideration. Appropriate mitigation measures include but are not
limited to exaction of development fees as merited to provide for pedestrian and traffic safety
infrastructure, such as crosswalks, street signs, and street lights, in areas which stand to
experience heightened traffic impacts from development pursuant to the Text Amendment.
Potential Violation of California Housing Element Law
The MND's statement that conversion of residential property to agricultural use misunderstands
Housing Element law. The Housing Element was adopted and approved by HCD with the
understanding that those parcels zoned residential would be available for residential development
during the approved Housing Element's planning period. Maintaining the residential zone
designation is irrelevant to the availability of the subject parcels for residential development if a
proposed use - here agricultural - will take the parcel or parcels out of contention for residential
development during the planning period, as this Text Amendment and proposed use of at least
360 acres in West Fresno would do. The City must address how it will account for the potential
loss of parcels available for residential development - especially for those parcels identified as
available for low income housing development - not only from loss to the proposed 360 acre
almond orchard but also from the potential conversion of other residentially zoned property to
agricultural use. Furthermore, the MND does not account for any remediation that would be
necessary to return subject parcels to residential use after the use of said parcels for agriculture.
XVIII. Civil Rights and Fair Housing Concerns
Approval of this mitigated negative declaration despite the concerns laid out about may result in
a disparate impact on low-income people of color, specifically the West Fresno community, and
risks violating State and Federal Fair Housing and Civil Rights Law, including Government
Code 65008, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code 12900, et seq),
Government Code 11135, and the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Page 14
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. [would be happy to meet with you to
discuss them in person. Please feel free to contact me at my office at (559) 369-2790 or
awerner@leadershipcounsel.org with any questions or to set up a time to talk.
Sincerely,
Ashley Werner
Attorney
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Staff response to the September 18, 2013 "Leadership Counsel" letter
There is no basis to require preparation of a full environmental impact report for Text
Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 because agricultural activity on land in Fresno was
analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) certified for the 2025 Fresno
General Plan. The MEIR analyzed not only a multi-decade buildout of planned urban land uses
within the Sphere of Influence (SOI)-with agricultural zoning and agricultural activity of all
scales occurring on the portions of the SOl not yet built out, pursuant to required mitigations for
preservation of important farmland-but it also assessed the goals, objectives, and policies of
the 2025 Fresno General Plan, including Policy G-6-a., for which Text Amendment Application
No. TA-13-02 is an implementation measure.
The certification of the MEIR and its mitigation strategy were previously relied upon in 2006
when the City of Fresno adopted Resolution No. 2006-130 allowing land to remain under
Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts and be actively farmed after annexation (and
reclassified into the City's residential zone districts). The certification of this MEIR was also
relied upon when the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2008-10 to create the ANX
(Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) district that allows continuation of all levels of
agricultural activity previously allowed by Fresno County agricultural and rural residential zone
districts when inhabited properties have been annexed into the City of Fresno (and reclassified
into the City's residential zone districts).
With regard to the Sierra Club v. Sonoma County case referenced: In order for the holdings of
this case to apply, there would need to be a fair argument--supported by substantial evidence in
the record--that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact. Speculation,
in and of itself, does not constitute substantial evidence. Citing academic studies which are not
relevant to the project's environmental setting or potential effects are not substantial evidence.
In an attempt to allege potential additional adverse impacts from the text amendment, the
Leadership Counsel letter cited several sources in a footnote at the bottom of pg. 1. However,
upon examination of these sources, staff does not find substantial evidence that they relate risks
inherent in the proposed project.
The U.S. EPA "Agricultural Nonpoint Source Factsheet" relates results of the year 2000
National Water Quality Inventory. Those sample data are 13 years old
(http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agriculture facts.cfm#agrunoff). The data are not
specific to California or Fresno County, where water quality protection is enhanced by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs
(which administers FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act); the
"Irrigated Lands" program administered by the California Water Boards; the CalEPA
Department of Pesticide Registration (DPR), the Fresno County Agricultural
Commissioner; the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District environmental program;
and the City of Fresno's administration of its grading and drainage ordinance. The
proposed text amendment specifically incorporates these requirements by reference.
Further, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Fresno County
Environmental Health Services (EHS), and the City of Fresno Water Division monitor
groundwater quality to safeguard against potential pesticide contamination. The
assertion that the proposed text amendment would potentiate healthlsafety or
environmental harm is speculative because there is no evidence in the record that
Fresno area agricultural operations which obey the applicable regulations would cause
adverse effects.
Response to the September 18,2013 "Leadership Counsel" letter Page 1
The Jurewicz & Hanke paper cited in the footnote was authored by medical researchers
in Lodz, Poland in 2008 who reviewed other researchers' laboratory and epidemiological
studies done throughout the world and published between 1991 through 2007
(http://versita.metapress.com/contentlg4470858487t28u4/fulltexl.pdD. These studies
involved possible exposures to all kinds of pesticides, including compounds currently
banned in the United States and California, compounds used in for household pest
control, compounds used to fog for mosquitoes, and compounds used to treat head lice
(Malathion has been used in head lice treatment lotion). The 2004 article authored by
Michael Alavanja et aI, is the same type of survey of numerous preceding studies
(http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123020 ),
with the dates of those studies ranging from 1978 through 2003 and including studies of
ingested pesticide residues on food (something that is stringently controlled by the State
of California).
These review articles represent research that was many years ago, studies that do not
reflect the current environmental and regulatory setting for agricultural activities involving
pesticides. These and more current epidemiological and laboratory studies are
considered when the DPR evaluates pesticides for registration and conducts its risk
assessments of those pesticides. A DPR webpage states, "... the bottom line is simple:
DPR will not allow a chemical to be used unless it can be used safely."
(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/mitigatingexposure.htm) In urban fringe areas in
Fresno County, human health and safety with regard to pesticide use is further protected
by Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner administration of U.S. EPA and DPR
regulations pertaining to pesticides. The proposed text amendment specifically
incorporates a special standard of practice and regulation which directs pesticide
regulation compliance. Further, the California Department of Industrial Relations and
federal agencies enforce prohibitions on underage agricultural workers handling
pesticides (see http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/ChildLaborLawPamphlet.pdf , pp. 34 et seq.).
The assertion that the proposed text amendment would potentiate health/safety or
environmental harm is speculative, because compliance with applicable regulations may
be relied upon in environmental analysis.
The November 25, 1997 Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) "Our Children at
Risk, the Five Worst Environmental Threats to Their Health" website is no longer posted
on the NRDC website, probably because it is over 12 years old and apparently is not a
point currently being contended by the NRDC. The current NRDC webpage on Food and
Agriculture (http://www.nrdc.org/food/default.asp) provides links to help people "Get
harmful chemicals out of your yard using our lawn care guide; Reduce pesticide use at
your business by following these tips." The NRDC's online information focuses on U.S.
EPA regulations, not California's more stringent pesticide regulation programs.
While the "Leadership Counsel" letter asserts that the proposed text amendment would have a
differential effect on southwest Fresno, which is not the case. The ordinance is citywide in
applicability. There is vacant land (and continuing economically significant agricultural activity)
on all quadrants of Fresno's fringe areas, including northwest Fresno; northeast Fresno and the
San Joaquin Riverbottom; and Southeast Fresno (see Attachment 2 to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02, hereinafter referred to as
the "MND").
The letters from "Leadership Counsel" reference the CalEPA "CaIEnviroScreen" database to
claim that residents in southwest Fresno have high toxic chemical exposures, including
pesticide exposures. However, the data reported for Postal Zip Code 93706 go far beyond
Response to the September 18, 2013 "Leadership Counsel" letter Page 2
Fresno's corporate boundaries Sphere of Influence (SOl), Zip Code 93706 extends as far south
as Selma and as far west as Kerman (see zip code map below), with very little of that Zip Code
area comprising a populated urban area (or Fresno SOl area). Most of Zip Code 93706 is
intensively fanmed (pursuant to its Fresno County agricultural zoning)-but, as the map shows,
the bulk of this activity lies outside the existing or planned urban area, and the pesticides
applied to those sites would not affect West Fresno residents. Since agricultural pesticide use
data are aggregated by Township, Range and Section, it is unclear how those data were
allocated to zip code in the CalEnviroScreen database. It should also be noted that pesticide
use includes applications of household pesticides.
93609
http://www.zipmap.netlCalifomia/FresnoCountv/Fresno.htm
While the "Leadership Counsel" letter asserts that the project could create potentially significant
adverse impacts, that is not the case because the text amendment incorporates standards of
practice and regulation which will protect people and resources. (It is also noted that the
"Leadership Counsel" letter did not contain an "Attachment 2, MND" [Mitigated Negative
Declaration, presumably the one proposed for EA No. TA-13-02], but there was no such
attachment to the letter. The proposed MND for Text Amendment No. TA-13-02 was included in
the September 18, 2013 report to the Fresno City Planning Commission and the October 10,
2013 Fresno City Council agenda report).
In response to point "I" on page 2 of the September 18
th
"Leadership Counsel" letter, there is no
necessity for the City of Fresno to process separate text amendments for separate uses. As a
matter of past practice, the City has aggregated text amendments regarding unrelated and even
disparate subject matter into one project, for purposes of administrative efficiency and cost
savings. In this case, the uses are quite closely related. "Agriculture," as defined by Black's
Law Dictionary, involves cultivation of land for remuneration. "Community gardening" is not
defined in that law dictionary (hence the definition proposed to be added to the City's Zoning
Ordinance) involves a group of people cultivating land for private use or remuneration.
Both uses can occur on any size of parcel (the text amendment does not propose
minimum or maximum acreage for either use, because scale of cultivation is variable).
Both uses can generate dust (there is no prohibition on use of mechanized equipment,
and small hand-held mechanized equipment used in a community garden can generate
considerable dust);
Both uses may involve pesticides and fertilizers;
Both uses have the potential to generate problematic runoff;
Both uses have the potential to over-use water;
Both uses can involve associated retail activity;
Both uses may occur in airport safety zones and require wildlife hazard mitigation;
Both uses require safeguards against being instituted on land formerly contaminated by
hazardous material use or disposal;
Both may utilize fencing; etc.
In response to point "II" on pages 2 and 3 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the
text amendment does not attempt to create an artificial distinction or definition for "commercial"
agriculture. In the first place, adding the word "commercial" would be redundant to the definition
in Black's Law Dictionary. Furthermore, given the high-quality farmland in the Fresno area,
economically positive agricultural activity can, and does, occur at a wide range of scales, from
farms comprising quarter- and half-sections of land, to small nurseries, vineyards, and orchards,
to backyard "urban farms." The crops grown on these properties change from time to time,
according to market demand, water availability, and the need to rotate commodities periodically
to preserve soil fertility and reduce crop pest populations. There is a continuum of farming in the
Fresno area, with no distinct threshold of acreage or crop that would constitute "commercial"
farming, as shown by the production statistics compiled in the 2012 Fresno County Crop and
Livestock Report. The potential impacts of agricultural activities are similarly scalable. The
applicability (and operation) of the text amendment's special standards of practice and
regulation section would adjust to the scale of agricultural activity being conducted. For
instance, operations which do not employ pesticides, or which do not meet the California Water
Board definition of "irrigated lands," would not be subject to those respective bodies of
regulation. Some consideration has been given to exempting cultivated sites under one acre in
size from a formal grading permit (one acre being the threshold for requiring that a Notice of
Intent be filed with the Water Board for grading under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System regulations), with performance standards being employed for parcels under an acre in
size to ensure that runoff is not problematic at a small scale or cumulatively.
In response to point "III" on page 3 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the draft
text amendment was circulated to responsible and trustee agencies. When no comments,
concerns, or proposed mitigation measures/project changes were submitted by a responsible or
trustee agency, the City of Fresno can reasonably conclude that a proposed project would not
cause potential adverse impacts. The discussion of potential impacts followinq each portion of
the EA provides documentation as to why there would be "no impact" for issues such as
earthquake hazard; the environmental setting discussion for the project provides a basis for
concluding no risk with regard to tsunami or seiche, and so forth. The list of sources listed at the
end of the MND is adequate for a reviewer to find confirmation of conclusions. As noted
previously, the MEIR certified for the 2025 Fresno General Plan comprehensively assessed
potential impacts of interim agricultural activity pending urban development of land within the
City's Sal, and the 2025 Fresno General Plan provided information about mineral resources,
flood hazards, and other issues which allows subsequent environmental assessments to focus
on subject areas which do have potential impacts.
In response to point "IV" on page 3 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the MEIR
certified for the 2025 Fresno General Plan comprehensively assessed potential cumulative
impacts of interim agricultural activity pending urban development of land within the City's sal.
In response to point "V" on page 3 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, it is
inappropriate to assume that the City does not enforce its land use regulations because it has
not halted farming on annexed land. The City's 2025 Fresno General Plan and MEIR mitigation
measures require that farmland (and farming) be protected and allowed on available land.
Further, The City has no authority to stop farming of annexed vineyards, orchards, etc. because
California Civil Code Section 3482.5, the California Right to Farm Act, expressly states that this
Act supersedes any local ordinances (a copy of the Right to Farm Act is attached to the MND to
substantiate this point). The City similarly has no ability to interfere with recorded Agricultural
Land Conservation Contracts entered between property owners and Fresno County.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require analysis of potential illegal
acts; there is a presumption that the law will be obeyed. To presume that laws will be violated is
speculative, and CEQA does not require analysis based on speculation. However, upon
evidence of violations cited by the agencies responsible for regulations incorporated into the text
amendment by reference, the City does have Zoning Code Enforcement citation power to add
penalties for violating the zoning ordinance, and can seek a restraining order, to ensure that
agriculture and community garden activities adhere to provisions of the special standards of
practice and regulation incorporated into Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02.
In response to point "VI" on pages 3-4, and points "XV" and "XVI" on page 13 of the
September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the viewshed of land under cultivation, with
Vineyards and orchards and field crops, is obviously an improvement of the viewshed of the
same land as a vacant lot, with weeds (perhaps disked down in the spring) and discarded
rubbish. The text amendment, therefore, has positive local and cumulative aesthetic impacts on
the community. Security wire is already permitted in many City zone districts, and the text
amendment provides measures to ensure that its use would be in locations compatible with
rural properties (which have employed this fencing material for decades, without any complaint
from area residents), by limiting its height to five feet (a lower limit than security wire permitted
to top fences in urban zone districts), its application to large, rural-scale parcels (five acres or
more), and by requiring approval of all abutting property owners.
As to potential truck traffic associated with agricultural uses, the MEIR certified for the 2025
Fresno General Plan assessed potential traffic impacts of construction and eventual buildout of
all planned land uses. Truck traffic associated with developed residential uses, and mineral
recovery use of multi-open space areas, would exceed that associated with interim use of land
for agricultural uses, pursuant to traffic generation modeling data found in the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) Manual. When the 2025 Fresno General Plan was approved and its MEIR was
certified, a finding of over-riding considerations was adopted for transportation-related impacts.
As noted previously, the MEIR's assessment of the General Plan took into account interim
agricultural use of land within the Fresno SOl, and no mitigation was deemed necessary for
agricultural levels of traffic generation.
Subsequently, as an implementation measure for General Plan policies calling for updates to its
fee program and implementation of regional traffic mitigation fees, the City of Fresno Public
Works Department revised its impact fee program to address traffic generated in fringe areas
and inner- city areas of Fresno; and the Fresno County Council of Governments Measure C
Authority adopted a regional transportation mitigation fee program to defray costs of
constructing regional transportation infrastructure. Neither of these fee programs determined a
need to assess impact fees for farm-related traffic, nor has the City of Fresno determined any
necessity to exact frontage improvement requirements for agricultural or community gardening
uses in the City (the proposed text amendment was circulated to the City's Public Works
Department for comment). The City retains review and approval authority over design and
construction of encroachments (driveway entrances) onto its public streets, to ensure safety.
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 also contains a requirement for respecting future
street rights of way and providing a pedestrian setback beyond street shoulders, which are
intended to protect line of sight visibility and pedestrian safety.
In response to point "VII" on pages 4-8 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the
MEIR certified for the 2025 Fresno General Plan assessed potential traffic impacts of
construction and eventual buildout of all planned land uses, and interim agricultural activity,
within the Fresno Sphere of Influence. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City
for Plan Amendment No. A-09-02, the Air Quality Update to the 2025 Fresno General Plan,
added further policy protections and enhanced the MEIR's mitigation strategy. Pesticide drift is
prevented by enforcement of pesticide label regulations (promulgated by the U.S. EPA and
DPR) with inspections by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner.
The footnote at the bottom of page 4 of the "Leadership Counsel" letter does not provide a
source of substantial evidence of a potential impact; this four year old EPA web page merely
outlines the reason for that agency's promulgation of regulations to prevent pesticide drift:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/spraydrift.htm#actions. As noted above, the footnoted
references on page 1 of the "Leadership Counsel" letter do not reflect the current environmental
and regulatory setting for Fresno County agricultural activities. The footnote-referenced
Pesticide Action Network website presents data which are from 2009, four years old
(http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail ChemUse.jsp?Red Id=PC33610); this also would not
reflect the current environmental and regulatory setting for agricultural activities involving
pesticides. It does note, however, the almonds have a relatively low per-acre usage of
pesticides, compared to tree fruit and vegetable field crops.
The footnote relating to the Sacramento Bee article and CalEnviroScreen did not yield data
specific to the area subject to the proposed text amendment. Much of Fresno County "scores"
poorly in the CalEnviroScreen geographic information system (GIS) map-based website, with all
of southeast Fresno, half of the City of Clovis, and half of northwest Fresno, having the same
rating as 93706 (northeast and northwest Fresno and Clovis have relatively high income levels)
http://oehha.maps.arcais.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=1d202d7d9dc8412
Oba5aac97f8b39c56 (zoom in to make the Zip Code Results map layers visible). As noted
above, Zip Code 93706 is huge in extent and is mostly comprised of farmland extending some
15 miles outside of Fresno's city limits. Only a small portion of the area covered by Zip Code
93706 is planned or developed for residential uses. For this reason, it is inappropriate to
assume that the quantity of agricultural pesticides applied over the very large 93706 Zip Code
area does, or would, affect urban residents of southwest Fresno in a disproportionate fashion.
Pesticides are highly regulated and the compounds listed on page 5 of the "Leadership
Counsel" are only permitted to be sold to, and used by, professionals holding state licenses.
Failure to comply with regulations subjects these professionals to fines and criminal penalties.
Pest control advisors, pest control applicators, and the Agricultural Commissioner's staff are
aware of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of area farms, and site-specific restrictions apply to
protect sensitive adjacent uses. Similarly, the Agricultural Commissioner will require use of
Total Impenetrable Film applications when required. The DPR and the Agricultural
Commissioner require conformance to buffer zone distances relating to 95% protection levels,
which have only been established for a few pesticides, based on a risk assessment of the need
to establish protection levels. Applications of those compounds are regulated by the Agricultural
Commissioner according to label restrictions required by the U.S. EPA and DPR. As noted
previously, an environmental assessment may rely upon compliance with applicable laws; there
is no requirement to speculate on potential impacts from noncompliance.
There is no basis or substantial evidence in the record to indicate that "shelter in place"
precautions such as closing windows and keeping children indoors would be required for
pesticide applications that conform to regulations. Pesticide drift onto other properties and
roadways is not allowed; the Agricultural Commissioner enforces standard procedures which
include turning off spray nozzles at ends of rows and distances from property boundaries as
required.
It is neither necessary nor feasible to impose a blanket requirement for one-week advance
written notice of all pesticide applications, because applications are restricted as to weather
conditions (e.g., wind speeds under 5mph), and those are not predictable a week in advance.
Determinations on these matters rest with the appropriate regulatory agencies. As noted
earlier, the City of Fresno does not have the jurisdiction or authority to impose detailed pesticide
use restrictions through a text amendment.
As shown in the map of Fresno's corporate boundary (next page), the interface between
developed portions of Fresno (with high concentrations of sensitive receptors), and actively
farmed land operating in agricultural zone districts that exist in the unincorporated area, is over
a hundred miles in extent.
In addition to the neighborhoods built within the City's boundary, large enclaves of rural
residential housing exist in the unincorporated area.
s
-'
w
Z
0:
8
z
W
W WHITESBRJDGE
W CALIFORNIA
U)
U)
E COPPER
E BEHYMER
ESHEPHERD
ENEES
E HERNDON
ESHAW
,
&KINGS C.o,NYON
ECALlFOJIA
I
ECENTRAL
Yet, even with this great extent of juxtaposition of sensitive receptors and intensive agriculture,
the California Pesticide Illness Query database (CaIPIQ) reports no non-occupational illnesses
from agricultural sources of exposure (all pesticides) in Fresno County over the past five
reporting years available on the CalPIQ website (2005 - 2010), http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/calpiq .
The Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner similarly reports no non-occupational pesticide
illnesses in its "Fresno" District for the past five years (2009 through September of 2013), which
encompasses a huge amount of land in the northeast quadrant of Fresno County, far beyond
the size of the City of Fresno sal (see map on next page).
FRDNoCOUKTY
ACRJCUl.TUR DEPARTMDfT
DIStRJC;rAREAS
The Agricultural Commissioner's investigation log for the past five years reveals:
In 2009, there was an anonymous complaint about drift onto an organic field at
CSUF from another field also located at CSUF and being grown conventionally
In 2010, there were two odor complaints involving agricultural pesticide
applications - one was southeast Fresno; one was northeast Fresno
In 2010, there was one odor complaint involving a non-cultivation site (fig packing
facility) using pesticides -located in northwest Fresno
In 2012, there was one odor complaint involving an agricultural pesticide
application -located east of Fresno
To summarize, no illnesses were reported by sensitive receptors in all the area where pesticides
are employed, and there were only four complaints relating to "pesticide smell" from cultivated
land. None of these complaints came from West Fresno.
Therefore, there is no basis or substantial evidence in the record to indicate that "buffer zones"
of y.; or Y, mile in size are necessary between agriculture and other land uses when the
pesticide registration for a compound does not call for these setbacks from sensitive uses.
Further, there is no substantial evidence to indicate that administration and enforcement of
pesticide regulations by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner and DPR is insufficient to
protect health and safety.
With regard to dust, criterion pollutants, and air toxics, the MEIR certified for the 2025 Fresno
General Plan assessed potential air quality impacts of construction and eventual buildout of all
planned land uses, as well as the interim agricultural activity that would be conducted within the
Fresno Sphere of Influence until construction of the urban uses occurred on all land within the
City's SOl, and adopted a statement of over-riding considerations for this intractable regional
problem.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration subsequently adopted for City of Fresno Plan Amendment
No. A-09-02, the Air Quality Update to the 2025 Fresno General Plan, added policy protections
and enhanced the MEIR's mitigation strategy. The MND prepared for Text Amendment
Application No. TA-13-02 discusses potential adverse impacts related to dust and applies
further mitigation beyond the Regulation VIII fugitive dust rules administered by the San Joaquin
Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
In response to the partial quote attributed to the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner at
the September 5
th
meeting of parties interested in Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-05),
(cited on page 6 of the "Leadership Counsel" letter), it is noted that certain agricultural
practices-as well as gardening/yard maintenance practices (e.g., use of leaf blowers), and
weed abatement practices on un-irrigated vacant and rural properties (e.g, disking, weed-
whacking flail mowing)-can cause intermittent generation of dust. Closing a window for the
short periods when dust is generated by any activity is a valid and practical way to keep dust out
of a house.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District administers Rule 4550, its Conservation
Management Practices Rule (http://www.valleyair.org/Generallnfo/AGLoader.htm). which
requires growers and livestock operations to formulate and follow dust control plans
incorporating specific conservation management practices to control agriculture-associated dust
(http://www.valleyair.org/farrnperrnits/applications/cmp/cmp Iist.pdf). It should also be noted
that dust control is an economically beneficial cultivation practice implemented by crop growers
themselves, because dust predisposes crops to mite infestations (information obtained from
DPR on September 23,2013).
The special standards of practice and regulation section of Text Amendment Application No.
TA-13-02 furthers mitigates potential dust from agriculture, adding a wind speed limit of 12
miles per hour (mph) for cultivation activities which could generate dust.
The 2008 Maricopa County fugitive dust study (re-affirmed by Maricopa County in 2011),
http://www.maricopa.gov/ag/divisions/planning analysis/docs/2008 PM10/App4 WindblownDu
st.pdD, has been deemed by the San Joaquin Valley APCD to be sufficiently correct as to
methodology for its conclusions to be factored into compilation of PM-10 and M-2.5 inventories
used as the basis for rulemaking in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. This study involves the
physics of wind action upon soil particles; its conclusions will remain valid (whereas, pesticide
studies become dated because crop protection is an evolving science). One finding of the
Maricopa County study is that wind speeds in excess of 12 mph are more associated with
entrained dust in rural areas; air speeds of 5 mph or less resulted in higher particulate matter
concentrations in some locations, due to stagnation conditions (see graphs on next page).
The Fresno area has lower average temperatures than Maricopa County, and more soil
moisture (due to more acres of irrigated land)-so, applying the 12 mph wind speed limit from
the Maricopa County study provides additional mitigation for dust impacts beyond the level of
dust control provided through grower compliance with San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4550.
....

Hig1eyJ\>foDitor
I
, , " ~ , ,,',""" "",'" """I '" ""'0''' '_"A""
I
i
o 2 4' 6 s 10 12 14 16 1& 20
Wind Speed (mph)
200
BuckeyeMoDitor
I
""""""'" T"?" """;':'"
I
200
~
180
~
160
..
==
140
=-"
;::-
~ e ;
120
~ ~
~ e
100
=; =:
te 80
~
60
I 40
20
0
It is unclear why "Leadership Counsel" is mentioning hazardous site dust in conjunction with
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02, since a mitigation measure incorporated into the
text amendment special standards of practice and regulation section expressly prohibits
cultivation (agriculture or community gardening) on properties which are on the "Cortese List"
(the list of contaminated properties compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5).
The federal, state, and local agencies which place properties on this list are responsible for
issuing cleanup/clearance letters that would determine allowable subsequent uses of these
sites. Any risk inherent in dust blown from such sites would be considered when a regulatory
agency would contemplate issuing a clearance letter for cultivation of the site. Again, there is no
evidence in the record to indicate that contaminated property which has been cleaned up and
cleared by a responsible agency has affected public health or safety due to subsequent
cultivation of the property.
In response to point "VIII" on page 8 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, there is
no substantial evidence in the record that the proposed text amendment would cause
agriculture or community gardening to deplete or impairs the productivity of agricultural soils in
Fresno. On the contrary, land left un-irrigated, with periodic weed removal, becomes depleted
of biota and soil nutrients. The "Irrigated Lands" program administered by the California Water
Board will regulate fertilizer application; due to cost of fertilizers and concerns regarding buildup
of salts in soils, there is no basis to conclude that cultivation will be "fertilizer intensive."
Persons cultivating these soils will have an economic interest in preserving and enhancing
fertility, particularly for crops of longer duration such as trees and vines. Erosion is related to
cultivation methods in terms of tillage and runoff control, and to grade or slope, not how many
types of crops may be grown on a plot of ground. The lack of slope on Fresno's high-quality
agricultural soils provides significant protection against erosion.
In response to point "IX" on page 9 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, planting
trees is well-known and advocated means of carbon sequestration; whereas, maintaining land in
a barren condition (as required by the City's Weed Abatement Ordinance) does not provide any
measurable level of benefit with regard to global climate change; in fact, it adds to the urban
heat island effect through lack of shade and soil moisture. With regard to agriculture, the 2012
book Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems, edited by Rattan Lal and Bruce Augustin,
http://books.google.comlbooks?id=RY3u7aGWePwC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dg=carbon+seg
uestration+on+vacant+land&source=bl&ots=nA3gzjaAuO&sig=M 1HQ-
HnlzltR ykMaHA6fkggj4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cBZKUoGFIOeuvQGnhYGoDg&ved=OCEMQ6AEwB
A#V=onepage&g=carbon%20seguestration%200n%20vacant%20Iand&f=true provides data to
substantiate that growing crops on vacant urban parcels provides carbon sequestration benefit
that mitigates global climate change; an estimated 2 to 7 kilograms of carbon is sequestered per
square meter of vacant property cultivated (page 279), and these data are for vegetable row
crops. Stephen J. Coyle and Andres Duany's 2011 book, Sustainable and Resilient
Communities: A Comprehensive Action plan for Towns, Cities and Regions, also provides data
on carbon sequestration provided by different types of crops: 0.59 to 1.68 metric tons of carbon
sequestered per acre for orchards and vineyards; 0.389 metric tons per acre for grasslands and
shrubs; and 0.223 metric tons per acre for no-till cropland (page 267). The University of
California at Davis has published a research paper on the carbon sequestration benefit provided
by California perennial crops (orchards and vineyards), published in Volume 107 of Advances in
Agronomy (2010): http://ucce.ucdavis.edulfileslrepositoryfiles/Advances%20in%20Agronomy-
93560.pdf.
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 does not potentiate additional net air pollution or
GHG emissions; rather, it provides a way to sequester carbon and it contains special standards
of practice and regulation to inhibit potential pollutants. As to potential GHG emissions from
vehicles associated with agricultural uses, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and APCD
have adopted regulations with regard to mobile on-road and off-road equipment and fuels
designed to achieve the target levels of reduction in statewide GHG emissions, and vehicle
emissions associated with interim agriculture and community gardening use of properties
planned and zoned for eventual residential use will be much less than the vehicle emissions
associated with buildout of the intensive urban uses authorized under assigned urban zoning.
Those potential effects have been evaluated when the urban zone district classifications were
assigned to the properties.
The source listed in the first footnote on page 9 of the "Leadership Counsel" letter,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e11.htm. is a 2002 United Nations Food And
Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that addresses a range of worldwide environmental
issues associated with agriculture. It does not reflect the current physical or regulatory setting
for cultivation of land in the Fresno area, nor the body of California legislation and
comprehensive climate change regulations enacted since 2006. The study notes potential
problems from over-fertilization, over-use of pesticides, burning of vegetation, and animal
sources of air pollution (which include ammonia, methane, and nitrous oxides from animal
wastes).
As to potential greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural pesticide manufacturing and use,
CEQA does not require speculation when there are insufficient means to reasonably predict
potential effects. It is not possible to predict which of Fresno County's over 200 crops would be
grown on available land pursuant to the text amendment, what proportion of the cultivated
acreage would employ pesticides or fertilizers, or which pesticides or fertilizers would be
employed on which cultivated sties.
The Audsley study (the second footnoted source on pg 9 of the "Leadership Counsel" letter),
https:/Idspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uklbitstream/1826/3913/1/Estimation of the greenhouse gas e
missions from agricultural pesticide manufacture and use-2009.pdD, was a modeling study
Response to the September 18, 2013"Leadership Counsel"letter Page 12
done in Great Britain to estimate direct and indirect GHG ermssrons. The study is not a
reference useful for, or pertinent to Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02, because the
commodities and pesticides examined in the Audsley study relate to United Kingdom crops and
United Kingdom climate conditions, which are very dissimilar from those of the Fresno area.
There are also significant differences in pesticide manufacturing facilities (and their electrical
utilities' GHG emission profiles), transportation distances and modalities between manufacturer
and site of use, etc. Finally, Great Britain does not have the same regulatory framework for
addressing global climate change as California does (as related in the MND for the Air Quality
Amendments to the 2025 Fresno General Plan).
In response to point "Xa" on page 9 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the
reason that all possible alternative mitigations for agricultural water well extractions are not
listed is that it is not possible to predict the range of potential mitigations. City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities Water Division staff is responsible for overall administration of the
City's Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and Urban Water Management Plan,
which includes managing the recharge program (and setting appropriate fees) and looking at
location-specific groundwater needs. The MND for Text Amendment Application, and the
reports to Planning Commission and the City Council, all note that alternative mitigation
strategies proposed under Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 may comprise projects
under CEQA in and of themselves, and would be subject to subsequent environmental analysis.
In response to point "Xb" on pages 9-10 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the
U.S. EPA has not removed the Fresno Sole Source Aquifer designation to date, even though
the City is utilizing increasing shares of its surface water entitlements to supply its potable water
system. The City has not yet completed the network of large-diameter water mains, or
additional surface water treatment capacity, which would be necessary to supply over 50% of
the current Sole Source Aquifer area with treated surface water. Agricultural pesticides which
have persisted in groundwater and have caused contamination in Fresno were applied decades
ago and have since been removed from the market. The "Irrigated Lands" program and
DPRJAgricultural Commissioner regulation of fertilizer and pesticide applications, with protection
of water supplies a main factor in developing the regulations, are incorporated into the text
amendment by reference.
In response to point "XI" on pages 10-11 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter,
there is no conflict with 2025 Fresno General Plan goals. Text Amendment Application No.
TA-13-02 expressly implements General Plan Policy G-6-a, and that policy has already been
deemed consistent with General Plan goals and objectives. Specifically,
Cultivation of available land will not contravene 2025 Fresno General Plan Goal 1. The
proposed text amendment will not degrade the quality of life for Fresnans. As noted
previously, there is no substantial evidence in the record that agricultural activity that is
currently in proximity to developed neighborhoods, schools, and institutions is harming
overall quality of life in the Fresno area, and the proposed text amendment includes
special standards of practice and regulation which go beyond current regulatory scheme
to protect resources and adjacent parties. The text amendment is designed to improve
the quality of life for local residents by
./ providing for wider implementation of community gardens;
Response to the September 18, 2013 "Leadership Counsel" leller Page 13
,/ job creation in agricultural and related economic sectors and income from cultivation
of available land; and
,/ abatement of nuisances currently associated with vacant residential land.
Cultivation of open space conducted pursuant to the text amendment will not contravene
General Plan Goal 10; in fact, it will add opportunities such as community gardening and
community supported agriculture to open space areas which are currently in need of
entities to maintain these properties (City parks which lack adequate funding for
maintenance; reclaimed mining sites). The Multi-Use Open Space plan designation
applied to San Joaquin Riverbottom properties provides for agriculture as one of the
designated uses of that land, and AE-20/Exclusive Twenty-Acre Agricultural zoning as a
consistent zone district that may be applied equally with the O/Open Conservation zone
district.
As discussed above, agricultural and community gardening activity will not threaten air,
water or soil quality and will not contravene General Plan Goal 11. Instead, Text
Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 will expressly preserve important farmland, and
the special standards of practice and regulation incorporated into the project have been
designed to protect resources.
As discussed above, agriculture and community gardening activity will not impair public
health or safety. There is no substantial information in the record to indicate that current
agricultural activities in Fresno are causing injury or illness, and the proposed text
amendment contains special standards of practice and regulation which will enhance
protections beyond the current regulatory setting. Also, the text amendment does not
decrease housing opportunities, because it does not change planned urban residential
land use designations or assigned urban residential zoning. The land subject to the text
amendment may be cleared of agricultural activity and building can commence on it at
any time, which was the scenario for Fresno's urban fringe area prior to the Great
Recession.
California Government Code Section 12900 et seq, (the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act), California Government Code Section 65008, the Federal Fair Housing and Civil
Rights Law, and Government Code Section 11135, and are not violated by the proposed
project. As noted previously, Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 is city-wide in
applicability. Its provisions will apply to all areas of the City; any parcel within the enumerated
zone districts within those zone districts will be able to engage in the new uses subject to other
requirements of the code. The affected parcels do not even have to be vacant in order to enjoy
the uses. A developed parcel may host a community garden or agricultural use, subject to the
standards of practice in the text amendment
There is no substantial evidence presented to demonstrate a disparate impact on one segment
of the community. The text amendment does not does not discriminate with regard to race,
ethnicity or other protected status. Land subject to the text amendment occurs in all parts of
Fresno (see MND Attachment 2), inhabited by persons of all ethnic, racial, and other protected
status. (By providing for land near all groups where they can cooperatively or individually grow
crops associated with their heritage and ethnicity, the text amendment attempts to preserve
cultural, social, and ethnic diversity.) No individual or group is denied enjoyment of residence,
land ownership, or tenancy based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age,
disability, income levels, source of income/occupation, or other characteristics of protected
groups referenced in state or federal civil rights statutes.
Response to the September 18, 2013 "Leadership Counsel" fetter Page 14
Government Code Section 11135 is specifically not applicable to this project because no federal
funds were involved in processing Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02; the project
sponsor paid the application processing fees as listed in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
In response to point "XII" on pages 11-12 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the
MEIR for the 2025 Fresno General Plan assessed the prospective two and a half decades of
sequential conversion of agricultural land at the City's fringe with sequential addition of
developed residential uses. The MEIR contained an assessment of potential traffic noise
related to vehicular travel at full buildout of planned urban uses-which involve much higher
traffic volumes for truck and passenger vehicles (and greater noise-generating potential) than
would be potentiated by traffic related to interim agricultural use of land. The MEIR was
certified in 2002, and included a finding of over-riding consideration for noise impacts due to the
infeasibility of fully mitigating noise impacts upon sensitive receptors. Cultivated land is not a
sensitive use which would require site-specific noise assessment, and (as noted in the MND), it
is subject to operation of the City's Noise Ordinance if a complaint about excessive noise is
received by residents or institutions such as churches. The special standards of practice and
regulation section of TA-13-02 also includes a prohibition on percussive equipment used in
more rural locations of the County to repel birds or disrupt hail.
In response to point "XIII" on pages 11-12, and points "XVII" and "XVIII" on page 13 of the
September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, the commenter is incorrect in assuming that land
subject to cultivation could not, or would not, be made available for housing construction by the
property owner; incorrect in asserting that the California Housing Element law would be violated;
and incorrect in asserting that the text amendment would have a disparate effect that would
cause civil right and fair housing violations (as noted above).
The 2025 Fresno General Plan policies relating to agricultural land preservation did not meter or
restrict the conversion of farmland to housing, they did not define "interim;" they simply directed
that farming activity be protected and promoted until housing was developed. It would be
inappropriately speculative for Text Amendment No. TA-13-02 to define "interim" or to set
maximum or minimum limits on the amount of time that land shall be farmed prior to
development (without economic strength underpinning land development and making it
financially feasible, no zoning code edict could force housing construction it to happen).
As noted above, the text amendment does not change the planned land use or approved
residential zoning or entitlements on property that would be subject to TA-13-02 (such as extant
City of Fresno tentative tract maps, which are depicted in the first map attached to the staff
response to the September 18, 2013 letter signed by multiple parties). Therefore, it does not
remove land from the inventory available for housing construction. Based on available
information, the current inventory of appropriately designated acreage that could be used to
construct housing in the City of Fresno is in excess of the 2007 Fresno County Regional
Housing Needs Allocation Plan as referenced in the City's most recently adopted Housing
Element.
Successive California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland maps (and DOC
biennial farmland conversion data presented in Attachment 7 of the MND) demonstrate that
actively cultivated farmland in the City of Fresno SOl has been converted to non-agricultural
uses at a rapid rate. When urban service capacity exists, when annexation is feasible, and
when there is no economic "drag" on the housing industry, productive farmland (including
perennial crops) have been cleared and homes have been constructed on farmland. Buildout
on high-quality farmland in the Fresno urban area has only flagged during periodic recessions
which decrease developers' ability to finance housing projects, and households' ability to
purchase housing. City of Fresno final tract map activity demonstrates this (please refer to the
second map attached to the staff response to the September 18,2013 letter signed by multiple
parties)
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 does not provide for property owners to enter new
Williamson Act contracts, so it does not introduce any legal impediments which would delay
construction of housing once financial constraints ease and the owners of vacant residential-
zoned property can move forward with buildout of housing authorized on that land according to
its plan designation and zoning.
In response to point "XVI" on page 13 of the September 18 "Leadership Counsel" letter, it is
noted that, while the mitigation measures incorporated into the project via special standards of
practice and regulation in FMC 12-306-N will cover generic issues related to cultivation of land,
some aspects of some subsequent cultivation operations may involve improvements, water
features, and agreements which could, in and of themselves, comprise projects requiring CEQA
analysis and individual findings. They could also be proposed in areas where listed species are
known to occur. Therefore, construction and grading permits, amendments to special permits,
and agreements/contracts relating to individual agricultural, horticultural, and community
gardening operations will still be subject to evaluation as to their status as "projects" under
CEQA and may require assessment with regard to setting and potential impacts.
F a r m B ~ r e a u
Serving agriculture since 1917
September 18, 2013
c/o Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: Text Amendment Application No. TA 13-02
City of Fresno Planning Commission:
On behalf of the Fresno County Farm Bureau (FCFB), I want to express our support for the Text
Amendment Application No. TA 13-02. The proposed amendment wonld provide for agriculture
in residential and open space zone districts and would establish standards of practice and
regulation for agricultural activities, city-wide.
It is only natural for this vacant land to be utilized the way it was for decades prior to the effect
of urbanization: agriculture. Every concern brought up by opposition groups to the text
amendment is covered by local, state and/or federal laws and regulations. California agriculture
is the most regulated food industry in the world. Multiple safeguards are in place to protect
neighbors and residents near commercial operations. These farming operations will provide
benefits to areas that are currently vacant and/or blighted by providing an alternative use as the
land waits for the conversion to development, when the time is right.
This text amendment change is a commonsense approach to utilizing the resources this region is
known for. It would be a mistake to delay these improvements any longer. Every dollar
generated on the farm circulates over three-and-a-halftimes in the local economy. By failing to
take advantage of these opportunities, we as a community are losing out.
In summary, 1urge you to support staff's recommendation. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions.
Sincerely,
Ryan Jacobsen
CEO
1274W Hedges Ave' Fresno, CA 93728 (f1
559-237-0263 office' 559-237-3396 fax' www.fcfb.org info@fcfb.org J!!;
COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
PROJECT REVIEW - MAY 21,2013
~ - -
Project Record
PROJECT INFORMATION
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. TA-13-02
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 was filed by Jeffrey T. Roberts. of Granville Homes and
proposes to amend the text of sections of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (the Zoning
Ordinance) to expressly permit commercial agricultural uses and community gardens in open space,
agricultural, and residential uses. The text amendment also includes special standards of practice and
regulation which would pertain to agricultural and community gardening activities inthe City of Fresno.
City-wide in scope
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
iii' APPROVE APPROVE WITH CONDITION(S) DENY NO ACTION
COMMITTEE CONDITIONS I COMMENTS
Ryle
Yes
Martinez
Yes
Applicant Jeff Roberts, representing Granville Homes, was present at the meeting and stated Granville had
recently bought the 300-acre property that had formerly been known as the Running Horse Project; stated
Granville was not yet ready to develop residential housing on the property and wanted to farm the property until
then. which prompted the proposed text amendment; stated the plan by Granville was to establish an almond
orchard called Mission Ranch; stated they were projecting a Fall 2013 planting of the trees; stated the applicant
was successfully farming other properties In the State of California until ready for development. The issue of
water for agricultural use was brought up, and Jeff Roberts stated Granvillewould be working with the City Water
Division on either an agreement or an alternative acceptable to the Water Division. The Committee members
present at the meeting recommended approval of the text amendment.
COUNCIL DISTRICT 2 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING
Meeting Room 3078, Third Roor-North, Fresno City Hall 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno CA 93721-3604
ACTIONAGENDA
MONDAY, May 13, 2013 5:30 P.M.
1. ROLLCALL
Members Present: James Poptanich, Chair, Rose Hendry, Ralph Kachadourian, Michael Napoli, Jasdeep
Singh .
Members Absent: David Rodriguez, William Scol!
Staff Present: Sophia Pagoulatos, McKencie Contreras, Sandra Brock, Development and Resource
Management Department
Others Present: Dirk Poeschel, DPLS, Jeff Roberts, Granville Homes
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MEETING ACTION AGENDA
a. Agenda for May 13, 2013 RHmoved and MN seconded a motion to approve the agenda as
amended. The motion passed unanimously.
b. Action Agenda for April 8, 2013 RKmoved and MN seconded a motion to approve the action
agenda. The motion passed unanimously.
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
4. PROJECT REVIEW - NEW MATIERS (The District 2 Plan Implementation Committee and the District 24
Planlmplemerrtation Committee met jointly for Items a and b.)
a. Text Amendment Application No. TA1302 was filed by Jeffrey T. Roberts. of Granville Homes
and proposes to amend the text of sections of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (the
Zoning Ordinance) to expressly permit commercial agricultural uses and community gardens in
open space, agricultural, and residential uses. The text amendment also includes special
standards of practice and regUlation whiCh would pertain to agricultural and community gardening
activities in the City of Fresno. The scope of the amendment is city wide.
RH moved and JS seconded a motion to approve TA-13-02. The motion passed
unanimously.
b. Text Amendment Application No. TA13-03 was filed by Dirk Poeschel of Dirk Poeschel Land
Development Services Inc., on behalf of Stock Five Holdings LLC, and proposes to amend the text
of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) to allow medical office and
physical therapy office uses, banks, neighborhood markets and delicatessens with liquor sales in
the CR, Commercial Recreational, zone district.
Granite Park Project Area (east side of N. Cedar Ave. blw E. Dakota & E. Ashlan Avenues)
Sandra Brock
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
hi,
Tainese Arceneaux
Friday, September 27, 2013 11:42 AM
Sandra Brock
FW: June 3 Vote for TA-13-02
please excuse the line: "District Three Plan Implementation Committee Monday, June 3 2013 Meeting Minutes Page2 of
3." It is the part of the header that was accidently copied over.
Tai
From: Tainese Arceneaux
sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:40 AM
To: Sandra Brock
ee: Gregory Barfield
Subject: June 3 Vote for TA-13-02
Good morning,
Here is the information for the June 3 vote from the District Three Plan Implementation Committee:
Review of Projects
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 wasfiled by Jeffrey T. Roberts, of Granville Homes, and requests an
amendment to the text ofsections of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) to expressly
permit commercialagricultural uses and the community gardens inopen space, agricultural, and residential uses. The
text amendment also includes specialstandards of practice and regulation that would pertainto agricultural and
cammunity gardening activitiesin the City of Fresno. District Three Plan Implementation Committee Monday, June 3
2013 Meeting Minutes Page2 of 3
Jeffery Roberts of Granville Homes provided a history of how we got here and staff provided background of how the text
amendment affects their commercial farming operation.
Pesticides are a minor factor in the first eight to ten years. But are subjected to state regulations and those regulations
are stricter in areas with housing. This fits on the west/south side (Veterans Home).
Water can come by way of Fresno Irrigation District surface water and built to city standards as well.
The Committee expressed concerns about setbacks along the residential area pertaining to dust control and pesticides.
The committee is open to the idea that the program will be hiring and training young people in agriculture.
MOTION/Hill and SECOND/Jones to approve the TAApplication No. TA-13-02; motion passes 4-0.
Have a nice day,
Tai
Cilyof
I I ! ! ! I I & ~ ~ I ~
r g ; ; ~
DISTRICT 4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING ACTION AGENDA/MINUTES
MEETING
MONDAY, May 13, 2013 -- 5:30 P.M.
Room 3054, Third Floor, Fresno CityHall
1. ROLLCALL
AGENDA
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA93721-3604
This meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by R. Clark.
Present: Clark, Larson, Nelson, Timken,
Absent: Poulter
Staff: McKencie Contreras (Development and Resource Management Department)
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES
a. Agenda for May 13, 2013
b. Minutes for March 11, 2013 & April 22, 2013
Larson moved and Nelson seconded the motion to approve the agenda and minutes; motion
carried (M/S/C, vote 4-0-1).
3. PROJECT REVIEW- CONTINUED ITEMS
a. Plan Amendment Application No. A-12-005, Rezone Application No. R-12-007, and
Vesting Tentative Map of Tract No. 6028/UGM were filed by Les Peterson, on behalf of
Lennar Fresno, lnc., and pertain to 14.51 net acres of property located on the west side of
North Armstrong Avenue between East Ashlan and East Dakota Avenues. Plan
Amendment Application No. A-12-005 proposes to amend the 2025 Fresno General Plan
and the McLane Community Plan for a 2.39-acre portion of the subject property from the
low density residential planned land use designation to the medium density residential land
use designation. Rezone Application No. R-12-007 proposes to amend the Official Zone
Map for a 2.39-acre portion of the subject property from the R-A/UGM (Single Family
Residential Agricultural/Urban Growth Management) to the R-1/UGM (Single Family
Residential/Urban Growth Management) zone district. Vesting Tentative Map of Tract No.
6028/UGM proposes a 93-lot conventional single family residential subdivision for the
overall 14.51 net acre site.
APN: 310-201-13, 14 ADDRESS: 3635 & 3699 N. ARMSTRONG AVE.
ZONING: R-A1UGM to R-1/UGM (for 2.39 acreportion of overall 14.51 net acreslte.)
Larson moved and Timken seconded the motion to approve this project; motion carried
(M/S/C, vote 4-0-1).
b. Conditional Use Permit Application No. C-13-026 was filed by Dirk Poeschel of Poeschel
Land Development Services, Inc., on behalf of Alex Gifford, and pertains to 9.85 acres of
property located on the northwest corner of East Ashlan and North Cedar Avenues. The
applicant proposes a recreational trampoline and aerobic sports facility-AeroSports
District 4 Plan Implementation Committee
Action Agenda for May 13, 2013
Page 2
Trampoline Parks--within an existing 29,900 square-foot vacant commercial building at the
Ashlan Park Shopping Center. The applicant proposes to be open 7 days a week. The
property is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center).
APN: 428-300-21 ZONING: C-3 ADDRESS: 4167 E. ASHLAN AVE.
(M/S/C, vote 4-0-1).
4. PROJECT REVIEW - NEW ITEMS (The District 2 Plan Implementation Committee joined the
District 4 Plan Implementation Committee for Items A and B.)
a. Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-002 was filed by Jeffrey T. Roberts. of Granville
Homes and proposes to amend the text of sections of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal
Code (the Zoning Ordinance) to expressly permit commercial agricultural uses and
community gardens in open space, agricultural, and residential uses. The text amendment
also includes special standards of practice and regulation which would pertain to agricultural
and community gardening activities in the City of Fresno. The scope of the amendment is
city wide.
Jeff Roberts was in attendance to represent the project. Sandra Brock, Planner, was also in
attendance to represent City staff. Jeff Roberts mentioned fees were one area of non-
concurrence; however, staff is working with the applicant.
A member from the District 2 Committee asked about improvements. Sandra Brock stated it
was not a requirement because there has to be a nexus for improvements.
(M/S/C, vote 4-0-1).
b. Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-003 was filed by Dirk Poeschel of Dirk Poeschel
Land Development Services Inc., on behalf of Stock Five Holdings LLC, and proposes to
amend the text of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) to allow
medical office and physical therapy office uses, banks, neighborhood markets and
delicatessens with liquor sales in the C-R, Commercial Recreational, zone district.
Granite Park Project Area (east side of N. Cedar Ave. b/w E. Dakota & E. Ashlan
Avenues)
Dirk Poeschel was in attendance to represent the project.
A member from the District 2 Committee asked about alcohol sales. Dirk Poeschel stated a
conditional use permit would be needed for alcohol sales.
Timken moved and Larson seconded the motion to approve this project with the
recommendation that alcohol sales be removed from B14 and B15; motion carried (M/S/C,
vote 4-0-1).
DISTRICT 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING ACTION AGENDA/MINUTES
Monday, May 20,2013 - 3:30 P.M.
Room 3054, Third Floor, Fresno CityHall
AGENDA
1. ROLLCALL
This meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/MINUTES
a. Agenda for May 20, 2013
b. Minutes for April 29, 2013
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno CA93721-3604
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Barraza (vice chair), Kiran, Nachtigal, Pattanumotana and Rabara (chair)
Gonzalez and Medina
Sandra Brock & Israel Trejo
Nachtigal moved and Barraza (vice chair) seconded the motion to approve the minutes for April
29, 2013, motion carried and agenda for May 20, 2013; motion carried (vote 4-0 Pattanumotana
not present for vote).
3. PROJECT REVIEW
a. Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 was filed by Jeffrey T. Roberts. of Granville
Homes and proposes to amend the text of sections of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal
Code (the Zoning Ordinance) to expressly permit commercial agricultural uses and community
gardens in open space, agricultural, and residential uses. The text amendment also includes
special standards of practice and regulation which would pertain to agricultural and community
gardening activities in the City of Fresno.
The applicant explained the project. Sandra Brock present to discuss the Text Amendment.
The committee discussed issues regarding if applies to projects in Williamson Act contract,
open space and issues regarding the proximity of the use to existing residential uses.
Barraza (vice chair) moved and Nachtigal seconded the motion to recommend approval of the
project; motion passed (vote 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention).
b. Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-03 was filed by Dirk Poeschel of Dirk Poeschel
Land Development Services Inc., on behalf of Stock Five Holdings LLC, and proposes to
amend the text of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) to allow
medical office and physical therapy office uses, banks, neighborhood markets and
delicatessens with liquor sales in the C-R, Commercial Recreational, zone district.
DISTRICT 6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
PROJECT REVIEW May 13,2013
---r-
Project Record
Item 4a
PROJECT INFORMATION
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 filed by Jeff Roberts, on behalf of Granville Homes. The
text amendment proposes to amend the zoning code to add agricultural activities relating to crop growing
to the City's open space and residential zone districts; add "community gardens' to the zoning code,
conditionally allowing them in open space, agricultural, and residential districts; and, to add special
standards of practice and regulation for these agricultural and community garden uses, to protect
adjacent properties and the environment. See attached package for additional infonnation.
RECOMMENDATION
0"'APPROVE 0 APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS 0 DENY o NOACTION
Forrest Brown Engleman Johnson Mcloughlin Sidhu Walker
Approve
\/ V V \/
............i\
>Li ..
iii.i,. .....
;.
.'
.,
Deny
, .".
Abstain ,
........
.'+
......i/ L,'
/
. .
.',
.
.' L > " , ",
Absent
V V
,/
COMMITIEECONDITIONS/COMMENTS Je-ff RDloer\:s WuS I'"
\-0 \>\tlj e.-C\, (;,f"I'\\I;\\'(
\:\e..- 0\& Ivll.... '!') \",\\(.<:0-- .. bC0<t-
\- o: r w'\ ; {\. J (ft. " 1\ "'""'-A 6- i J t-et\-- I I\. 'l w froys, C0"",-t"'-4 C-- i.c(
lA Gc,v\c.. o-;S,\:(L'c,\S, c..UO'-J''''''-J (.aVV\/lvtlJiliY
5
c
<r&-&hS tl'\. LV\. "JY'e<'W'GvJ1-
w . S\-r". \{ 0 o \- (}.h..:rJ "'- \V\ 'iC'v"{.... 0\.j ,(. e- W\ ere.
\NfA':, "\ 1\Ji0\-1tv') +- I MVhu<,\ by
S 'oi vJ q \ \:.-e./ \--'0 ct rf {D 0=-e \
Staff Liaison: .. Date /.?::>
Y
FULTON/LOWELL SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
PROJECT REVIEW May 13, 2013
-r-
Project Record
Item 5A
PROJECT INFORMATION
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 filed by Jeff Roberts, on behalf of Granville Homes.
The text amendment proposes to amend the zoning code to add agricultural activities relating to crop
growing to the City's open space and residential zone districts; add "community gardens" to the
zoning code, conditionally allowing themin open space, agricultural, and residential districts; and, to
add special standards of practice and regulation for these agricultural and community garden uses, to
protect adjacent properties and the environment. See attached package for additional information.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
o APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS 0 DENY 0 NOACTION
.....
SKIBBIE QUINN CLARK FOOREHAYDEN RUBLE
Approve
S
x
{VI
>(
Deny
Abstain
Absent
-X
ec,
Iwv-Io
14.

Staff Date:.....::::.-r:-,...;..:::'-__
Michael Clifton. Chairperson
Tower District Design ReviewCommittee
Phone 559-441-1317
City of Will Tackett I Mike Sanchez
Development & Resource Management Dept.
559621-8063/8040
Tower District Specific Plan Design Review Committee
Project Record
Project Information
Date: May 24. 2013
Location: City-Wide APN: N/A
Project Description Agenda Date: May 24.2013
Existing: N/A
Proposed: Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-002: Proposal to amend the text
of Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to permit
commercial agricultural uses and community gardens in open space,
agricultural, and residential uses; including special standards of practice and
regulations pertaining to agricultural and community gardening activities in
the City of Fresno.
Contractor/Contact: Jeffrey T. Roberts / Granville Homes
Phone Number: (559) 436-09ClO
Zoning/Plan Designation: Open Space, Agricultural and Residential
Tower District Specific Plan Design Review Committee Recommendation
X On May 24. 2013. the Committee recommended approval of the project. subject to the
following conditions:
Committee recommends evaluation and exploration of options respective to farm "stands"
in association with permitted commercial agriculture uses based upon size of parcels.
Committee supports proposed amendment contingent upon inclusion of requirements for
implementation of applicable recharge fees; or, alternative mitigation acceptable to the
City of Fresno Water Division.
VOTING RECORD',
DATE OF FINAL
ACTION:
Clifton Schmidt Soza Berg Mintz Vacant Vacant
OS/24113
YES
X X X X X
No
ABSENT
Signature of Chair: Date: _
Airport Land Use Commission
Action Summary
Date: Monday, June 10, 2013
Time: 2:00 PM
Place: COG Sequoia Conference Room
2035 Tulare St., Suite 201, Fresno, CA
CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Fresno County Airport Land Use Comrnissicl.""""l'v) was called to order by
Chairman Magsig at 2:05 p.m, Mr. Magsig asked everyone and led in the flag salute led by
Commissioner Remy.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT: Commissioners:
Proxies: Richey,
ABSENT: Commissioners: Mason, Rapada, Perea, Borqes
Proxies: Lucido, Kroll
OTHERS ATTENDING: Michael Rowe, County Counsel
Sandra Brock, City of Fresno
Dirk Poeschel, Land Development Services Inc.
Laural Fawcett, Fresno COG Slaff
Clark Thompson, Fresno COGStaff
Stephanie Maxwell, Fresno COG Staff
1. Consent Items
1A. Consent Item 1A:ALUC Minutes 04-0813 Meeting
A motion w a ~ . l l 1 a d e by Comrnissioner Richey and seconded by Commissioner Remy to approve the
minutes of April8, 2013. A vote was called for and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Action/Discussionltems
2A. City of Fresno Zoning Ordinance Proposed Text Amendments
City of Fresno TA1302: To allow agricultural (crop growing and horticulture) uses and community
gardens in the City's residential zone districts, and to adopt standards of practice and regulation for
agricultural activities and community gardens throughout the city.
Ms. Fawcett explained this item as being generalized throughout the city and that if there is a
specific project in the vicinity of the ALUC's review area. The approval of zoning ordinances and
zoning ordinance text amendments do not override approval of a specific project. Mr. Card
questioned the part that stated "with the exception of those rules and regulations imposed in the
vicinity of the airport" and asked if this should be clarified to include the ALUC review process. Mr.
Magsig explained that anytime there is project adjustment to the Zoning Ordinance proposed by the
City they are reviewing the adjustment to make sure that there are no types of Land Use changes
that could be in-conflict with the Airport Land Use Policy Plan and there is no proposed project on
this particular item yet.
Sandra Brock, City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department also provided
information to the committee on this item. Ms. Brock mentioned the conversation with ALUC staff in
which it was agreed upon to add a subsection to include mention of flight safety hazard risks due to
agricultural uses that attract wildlife that are part of the current Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Review
of projects on a case by case basis would therefore take into consideration agricultural uses near the
airport review areas The revised version of, which would provide for agricultural and community
garden uses in residential and open space zone districts, and would establish standards of practice
and regulation for community gardens and agricultural activities, city-wide.
and explained that the application for Granville Homes were not able to attend the
meeting. Ms. Brock also explained that it is now legal property owners and groups of
people to be able to do community gardening, which issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit.
Mr. Magsig asked if the current zoning ordinagSE!1Iiilhin the City of Fresrpallows for agricultural
uses and farming. Ms. Brock said that it does'Jv1r. Magsig asked what and zone district
designation is needed to be in consistent for fanning within the City. Ms. Brock. stated that A-E5 and
AE-20 are consistent with agricultural land use.
A motion was made by and secClridWby Commissioner Card to find
consistency with the ALUC Policy Plan. The motion was carried unanimously.
City of Fresno TA1303: The proposed text amefldl)Jent will follOWing permitted uses in the
CR (Commercial zone distriSt: offices, banks with no
drive up windows, grocery stores with liquor sales and delicatessens with liquor sales.
Laural Fawcett on this itF'm. Ms. 2 cCllored maps that were distributed at
the meeting for 2 CR zone areas one is Blackbeard's and the other is Granite Park.
Mr. proposal was primarily of Granite Park. Ms. Fawcett answered that it was a
city ""ide text amendment and ifthere were a particular project that happens within one of the zoning
districts after the amendment takes place then it would come before us for review.
Dirk Poesshel on behalf ofGuy Stockridge gave a brief explanation on the southern portion of
Granite Parkowned by Mr. Stpskridge. The southern portion of Granite Park is a CR zone area. Mr.
Poeschel would like to put the-word "uses" to the CR zone in the amendment to be able to use
vacant building on(he southern side.
A motion was made byComrnlssioner Remy and seconded by Commissioner Kidd. The motion was
carried unanimously.
City of Fresno TA-13-04: To amend the recent extension of time that the rights granted under a
special permit may be discontinued from a continuous period of one year to a continuous period of
three years to include permits granted inside the planning boundary set by the Airport Land Use
Commission. Such an extension would encourage the growth of new business within this planning
area by reducing the administrative burden associated with allowing a new business to continue
Laural Fawcett reported on this item.
A motion was made by Commissioner Feasel and seconded by Commissioner Card. The motion
was carried unanimously.
2B. 30 Day Public Comment Period: NOI Reedley ALP
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project of the Reedley
Municipal Airport Layout Plan.
Laural Fawcett reported on this item. Ms. Fawcett presented the Reedley Municipal Airport Layout
Plan NOI and Clark Thompson clarified that the negative declaration and how it can be presented to
the commissioners before the 30 day Public Comment Period. Mr. Remy thought that there was no
need to schedule a special meeting and would want to wait till the next meeting in August.
3. Administrative Action/Discussion Items
There were no administrative items at the time of this mE>etil)gagElnida
4. PRESENTATIONS
A. Public Presentations and Commission Comments
This portion of the meeting is reserved for to address the ,,,rr,orr
Commission on items within the Commission's butng! on this aqerida,
the Commission on any item on agenda, on
Unscheduled comments may to 3 minutes;
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Items from Staff
There were no items froll1staff
B. Items from Members
Mr. Ma.gsigwelcomedpavid Richeytothe ALUC committee and introduced him to the
members. Mr. Richey ga"ea brief description of what his hobbies and interest were. Mr.
Magsig and gave a brief explanation on what the ALUC was about.
6. ADJOURN
A motion to adj6yrn the meetirypwas made by Commissioner Feasel and seconded by
Commissioner Card. A vote was called for and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting was
adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
I

( c<::.' " //
Laural Fawcett, Assistant Regional Planner
Fresno Council of Governments,
Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission
SIGN-UP SHEET FOR SEPTEMBER 5
t h
MEETING ON PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TA-13-02
(please write clearly!)
NAME (please print) CONTACT PHONE # I EMAIL (please print)
NAME OF ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY, OR
LOCATION OF COMMUNITY GARDEN
J.-?5 lC;eo-7
5f
6 Itwr(s/,tgeo.tf<hJ<m.e-tr,<JJ I fres,dO Lb. /ICI.
tewe t'Ylvbbt ILf\B';)-I!j{(,p I I m.ehro Wl",q,L"'b-'v
KIM b,AQjS-{-.r. 11-4\9 bo('!fj I 'J'\(( qCfof\ J0 '" I\i\.rl:7Vlh FUM \h

.
,j uve,,,-// ')',; 2 7S" ,-h'l<.-HiV1.0W fl;ltW<',J(Jl_ Oa?<u.tlf'( "0"- KrL kcl......
-JereMy G:Ol5-'tOVl I I [.tJ"""e (/
I I . v,- I ,l'cr
A5 1-1. W I L 25-A
. I I cc-wr
Iu;'/...\- Cbl1'0 CW{lO,q[jV' ILJ,--VI o.t Wo:-,n.lJ
IJ . VYltne$. \
Mvlo h2j 6,jtJ_tJ60'f dlblcf?-C1I. 1/V'YlJA.. /AJ
OW0 I I (,Q)JJ(\nA '@wfc:t7t-vt
r" "-1'\ -f'd-1.r:Vv- {;; Or;;,..
C),<;(; Cf1HJ i.: 6z"ra{,t-,
j(r;/ ?elm/}t Itfn- 72. q1- IIje!l5(DcjJlfl4,;/. <coYrl I;r; wcrl?kn hf/YI,)if hY1Y/
1&"2.1- '86'-'10
SIGN-UP SHEET fOR SEPTEMBER s" MEETING ON PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TA-13-02
NAME (please print) CONTACT PHONE # I EMAIL (please print)
a
-rft1-,jQ ttT M.E:;;E:;Tl Nf:>. " VI D NOT 5 lG CjJ IN.) 1----------------
KE: I TH

SIGN-UP SHEET FOR SEPTEMBER 5
t h
MEETING ON PROPOSEDTEXT AMENDMENT TA-13-02
NAME (please print) CONTACT PHONE # EMAIL (please print)
Rioecco..\jos.STr-u kllif ;lLILJ-CfJd.-+ ,\funS QlJcjo...VIS.
FRESNO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 13230
The Fresno City Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on September 18, 2013 adopted the
following resolution relating to Rezone Application No. R-11-006, initiated by the Development and
Resource Management Department Director and sponsored by Granville Homes, Incorporated.
WHEREAS, the intent and purpose of Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 is to classify
agriculture and community gardening as uses in the City's open space, agricultural, and multi- and
single-family residential zone districts, and to enact special standards of practice and regulation to
protect resources and adjacent properties from potential impacts related to these uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment was circulated for review by responsible and trustee
agencies and departments, leading to further refinement of the special standards of practice and
regulation; and
WHEREAS, Council District Implementation Committees and Specific Plan Implementation
Committees of the City of Fresno reviewed the proposed text amendment, discussed potential
impacts, received responses to their concems, and voted to support the proposed text
amendment; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2013 the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission considered the
proposed text amendment and voted to support it with the augmentation of the special standards
of practice and regulation to include a requirement that community gardens and agricultural
activities in designated airport areas conform to adopted Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plans adopted
for those airports; and
WHEREAS, a finding of Class 4 Categorical Exemption/Minor Alterations to Land was proposed by
the Development and Resource Management Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's scheduled August 21, 2013 hearing on Text Amendment
Application No. TA-13-02 was duly noticed by publication in the Fresno Bee, the adjudicated
newspaper of greatest local circulation; and
WHEREAS, two letters were received on the date of the hearing taking issue with the project and
its proposed environmental finding; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2013 the Fresno City Planning Commission was in receipt of the staff
report recommending that the Commission recommend approval of Text Amendment Application
No. TA-13-02 and its related finding of Categorical Exemption to the City Council, considered the
letters received, and referred the matter back to staff without opening a hearing on it, directing staff
to address the concerns expressed by commenting parties, and that the matter be brought back
before the Commission for hearing on September 18, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, a full Initial Study was prepared for the proposed text amendment in Environmental
Assessment (EA) No. TA-13-02, resulting in a proposed finding of Mitigated Negative Declaration;
and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to make this environmental finding was posted in the Fresno County
Clerk's Office on August 28, 2013 and published in the Fresno Bee on that date; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 13230
Text Amendment Application No. TA1302
September 18, 2013
Page 2
WHEREAS, Development and Resource Management staff met with concerned rnembers of
community gardening organizations, farming interests, residents of West Fresno, and legal counsel
representing opponents to the text amendment to address their concerns; and
WHEREAS, several requested changes and augmentations were made in the draft text
amendment to address the concerns expressed, and to implement mitigation measures
recommended through EA No. TA-1302; and
WHEREAS, during the September 18, 2012 hearing, the Commission considered the staff report
and presentation recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council that Text
Amendment Application and its related environmental finding of Mitigated Negative Declaration be
approved; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2013 the Commission considered public testimony and related
letters received regarding the project and concluded its public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2013 the Commission deliberated the matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Fresno,
pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-402 which sets forth procedures for processing text
amendments, and based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing, that the
Commission hereby recommends to the Fresno City Council that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02 be adopted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Commission hereby recommends that the Fresno City Council
approve Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Fresno City Planning Commission, upon a motion by
Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez.
VOTING: Ayes
Noes
Not Voting
Absent -
Reed, Vasquez, Dawar, Torossian
Hansen-Smith, Medina
None
Holt
DATED: September 18, 2013,
Attachment: Exhibit A
I
Jennl/3r K. Clark, Secretary
,l=res . City Planning Commission
lJ
Resolution No. 13230
Text Amendment Application No. TA-1302
Initiated by the Development and Resource
Management Director; sponsored by
Granville Homes, Inc.
Action: Recommend Approval
REVISED DRAFT: City of Fresno Text Amendment No. TA-13-02 Page 1
Adds agriculture & communitygardens to open space, agricultural, and residential
zone districts and establishesstandardsof practice and regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
SEC.12-105-C.19.;! COMMUNITY GARDEN shall mean any piece of land. public or
private, managed by a responsible party, where plants are cultivated
by a group of individuals for personal consumption. for sale, for
donation, for beautification of the community and/or for educational
purposes. The special standards of practice and regulation in
subsection 12-306-N-11 shall apply to the establishment and
operation of a community garden.
SEC. 12-204. - "0" OPEN CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
The "0" Open Conservation District is intended to provide for permanent open
spaces in the community and to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the people
by limiting developments in areas where police and fire protection, protection against
flooding by storm water and dangers from excessive erosion are not possible without
excessive costs to the community. (Rep. and Added Ord. 5748,1960).
SEC. 12-204.1. - USES PERMITIED.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "0" District:
A. SUbject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11, aAgricultural HSeS
crops. greenhouses, fruit trees. nut trees, vines, and plant nurseries (for producing trees,
vines and horticultural stock); and community gardens where there is no underlying
conditional use permit. provided that no dwellings, either temporary or permanent, be
permitted in relation thereto.
B. Fisheries.
C. Flood control channels, spreading grounds, settling basins, freeways,
parkways and park drives.
D. Signs, subject to provisions of Section 12-204.5-K.
E. Wildlife preserves, forest preserves and such buildings and structures as are
related thereto. (Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6768, 1966; Am. Ord. 83-29, 1, elf.
3-25-83; Am. Ord. 90.110, 1, elf. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 6,10-14-99).
SEC. 12-204.3. - USES PERMITIED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "0" District, subject to a conditional
use permit pursuant to Sections 12-405 and 12-406.
A. Caretaker's dwelling and necessary accessory buildings.
Adds agriculture & community gardens to open space, agricultural, and residential
zone districtsandestablishes standards of practice and regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
B. Manufacture of concrete products, including hot mix plants, batching plants,
or the use of asphalt or petroleum products.
C. Microwave relay structures.
D. Recreation areas, parks, and playgrounds.
E. Removal of natural resources other than as provided for in Section
12-204.3-F, subject to the applicable regulations of Article 5.5 of Chapter 12 of this
Code.
F. Surface mining operations subject to the provisions of Article 5.5 of Chapter
12 of this Code.
G. Temporary logging camps.
H. Temporary sawmills and planing mills.
I. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a conditional use
mmnil, subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 68-58, 1968; Am. Ord. 83-29, 2, eft. 3-25-
83; Am. Ord. 87-79, 2,3, eft. 7-24-87; Am. Ord. 99-37, 3, 4, eft. 7-9-99; Am. Ord.
99-55, 7, 10-14-99).
SEC. 12-204.6. - OTHER CONDITIONS TO USE.
Land may be placed in the "0" District only under the following conditions:
A. PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC USES
1. Ptffilis P.flarks, playgrounds, '....i1dlife preseFeS, outdoor educational
facilities and public and community gardens.
2. Flood control channels, creeks, rivers.
3. Freeways, parkways and park drives.
4. Publicly owned forest lands Natural resource conservation/utilization
. areas and preserves.
B. PRIVATELY O W ~ I E : [ ) LAND IN DANGEROUS AREAS
1. Areas too steep to build upon or where such building may cause a
public hazard due to excessive erosion or flooding.
2. Areas subject to flooding or inundation from storm water.
zone districtsandestablishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18,2013
3. Areas beyond fire servicing, and where development might endanger
life, property or the watershed. (Added Ord. 5748, 1960).
SEC. 12-204.10. - "AE-20"-EXCLUSIVE TWENTY ACRE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
The "AE-20" District is intended to be an exclusive district for agriculture and for
those uses which are necessary and an integral part of the agricultural operation. This
District has been created to protect the general welfare of the agricultural community
from encroachments of nonregulated agricultural uses which by their nature would be
injurious to the physical and economic well-being of the agricultural district. (Added Ord.
74-76, 3, eff. 9-16-74)
SEC. 12-204.11. - USES PERMITTED.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "AE-20" District:
A. One single family dwelling unit per lot.
B. Accessory buildings related to permitted uses.
C. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of six (6) adults when located
in a single family dwelling.
D. Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11, aAgricultural
crops such as the raising of tree, vine, field, forage and other plant life crops of all
kinds, {except mushroom growing); and community gardens where there is no
underlying conditional use permit.
E. Bovine (cow) and equine (horses) animals, where the lot area is one
(1) acre or more, shall not exceed four (4) adult animals in any combination of
the foregoing animals and their immature offspring. No pen, stable, barn or corral
shall be maintained within one hundred (100) feet of any property line or within
forty (40) feet of any building used for human habitation unless occupied by the
owner or keeper of the animals. Pasturing of these animals is permitted within
the above mentioned setbacks.
F. Family day care homes, small.
G. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower and vegetable
gardens, private.
H. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6) persons when located
I. Home occupations as defined in Subsection 12-105-H-7.
J. Household pets as defined in Subsection 12-105-H-12.
REVISED DRAFT: City of Fresno Text Amendment No. TA-13-02 Page4
Adds agriculture & community gardens to openspace, agricultural, and residential
zone districts and establishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
K. Petroleum products storage, for use by the occupants of the premises
but not for resale or distribution, subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
L. Poultry raising (limited to hens only), rabbits or similar small furbearing
animals, not to exceed twenty-four (24) of any kind or combination thereof, for
domestic purposes only provided that no pen, coop, or hutch be located within
one hundred (100) feet of any property line or within forty (40) feet of any
residence, dwelling or building used for human habitation.
M. Roadside stands, temporary, for the sale of agricultural products
produced upon the premises. subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-18.
N. Signs, subject to provisions of Section 12-204.15-K. (Added Ord. 74-
76, 4, eft. 9-16-74; Am. Ord. 88-94, 6, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 3, 4,
eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 90-110, 2, eft. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 10, 10-14-99;
Am. Ord. 2006-141, 26, eft. 10-27-06).
SEC. 12-204.13. - USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "AE-20" District, subject to a
conditional use permit pursuant to Sections_12-405 and 12-406:
A. Adult day care facilities for seven (7) to twelve (12) adults when
located ina single family dwelling, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-42.
B. Airports, heliports and crop dusting strips, private.
C. Churches.
D. Commercial stables and riding academies.
E. Electric distribution substation.
F. Electric transmission substation.
G. Family day care homes, large, SUbject to compliance with subsection
12-306-N-42.
H. Golf course, subject to compliance with Subsection 12-306-N-47.
I. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons when located in a
single family dwelling, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-43.
J. Guest ranches.
K. Kennels: boarding, training, or breeding.
L. Microwave relay structures.
M. Sewage disposal and treatment plants.
N. Surface mining operations, subject to the provisions ofArticle 5.5 of
Chapter 12 of this Code.
O. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a
conditional use permit subjectto the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. No. 74-76, 5, eft. 9-16-74; Am. Ord. 88-94, 7, eft. 8-12-
88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 5, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 91-68, 1, eft. 7-26-91; Am. Ord.
99-37, 5, eft. 7-9-99; Am. Ord. 99-55, 11,10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 27,
eft. 10-27-06).
SEC. 12-205. - "AE-S"-EXCLUSIVE FIVE ACRE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
The "AE-5" District is intended to be an exclusive district for agriculture and for
those uses which are necessary and an integral part of the agricultural operation, This
District has been created to protect the general welfare of the agricultural community
from encroachments of nonregulated agricultural uses which by their nature would be
injurious to the physical and economic well-being of the Agricultural District.
(Rep. and Added Ord. 5748, 1960).
C. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of six (6) adults when located
D. Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11. aAgricultural
crops such as the raising of tree, vine, field, forage and other plant life crops of all
kinds, {except mushroom growing)' and community gardens where there is no
underlying conditional use permit.
.E. Bovine (cow) and equine (horses) animals, where the lot area is one
(1) acre or more, shall not exceed four (4) adult animals in any combination of
the foregoing animals and their immature oftspring. No pen, stable, barn or corral
shall be maintained within one hundred (100) feet of any property line or within
forty (40) feet of any building used for human habitation unless occupied by the
owner or keeper of the animals. Pasturing of these animals is permitted within
the above mentioned setbacks.
Adds agriculture & communitygardensto openspace, agricultural, and residential
zone districts andestablishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
G. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower and vegetable
gardens, private.
H. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6) persons when located
K. Petroleum products storage, for use by the occupants of the premises
but not for resale or distribution. subject to the provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11.
L. Poultry raising (limited to hens only), rabbits or similar small furbearing
animals, not to exceed twenty-four (24) of any kind or combination thereof, for
domestic purposes only provided that no pen, coop, or hutch be located within
one hundred (100) feet of any property line or within forty (40) feet of any
residence, dwelling or building used for human habitation.
M. Roadside stands, temporary, for the sale of agricultural products
produced upon the premises..3iubject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-18.
N. Signs, subject to provisions of Section 12-205.5-K. (Rep. and Added
Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6788, 1966; Am. Ord. 88-94, 8, eff. 8-12-88; Am.
Ord. 90-53, 6, 7, eff. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 90-110, 3, eff. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-
55, 5,10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 29, eff. 10-27-06).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "AE-5" District, subject to a
conditional use permit pursuant to Sections 12-405 and 12-406:
located in a single family dwelling, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-42.
C. Churches.
G. Family day care homes, large, subject to compliance with Subsection
12-306-N-42.
H. Golf course, subject to compliance with Subsection 12-306-N-47.
I. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons when located in a
J. Guest ranches.
K. Kennels; boarding, training, or breeding.
N. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a
conditional use permit, subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 68-58, 1968; Am. Ord. 77-120, 1,
eff. 11-11-77; Am. Ord. 88-94, 9, eff. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 8, eff. 7-13-90;
Added 91-68, 3, eff. 7-26-91; Am. Ord. 99-55, 18,10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2006-
141, 30, eff. 10-27-06).
SEC. 12-206. - "R-A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
The "R-A" District is intended to provide for the development of one family
residential estate homes in a semi-rural environment on lots not less than thirty-six
thousand (36,000) square feet in area, not more than one (1) dwelling unit permitted on
any lot, All regulations for this District are deemed to be necessary for the protection of
the quality of the residential environment and for the securing of the health, safety and
general welfare of the residents. (Rep. and Added Ord. 5748, 1960).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-A" District:
A. One single family dwelling unit per lot, except for a Second Dwelling in
accordance with Subsection 12-306-N-38.
B. Accessory Buildings.
1. Garages.
2. Servants' quarters on parcels of land having a minimum lot area of
36,000 square feet or more.
zone districts and establishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18,2013
C. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of six (6) adults when located in a
single family dwelling.
D. Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11, aAgricultural crops,
greenhouses, fruit trees, nut trees, vines, and nurseries {for producing trees, vines and
etRef horticultural stock); and community gardens where there is no underlying
conditional use permit.
E. Bovine (cow) and equine (horses) animals, where the lot area is one (1) acre
or more, shall not exceed four (4) adult animals in any combination of the foregoing
animals and their immature offspring. No pen, stable, barn or corral shall be maintained
within one hundred (100) feet of any property line or within forty (40) feet of any building
used for human habitation unless occupied by the owner or keeper of the animals.
Pasturing of these animals is permitted within the above mentioned setbacks.
G. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower and vegetable gardens,
private.
H. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6) persons when located in a
K. Petroleum products storage, for use by the occupants of the premises but not
for resale or distribution. subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
L. POUltry raising (limited to hens only), rabbits or similar small furbearing
animals, not to exceed twenty-four (24) of any kind or combination thereof, for domestic
purposes only provided that no pen, coop, or hutch be located within one hundred (100)
feet of any property line or within forty (40) feet of any residence, dwelling or building
used for human habitation.
M. Roadside stands, temporary, for the sale of agricultural products produced
upon the premises, subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-18.
N. Signs, subject to provisions of Section 12-206.5-K.
O. Tract office, model homes and construction material storage yards of a
temporary nature, within the tract being developed.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 6768,1966; Am. Ord. 76-40,
1, eff. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 82-3, 11, eff. 2-5-82; Am. Ord. 82-65, 2, eff. 7-23-82; Am.
Ord. 88-44, 10, eff. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 9,10, eff. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 90-110,
4, eft. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 22,10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2004-136, 8,1-25-05; Am.
Ord. 2006-141, 32, eft. 10-27-06).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-A" District, subject to a conditional
use permit pursuant to Sections 12-405 and 12-406:
A. Adult day care facilities for seven (7) to twelve (12) adults when located in a
B. Churches.
C. Electric distribution substation.
D. Family day care homes, large, subject to compliance with subsection
12-306-N-42.
E. Golf course and country club, subject to compliance with Subsection
12-306-N-47.
F. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons when located in a single
family dwelling, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-43.
G. Kennels; boarding, training, or breeding.
H. Microwave relay structures.
I. Schools, parks and playgrounds, public.
J. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary, secondary or college level.
K. Subdivision signs-Oft-site, if proposed as specified in Subsection
12-207.5-K-4.
L. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-46.
M. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a conditional use
lliillI!il, subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Anm. Ord. 6121, 1962; Am. Ord. 68-58,1968; Am. Ord. 76-40,
2, eft. 6-6-76; Ani. Ord. 88-94, 11, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 11, eft. 7-13-90;
Am. Ord. 91-64, 1, eft. 7-12-91; Am. Ord. 91-125, 5, eft. 12-20-91; Am. Ord. 99-55,
5,10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 33, eft. 10-27-06).
Adds agriculture & community gardens to open space, agricultural, andresidential
zone districtsand establishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
SEC. 12-206.4. - USES EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
The following uses are expressly prohibited in the "R-A" District. The listing of
these prohibited uses shall not, however, be used as a basis to enlarge upon the scope
of permitted uses specified in Sections 12-206.1 and 12-206.3 above. The listing herein
is for purposes of clarity only:
A. Advertising structures.
B. Child day care centers, large.
C. Commercial uses.
D. Farm labor camps.
E. Industrial uses.
F. MUltiple family residential uses. (Added Ord. 5748,1960; Added Ord. 90-86,
4, eff. 9-21-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 24,10-14-99).
SEC. 12-207. - "R-1-A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
The "R-1-A" District is intended to provide for the development of one family
residential homes at urban standards on lots not less than twenty thousand (20,000)
square feet in area, not more than one (1) dwelling unit permitted on any lot. All
regulations for this District are deemed to be necessary for the protection of the quality
of the residential environment and for the securing of the health, safety and general
welfare of the residents. (Rep. and Added Ord. 5748, 1960)
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-A" District:
A. One single family dwelling unit per lot, except for a Second Dwelling in
B. Accessory buildings.
single family dwelling..
D. Family day care homes, small.
E. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower and vegetable gardens,
private.
Adds agriculture& community gardens to open space, agricultural, andresidential
F. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6) persons when located in a
G. Home occupations as defined in Subsection 12-105-H-7.
H. Household pets as defined in Subsection 12-105-H-12.
I. Signs, subject to provisions of Section 12-207.5-K.
J. Tract offices, model homes and construction material storage yards of a
K. Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11, agricultural crops, fruit
trees, nut trees, vines, and plant nurseries (for producing trees, vines and horticultural
stock)" and community gardens where there is no underlying conditional use pill!llil
(Rep. and Added Ord. 5748,1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 6357,1963; Am.
Ord. 6768, 1966; Am. Ord. 76-40, 3, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 82-3, 12, eft. 2-5-82; Am.
Ord. 82-65, 2, eft. 7-23-82; Am. Ord. 88-94, 12, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 12,
13, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 90-110, 5, eft. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 30,10-14-99; Am.
Ord. 2004-136, 9, 1-25-05; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 34, eft. 10-27-06).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-A" District, subject to a
B. Churches.
12-306 N-42.
E. Flood control settling grounds.
F. Golf course, country club and driving range, SUbject to compliance with
Subsection 12-306-N-47.
G. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons when located in a single
H. Libraries, public.
12-207.5-K-4.
L. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-46.
permit. subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121, 1962; Am. Ord. 68-58, 1968; Am. Ord. 76-40,
4, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 88-94, 13, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 14, eft. 7-13-90; Am.
Ord. 91-64, 2, eft. 7-12-91; Am. Ord. 91-125, 7, eft. 12-20-91; Am. Ord. 2006-141,
35, eft. 10-27-06).
The following uses are expressly prohibited in the "R-1-A" District. The listing of
B. Agricultural uses not specifically listed as permitted.
C. Child day care centers, large.
D. Commercial uses.
E. Industrial uses.
F. Multiple family residential uses.
(Added Ord. 5748,1960; Added Ord. 90-86, 5, eft. 9-21-90)
SEC. 12-208.10. - "R-1-E" AND "R-1-EH" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
DISTRICT.
The ''R-1-E'' and "R-1-EH" Districts are intended to provide for the development
of single family residential estate homes at a semi-rural density on lots of not less than
37,500 square feet in area. The regulations for both districts are identical except that
horses are a permitted use in the "R-1-EH" District. (Added Ord. 75-16, 1, eft. 3-2-75).
REVISED DRAFT: City of Fresno Text Amendment No. TA-1302 Page13
Adds agriculture & communitygardens to open space, agricuitural, and residential
zone districtsand establishes standards of practice and regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-E" and "R-1-EH" Districts.
A. All uses permitted in the "R-1-A" District, Section 12-207.1.
B. Horses may be maintained for personal use in the "R-1-EH" District upon an
area not less than thirty-seven thousand five hundred (37,500) square feet in area in a
number not to exceed two (2) adult animals with their offspring less than one (1) year of
age. Provided further, that no stable or corral shall be maintained within twenty-five (25)
feet of any side or rear property line or within forty (40) feet of any window or door of any
residence, dwelling or other building used for human habitation, or within one hundred
(100) feet of the front line of the property; however, horses may be pastured upon
irrigated pasture within the above-mentioned side and rear yard setbacks. An additional
horse may be permitted for each additional thirty-seven thousand five hundred (37,500)
square feet of lot area, provided that the total number shall not, in any case, exceed four
(4) horses. Both frontages of through lots shall be considered front property lines.
(Added Ord. 75-16, 2, eff. 3-2-75; Am. Ord. 90-110, 7, eff. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 2006-
141, 36, eff. 10-27-06).
The following uses shall be pemnitted in the "R-1-E" and "R-1-EH" Districts,
subject to a conditional use permit pursuant to Sections 12-405 and 12-406:
B. Churches.
C. Electrical distribution substation.
D. Family day care homes, large, subject to compliance with Subsection
12-306-N-42.
F. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject to compliance with
Adds agriculture & community gardensto open space, agricultural, and residential
12-207.5-K-4.
L. Unit Planned Developments, subject to the provisions of Section 12-304-B-12.
M. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-46.
N. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a conditional use
permit, subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 75-16, 3, eft. 3-2-75; Am. Ord. 78-2, 1, eft. 2-3-78; Am. Ord. 88-94,
14, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 15, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 37, eft.
10-27-06).
The following uses are expressly prohibited in the R-1-E/R-1-EH District. The
listing of these prohibited uses shall not, however, be used as a basis to enlarge upon
the scope of permitted uses specified in Sections 12-208.11 and 12-208.12.
A. Those uses listed in Section 12-207.4 (R-1-A District) of this Code.
(Added Ord. 75-16, 4, eft. 3-2-75; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 38, eft. 10-27-06).
SEC. 12-209. - "R-1-B" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
The "R-1-B" District is intended to provide for the development of one family
residential homes at urban standards on lots not less than twelve thousand five hundred
(12,500) square feet in area, not more than one (1) dwelling unit permitted on any lot. All
regulations for this District are deemed to be necessary for the protection of the quality
of the residential environment and for the securing of the health, safety and general
welfare of the residents. (Rep. and Added Ord. 5748, 1960).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-B" District:
A. One single family dwelling unit per lot, except:
1. In a Planned Development as permitted by Section 12-209.3-G; and
2. A Second Dwelling in accordance with Subsection 12-306-N-38.
REVISED DRAFT: City of Fresno Text Amendment No. TA1302 Page 15
private;
K, Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11 agricultural crops, fruit
trees nut trees vines and plant nurseries (for producing trees. vines and horticultural
stock); and community gardens where there is no underlying conditional use permit.
(Added Ord. 57-48, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 6357, 1963; Am. Ord. 6758,
1966; Am. Ord. 74-54, 1, eft. 7-7-74; Am. Ord. 76-40, 5, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 82-65,
2, eft. 7-23-82; Am. Ord. 88-94, 15, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 16, 17, eft. 7-
13-90; Am. Ord. 90-110, 8, eft. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 39,10-14-99; Am. Ord.
2004-136, 10,1-25-05; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 39, eft. 10-27-06).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-B" District, SUbject to a
conditional use permit pursuant to Sections 12-405 and 12-406;
B. Churches.
C. Family day care homes, large, subject to compliance with subsection
12-306-N-42.
D. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject to compliance with
E. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons when located in a single
zone districts andestablishes standardsof practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
F. Libraries, public.
G. Planned developments, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-21.
H. Schools, parks and playgrounds, public.
I. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary, secondary or college level.
J. Subdivision signs-Oft-site, if proposed as specified in Subsection
12-207.5-K-4.
K. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-46.
L. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a conditional use
permit. subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748,1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 68-58,1968; Am. Ord. 74-54,
2, eft. 7-7-74; Am. Ord. 76-40, 6,6-6-76; Am. Ord. 85-121, 3, 9-13-85; Am. Ord. 88-
94, 16, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 18, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 91-64, 3, eft. 7-12-
91; Am. Ord. 91-125, 10, eft. 12-20-91; Am. Ord. 99-55, 40,10-14-99; Am. Ord.
2006-141, 40, eft. 10-27-06).
The following uses are expressly prohibited in the "R-1-B" District. The listing of
these prohibited Uses shall not, however, be used as a basis to enlarge upon the scope
D. Commercial uses.
E. Industrial uses.
F. Multiple family residential uses.
(Added Ord. 57-48, 1960; Added Ord. 90-86, 6, eft. 9-21-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 41,
10-14-99).
Addsagriculture & community gardens to open space, agricultural, and residential
zonedistrictsandestablishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
SEC. 12-210. - "R-1-C" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
The"R-1-C" District is intended to provide for the development of one family
residential homes at urban standards on lots not less than nine thousand (9,000) square
feet in area, not more than one (1) dwelling unit permitted on any lot. All regulations for
this District are deemed to be necessary for the protection of the quality of the residential
environment and for the securing of the health, safety and general welfare of the
residents. (Rep. and Added Ord. 5748, 1960).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-C" District:
1. In a Planned Development as permitted by Section 12-210.3-H; and
private.
K. Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11 agricultural crops fruit
trees, nut trees vines, and plant nurseries (for producing trees vines and horticultural
stock)' and community gardens where there is no underlying conditional use permit,
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 6357,1963; Am. Ord. 6768,
1966; Am. Ord. 74-54, 6, eft. 7-7-74; Am. Ord. 76-40, 7, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 82-65,
2, eft. 7-23-82; Am. Ord. 88-94, 17, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 19, 20, eft. 7-
zone districts and establishes standards of practiceand regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
13-90; Am. Ord. 90-110, 9, eff. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 46,10-14-99; Am. Ord.
2004-136, 11, 1-25-05; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 41, eff. 10-27-06).
SEC. 12-210.3. - USES PERMITIED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
The followinq uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-C" District, subject to a
B. Churches.
12-306-N-42.
E. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject to compliance with
F. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons when located in a single
family dwelling, subject to Subsection 12-306-N"43.
G. Libraries, public.
H. Planned developments, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-21.
K. Subdivision signs-Off-site, if proposed as specified in Subsection
12-207.5-K-4.
. L. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-46.
ill'illlil, subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
7, eff. 7-7-74, Am. Ord. 76-40, 8, eff. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 85-121, 7, eff. 9-13-85; Am.
Ord. 88-94, 18, eff. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 21, eff. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 91-64, 4,
eff. 7-12-91; Am. Ord. 91-125, 11, eff. 12-20-91; Am. Ord. 99-55, 47,10-14-99; Am.
Ord. 2006-141, 42, eff. 10-27-06).
Adds agriculture& community gardensto openspace, agricultural, and residential
Thefollowing uses are expressly prohibited in the "R-1-C" District. The listing of
D. Commercial uses.
E. Industrial uses.
F. MUltiple family residential uses.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Added Ord. 90-86, 7, elf. 9-21-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 48,
10-14-99).
SEC. 12-211. - "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
The "R-1" District is intended to provide for the development of one family
residential homes at urban standards on lots not less than six thousand (6,000) square
feet in area, not more than one (1) dwelling permitted on any lot. All regulations for this
District are deemed to be necessary for the protection of the quality of the residential
environment and for the securing of health, safety and general welfare of the residents.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1" District:
1. In a Planned Development as permitted by Section 12-211.3-H; and
zone districts and establishes standards of practice andregulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
private.
I. Signs, subjectto provisions of Section 12-211.5-K.
K Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11 agricultural crops, fruit
trees nut trees vines and plant nurseries (for producing trees, vines and horticultural
stock)' and community gardens where there is no underlying conditional use perrni.t.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121, 1962; Am. Ord. 6357,1963; Am. Ord. 6607,
1965; Am. Ord. 6768,1966; Am. Ord. 75-59, 1, eft. 7-12-75; Am. Ord. 75-129, 1, eft.
1-11-76; Am. Ord. 76-40, 9, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 81-105, 3, eft. 9-25-81; Am. Ord.
82-3, 14, eft. 2-5-82; Am. Ord. 82-65, 2, eft. 7-23-82; Am. Ord. 88-94, 19, eft. 8-12-
88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 22, 23, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 90-110, 10, eft. 11-9-90; Am.
Ord. 99-55, 55,10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2004-136, 12, 1-25-05; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 43,
eft. 10-27-06).
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1" District, subject to a conditional
B. Churches.
12-306-N-42.
E. Farmers Market, subject to the conditions listed in Subsection 12-304-B-25.
F. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject to compliance with
zone districts and establishes standardsof practiceand regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
I. Planned developments, subject to the provisions of Subsection 12-306-N-21.
J. Schools, parks and playgrounds, public.
K. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary, secondary or college level.
L. Subdivision signs-Oft-site, if proposed as specified in Subsection
12-207.5-K-4.
N. Community Gardens where the underlying special permit is a conditional use
lliillDil, subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121, 1962; Am. Ord. 6607, 1965; Am. Ord. 68-58,
1968; Am. Ord. 75-69, 2, eft. 7-12-75; Am. Ord. 75-129, 2, eft. 1-11-76; Am. Ord.
76-40, 10, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 86-121, 11, eft. 9-13-85; Am. Ord. 88-94, 20, eft.
8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 24, eft. 7-13-90; Am. 91-64, 5, eft. 7-12-91; Am. Ord.
91-125, 12, eft. 12-20-91; Am. Ord. 99-55, 56, 10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 44,
eft. 10-27-06; Am. Ord. 2008-38, 37, eft. 7-25-08).
The following uses are expressly prohibited in the "R-1" District. The listing of
D. Commercial uses.
E. Industrial uses.
F. MUltiple family residential uses except as permitted by Subsection 12-211.3-G.
(Rep. and Added Ord. 5748,1960; Am. Ord. 6607,1965; Am. Ord. 75-59, 3, eft. 7-12-
75; Am. Ord. 75-129, 3, eft. 1-11-76; Added Ord. 90-86, 8, eft. 9-21-90).
Adds agriculture & community gardensto openspace, agricultural, and residential
zone districts and establishes standards of practice and regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
SEC. 12-212. - "R-2" LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
The "R-2" District is intended to provide for the development of low density
multiple family residential structures where such buildings are reasonably spaced on the
lot to provide for light, privacy, air, safety and insulation against transmission of sound,
on lots not less than six thousand six hundred (6,600) square feet in area. (Rep. and
Added Ord. 5748, 1960).
A. Uses permitted in the "R-1" District, Section 12-211.1 shall apply.
B. One-family, two-family or multiple-family dwellings on a lot with less than two
net acres in area. (Refer to Section 12-212.3-H for sites having two (2) net acres or
more.) (Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 6326, 1963; Am. Ord.
76-40, 11, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 81-105, 2, eft. 9-25-81; Am. Ord. 88-94, 21, eft. 8-
12-88; Am. Ord. 90-110, 12, eft. 11-9-90; Am. Ord. 99-55, 65,10-14-99).
located in a single family dwelling, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-42.
B. Churches.
D. Family day care homes, large, subject to compliance with Subsection
12-306-N-42.
E. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject to compliance
with Subsection 12-306-N-47.
F. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons, subject to
H. Multiple family projects when the subject site contains two (2) or more
net acres in area.
zone districts and establishes standards of practiceand regulationsfor these uses September 18, 2013
J. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary, secondary or college
level.
12-207.5-K-4.
L. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of Subsection
12-306-N-46.
M. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a
conditional use permit. sUbject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748,1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 6326,1963;
Am. Ord. 68-58,1968; Am. Ord. 76-40, 12, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 88-94, 22,
eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 25, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 91-64, 6, eft. 7-12-91;
Am. Ord. 91-125, 13, eft. 12-20-91; Am. Ord. 99-55, 66,10-14-99; Am. Ord.
2006-141, 45, eft. 10-27-06).
C. Commercial uses, including commercial uses such as hotels, apartment
hotels, motor courts, motels or other buildings Wherein housing facilities are furnished to
transient boarders or roomers.
D. Industrial uses. (Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 99-55, 67, 10-14-99).
SEC. 12-213. - "R-3" MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
The "R-3" District is intended to provide for the development of medium density
multiple family residential structures for purposes of rental or sale to permanent
occupants on lots not less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet in area.
REVISED DRAFT: City of Fresno Text Amendment No. TA1302 Page24
zone districts and establishes standards of practice and regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
B. Churches and parochial schools.
C. Libraries, public.
D. Parks and playgrounds, public.
E. Schools, public.
(Added Ord. 5748,1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 76-40, 13, eft.
6-6-76; Am. Ord. 88-94, 23, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-110, 14, eft. 11-9-90;
Am. Ord. 99-55, 78, 10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 46, eft. 10-27-06).
A. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of twenty-four (24) adults, subject to
B. Boarding and/or rooming house.
C. Buildings over forty (40) feet in height. (Refer to Section 12-213.5-0, below.)
D. Clubs and lodges, private, excepting those the principal activity of which is a
service customarily carried on as a business.
F. Family day care homes, large, subject to compliance with Subsection
12-306-N-42.
G. Fraternity and Sorority.
H. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject to compliance with
I. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons, subject to Subsection
12-306-N-43.
J. Multiple family projects when the subject site contains two (2) or more net
acres in area.
K. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary, secondary or college level.
zone districts and establishesstandards of practice and regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
L. Subdivision signs-Oft-site, if proposed as specified in Subsection
12-207.5-K-4.
N. Community gardens where the underlving special permit is a conditional use
R ~ , subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
(Added Ord. 5748, 1960; Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 68-58,1968; Am. Ord. 76-40,
14, eft. 6-6-76; Am. Ord. 88-94, 24, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 26,27, eft. 7-
13-90; Am. Ord. 91-125, 15, eft. 12-20-91; Am. Ord. 99-55, 79,10-14-99; Am. Ord.
2006-141, 47, eft. 10-27-06; Am. Ord. 2008-38, 46, eft. 7-25-08).
C. Commercial uses, including commercial residential uses such as hotels,
apartment hotels, motor courts, motels or other buildings wherein housing facilities are
furnished to transient boarders or roomers.
D. Industrial uses.
E. Offices. (Added Ord. 5748,1960; Am. Ord. 91-64, 7, eft. 7-12-91; Am. Ord.
99-55, 80, 10-14-99).
SEC. 12-214. - "R-4" HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
The "R-4" District is intended to provide for high density multiple family residential
development on lots not less than ten thousand (10,000) feet in area. (Rep. and Added
Ord. 5748, 1960).
Adds agriculture& community gardensto openspace, agricultural, and residential
zone districts and establishes standardsof practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
1. Multiple family dwellings, to a maximum density of less than
thirty (30) units per acre. (Refer to Section 12-214.3-1=11 for densities of
thirty or more units per acre.)
B. Child day care centers, large and small.
C. Clubs and lodges, private, excepting those the principal activity of
which is a service customarily carried on as a business. (Added Ord. 5748, 1960;
Am. Ord. 6121,1962; Am. Ord. 88-94, 25, 26, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53,
28, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 90-86, 9, eft. 9-21-90; Am. Ord. 90-110, 15, eft. 11-
9-90; Ord. 96-64, 1, eft. 11-1-96; Am. Ord. 99-55, 85, 10-14-99; Am. Ord.
2006-141, 48, eft. 10-27-06).
A. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of twenty-four (24) adults, subject to
C. Buildings over sixty (60) feet in height. (Refer to Section 12-214.5-P. below)
D. Electric distribution substation.
E. Family day care homes, large, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-42.
F. Fraternity and Sorority.
G. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject to compliance with
H. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more persons, subject to Subsection
12-306-N-43.
I. Multiple family dwellings with a density of thirty (30) or more units per acre, or
containing two (2) or more net acres in area.
J. Subdivision signs-Oft-site, if proposed as specified in Subsection
12-207.5-K-4.
K. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of Subsection12-306-N-46.
L. Community gardens where the underlying special permit is a conditional use
lliillllit, subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
Adds agriculture & community gardensto open space, agricultural, andresidential
zone districts and establishes standards of practice and regulations for theseuses September18, 2013
27, eft. 8-12-88; Am. Ord. 90-53, 29,30, eft. 7-13-90; Am. Ord. 91-64, 8, eft. 7-
12-91; Am. Ord. 91-125, 16, eft. 12-20-91; Ord. 96-64, 2, eft. 11-1-96; Am. Ord. 99-
55, 86, 10-14-99; Am. Ord. 2006-141, 49, eft. 10-27-06; Am. Ord. 2008-38, 50,
eft. 7-25-08).
B. Agriculturai uses not specifically listed as permitted.
C. Commercial uses, excepting:
1. The commercial-residential uses listed as permitted in Section 12-
214.1; and
2. Radio or television antennas and transmitters, subject to the granting
of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sections 12-405 and 12-406.
D. Hotels and motels.
E. Industrial uses.
F. Offices. (Added Ord. 5748,1960; Am. Ord. 76-20, 1, eff. 3-28-76; Am. Ord.
99-55, 87,10-14-99).
SEC. 12-245. - "ANX" ANNEXED RURAL RESIDENTIAL TRANSITIONAL
OVERLAY DISTRICT.
The "ANX" Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay District is a
transitional overlay zone district intended to provide special standards protecting the
rural residentiai lifestyle, as defined in Section 12-105-R-12, at the time of annexation
into the city. The regulations of the "ANX" transitional overlay district are deemed to be
necessary in order to assist and insure: compatibility with the goals, policies and findings
of the 2025 Fresno General Plan related to the orderly growth of the city; the more
efficient use of resources, the infrastructure, and municipal facilities. The "ANX"
transitional overlay district is intended to allow a transitional rural residential use for
properties upon annexation to the city continuing until such time as the properties are
further developed consistent with the General Plan. Notwithstanding the underlying zone
district designation and_Section 12-317, any use allowed in Section 12-245.1 is deemed
conforming with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fresno on property with the "ANX"
designation. To the extent the provisions of the "ANX" transitional overlay zone district
may be interpreted to be inconsistent with provisions of the Local Planning and
Procedures Ordinance of the City of Fresno (Chapter 12, Article 6), the provisions of the
"ANX" transitional overlay zone district control.
(Added Ord. 2008-10, 4, eff. 6-1-08).
Notwithstanding the underlying zone district designation, the following uses shall
be permitted on any property with the "ANX" transitional overlay district designation:
A. Existing Uses. Any use existing at the time the property was annexed to the
city so long as the use had been lawfully allowed by the county at the time
immediately preceding the annexation. subject to provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11.
B. One single family dwelling unit per lot, except for a Second Dwelling in
C. Accessory Buildings.
1. Garages.
2. Servants' quarters on parcels of land having a minimum lot area of
36,000 square feet or more.
3. Barns, stables, corrals, coops and/or animal or fowl pen.
D. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of six (6) adults when located in a
E. Agricultural crops, greenhouses, fruit trees, nut trees, vines, nurseries for
producing trees, vines and other horticultural stock, and community gardens,
subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
F. Where the lot area is at least one acre in size, a property owner may have
adult bovine (cows) or equine (horses) animals, in any combination thereof, and
their immature offspring, per acre. In no event shall any property regardless of
size have more than 10 adult bovine or equine, or combination thereof. For every
adult bovine or equine allowed on a property, a property owner may substitute
two adult ovine (sheep) or adult caprine (goats) (including any immature
offspring). Other similar animal types may be allowed upon a determination by
the Director that they will not detrimentally affect the public health, safety and/or
welfare.
G. Family day care homes, small.
zone districtsand establishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
H. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower and vegetable gardens,
private.
I. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6) persons when located in a
J. Home occupations as defined in Subsection 12-105-H-7.
K. Household pets as defined in Subsection 12-105-H-12.
L. Petroleum products storage, for use by the occupants of the premises but not
for resale or distribution, subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
M. Poultry raising (limited to hens only), rabbits or similar small featherbearing or
furbearing animals, not to exceed twenty-four (24) of any kind or combination
thereof, for domestic purposes only.
N. Roadside stands, temporary, for the sale of agricultural products produced
upon the premises subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N 18.
O. Signs, subject to provisions of Section 12-206.5-K.
P. Where any of the foregoing animals noted in this section are permitted on site,
a stormwater runoff permit may be required in accordance with the requirements
of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
(Added Ord. 2008-10, 5, eff. 6-1-08).
SEC. 12-306. - PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The following property development standards and special standards of practice
and regulations shall apply to all land, buildings, uses and structures in all districts, with
the exception that notwithstanding any other part of this Code, any building or structure,
including signs, that are identified and designated as a Historic Resource pursuant to the
Historic Preservation Ordinance, may, at the discretion of the Director, Planning and
Development Department upon advice from the City Historic Preservation Specialist, be
exempted from any and all property development standards of the zoning ordinance with
the exception of those rules and regulations imposed in the vicinity of Airports.
N. SPECIAL STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND REGULATIONS
The following standards of practice and regulations shall apply to the
special uses and conditions listed, as follows:
10. Security Wire Permits. Barbed tape or wire, concertina wire or similar
security toppings are specifically prohibited in the city, except for barbed tape or
zone districts andestablishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18,2013
wire constructed pursuant to a barbed wire permit issued pursuant to this
subsection. Any approved security topping must be clearly visible. Planting shall
be regulated to maintain the required open areas in said fence structure.
c. In the 0, AE-20, AE-5, R-1-AH, and R-1-EH zone districts,
barbed wire for agricultural purposes will be permitted with a barbed wire
permit. In the R-A R-1-A R-1-E R-1-C R-1-8 and R-1 zone districts,
barbed wire for agricultural purposes on parcels over five acres in size
may be permitted with a barbed wire permit provided all abutting property
owners agree in writing In such districts, the highest strand of barbed
wire shall not be more than five feet above the highest adjacent ground
level andfencing incorporating barbed wire for agricultural purposes shall
conform to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11.
g. Security toppings required by state or federal law are exempt
from this section.
11. Greenhollse. lmprovement and use of property classified in the open
space, agricultural, and residential zone districts for commercial agriCUlture, plant
nurseries, and community gardens:
a. A p p r o p ~ grading is required for site clearance and leveling
prior to commencement of community gardening, plant nursery, or
agricultural activity.
(1) Irrigation tailwater and stormwater runoff shall be
managed on-site by means of grading, vegetated
swales and on-site detention facilities so as to
prevent drainage to abutting proI:Lerty and to
prevent silt and contaminants from entering the
municipal stormwater management system,
irrigation canals, and natural watercourses.
(2) For sites over one acre in size a grading p ~
shall be obtained to show tailwater and stormwater
management features.
(3) On-site water detention facilities shall conform to
City of Fresno standards for construction and
management to prevent breeding of mosguitoes.
(4) Irrigated cropland shall be managed in compliance
with California Water Code Section 13260,
pertaining to the Irrigated Lands Program. pursuant
to regulations of the California Water Boards.
Addsagriculture & community gardens to open space, agricultural, and residential
zonedistrictsand establishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18, 2013
b. Any Agricultural Land Conservation ("Williamson Act") Contract
that was in force prior to (re)establishment of agricultural uses on land
classified for single-family residential uses shall be permitted to continue
in effect under the terms of Fresno City Council Resolution No. 2006-130
and anv successor Resolution or Ordinance enacted by the City.
However. no new application for an Agricultural Land Conservation
Contracts shall be approved for land classified (zoned) for single-family
residential uses, in recognition of the fact that agricultural cultivation of
land so classified is incidental to urban use (e.g., ancillary open space
associated with a housing project or eleemosynarv institution), or is an
interim and transitional use prior to planned urbanization.
c. Plantings of trees and vines, buildings, and water wells shall not
be installed on portions of a property planned for right-of-way for major
streets.
d. When the underlying zone district or an overlay zone district
allows use of private storage tanks for fuel. such tanks shall be installed
and maintained pursuant to the appropriate permits and reguired
approvals from Fresno County Environmental Health and the Fresno Fire
Department. All such tanks shall be located at least 20feet from property
lines and are subject to additional setback reguirements at the discretion
of regulatory agencies.
e. Use of water for irrigation of crops, plant nurseries and
community gardens.
(1) When feasible and permissible, surface water
supplies and/or recycled water shall be used for
irrigation.
(2) When irrigation district surface water suppJleJ>
allocated to a property have been assigned to the
City of Fresno as part of the annexation
1illU:;ity Water Division must approve in writing any
subsequent re-direction of those irrigation district
surface water allocation to growing crops on the
property When growing activity ceases, the
surface water allocation shall revert to the City of

L3..l Subsection 12-306-0 shall apply to construction of
any new non-potable water delivery facilities.
Appropriate easement covenants shall be recorded
for conveyance of non-potable water.
ill Installation of irrigation pipelines shall be minimized
to the extent possible in portions of a property
planned for right-of-way of major streets. Where it
is unavoidable to avoid planned right-of-way, such
pipelines shall be constructed of appropriate
material to allow subsequent street construction
without replacement of the pipeline.
@ At the conclusion of agricultural/nursery/community
gardening activities, irrigation pipelines shall be
removed unless the City approves their retention
for non-potable water conveyance. Irrigation
easements no longer needed for conveyance of
water supplies shall be vacated. Surface water
rights shall accrue to the City of Fresno when the
irrigation water is no longer being delivered for
agricultural activity.
(6) Any premises having both a potable water utility
connection and a separate source of water for
agricultural irrigation must have an approved
backflow prevention device (meeting to City Water
Division standards) on the potable water
connection. The backflow device shall be installed
with reqUired City permits and is subject to periodic
testing.
m Installation of any water line used to deliver a
potable water supply for irrigation of an agricultural,
plant nursery or community gardening site requires
approved plumbing permits from the City. Any hose
bibb or sprinkler connection to a potable water
utility system shall be equipped with backflow
protection approved by the City, such as a vacuum
breaker fitting.
(8) Any agricultural, nursery, or community garden use
of water from a potable water utility system shall be
metered.
(9) Efficient Water Management Practices identified in
Fresno Irrigation District's adopted Agricultural
Water Management Plan shall be implemented as
feasible.
(1OJ When 20 or more contiguous acres are involved in
agricultural or horticultural activity, a private water
well may be developed, reconstructed, or
rehabilitated on the premises to supply irrigation
water, subject to all of the following:
zone districts andestablishes standards of practice andregulations for these uses September 18, 2013
ill Submittal of an irrigation water use plan for
Water Division approval.
!ill City Water Division's written approval of an
irrigation water well application pursuant to
Fresno Municipal Code Sections 6-402 and
6-505, including siting of the proposed well
and portions of the well casing with
perforations or screening,
(iii) Approval of the appropriate level of
environmental review for the irrigation well
development project.
(Iv) Execution of an agreement with the Water
Division to do the follOWing: maintain well
production metering and records of well
production; to pay the applicable Recharge
Fee or provide alternative groundwater
extraction mitigation acceptable to Water
Division; and to limit the well's groundwater
extraction to a sustainable yield as shall be
determined after well development based
on the Water Division's review of pump
tests.
(11) Wells used for agricultural irrigation must be
improved pursuant to State of California
Department of Water Resources standards and
Water Division requirements based on water well
application review. Irrigation wells shall additionally
be equipped with a meter accessible for periodic
readings by the City for the purpose of assessing
the City's Private Well Irrigation Fee.
(12) Water from an irrigation well must be used solely
on the premises where the well is located,
(13) Water from a private off-site well shall not be used
for irrigating agricultural or horticultural activity.
(14) The practices of "chemigation" and "fertigation,"
and any other means of distributing agrichemicals
via irrigation water, shall only be permitted if there
is no risk of such chemicals flowing back into a
well.
zone districtsand establishes standards of practice and regulations for these uses September 18,2013
(15) At the conclusion of agricultural/nursery/community
gardening activities, any associated well shall be
destroyed in accordance with the provisions of
California Department of Water Resources Water
Well Standards and the standards of the City Water
Division, Alternatively, and only if approved by the
Water Division, a well no longer needed for
irrigation may be retained and secured for
subseguent pUblic pump station use if the well has
been appropriately constructed,
f, Fencing shall be located on the property (not on street rights-of-
wav), For parcels comprising over five acres, perimeter fencing for
agricultural. plant nursery and community gardening uses shall be set
back from property lines as necessary to allow at least six (6) feet for safe
pedestrian access along any roadway, For parcels comprising less than
five acres fencing for these uses shall conform to the regulations of the
underlying zone district with regard to setbacks from rights-of-way and
heights, Fences shall be constructed of approved materials, with use of
security wire regulated pursuant to subsection 12-306-N-1 0,
g, Establishment of Community Gardens, A new community
garden proposed for property having no prior special permit and located
in a zone district where no site plan review application is necessary for
development of permitted uses requires an approved plot plan and
Qj)erational statement with details as set forth in subsections (1) through
(6) below. For properties where there is an underlying approved site plilll
review, establishment of a community garden requires an approved
goolication for a revised exhibit to that site plan review with plot plan and
operational statement containing details as set forth in subsections (1)
through (6) below For property subject to an existing conditional use
permit. establishment of a community garden requires an approved, a
revised exhibit application, with plot plan and operational statement
containing details as set forth in subsections (1) through (6) below:
(1) Establishment of a community garden reguires a
designated responsible party, which may be an
individual. a partnership, a corporate entity, or a
tax-exempt organization: and,
(2) If the responsible party is not the owner of the
proposed community garden site, the responsible
party shall obtain written permission from the owner
of the proposed site (or the authorized agent of the
owner) prior to applying to establish the community
garden. A copy of this written permission, and any
agreement between the property owner and the
responsible party, shall accompany the special
permit application materials submitted to the City;
and,
(3) The application shall include a dimensioned
drawing of the property showing the intended
community garden and other improvements
(including setbacks from property lines and
buildings. landscaping that will remain and
landscaping that is proposed to be removed for the
garden, underlying easements, fencing, pedestrian
accessibility, parking, trash enclosures and any
storage structures proposed to be associated with
the garden); and,
(4) The application shall include an operational
statement with the following details at a minimum;
responsible managing entity and 24-hour contact
information for that entity; hours of gardening
operations/access by users; the intended number
of gardeners sharing the site; a water supply plan;
a waste disposal plan; and any proposed special
event activity associated with the garden; and,
(5) Security wire shall not be permitted for fencing on,
or surrounding, community gardens located in any
residential zone district.
(6) Community gardens may only be established in
areas designated for on-site stormwater retention if
cultivation will not impair drainage characteristics of
the basin. From September 15 through April 15, no
plastic, shade cloth, netting, wire mesh, twine, or
stakes shall be permitted in gardens occupying
stormwater retention areas, and vegetative debris
shall be removed, in order to prevent clogging
drainage facilities.
h. All pesticides, fertilizers, and hazardous materials used and
stored at the premises shall be subject to use, storage, handling,
disposal, disclosure and inventory reguirements administered by the
Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner, Fresno County Environmental
Health, California Environmental Protection Agency Division of Toxic
Substance Control, and Fresno Fire Department. No application of
pesticides shall be allowed by means of aircraft (unless such spraying is
ordered by the State of California or the Agricultural Commissioner for the
entire municipal area to address a serious pest outbreak). All pesticides,
fertilizers, and hazardous materials shall be stored in securely locked
structures having an impervious floor. All such storage structures shall be
Adds agriculture& community gardens to open space, agricultural, and residential
located at least twenty (2.0) feet from property lines and are subject to
additional setback reguirements at the discretion of regulatory agencies.
i. Properties proposed for cultivation shall not be on the list of
hazardous materials sits compiled pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65962.5' or, if a property does appear on that list, prior to it
being cultivated the California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control or Fresno County Certified
Unified Permit Agency shall provide written clearance that hazardous
material residues will not harm persons cultivating the site or consuming
any produce grown on the site.
j. Cultivation and soil amendment activities shall conform to
applicable regUlations of the San Joaguin Valley Air Pollution Control
District, including controls for particulate matter, fugitive dust, bulk
material handling. and odors. No mechanized cultivation activities which
generate dust !including but not limited to, tillage, harvest,and ground
sweeping) shall be done when ambient moisture levels are low and wind
speed exceeds 12 miles per hour.
k. No on-site burning of waste material shall be allowed. Waste
material and litter associated with agricultural operations shall be properly
disposed of in a timely manner, and shall not be permitted to blow onto
adjacent properties.
I. When permitted by the underlying zone district, plant products
grown on the premises may be sold on the premises by means of an on-
site stand subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-18.
m. Beehives may be temporarily placed on agricultural and
horticultural sites twenty (20) acres or more in size for pollination
purposes. when a source of water is provided within 20 feet of all hives
and the hives are located at least forty (40) feet from property lines.
Beehives shall be properly maintained according to apiary standards
administered by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner.
Aggressive or "Africanized" beehives shall be immediately addressed
when reported to the property owner, agricultural operator at the property,
or a regulatory agency.
n, Except where the setback reguirements of this subsection are
more restrictive, setback and lot coverage requirements of the underlying
zone district shall apply. A Ggreenhouses and storage facilities shall be
classified as a building in determining lot coverage. The property
development standards of the underlying zone district shall apply if such
with regard to building heights. If a proposed agricultural or horticultural
structure exceeds the permitted teRseheight for the district er if suGl:!
structure exceeds one hundred (100) sEjuarefeet in area, the Director
shall have discretion to modify the building height standards of the district,
zonedistricts and establishes standards of practice and regulations for theseuses September 18, 2013
o. Sonic hail disruptors ("hail cannons") and noisemaking devices
for repelling birds and other crop pests shall not be permitted.
p. Soil amendments and waste material that attracts nuisance flies
or supports growth of such flies shall not be permitted.
g. Any agricultural operation or community garden located in an
area regulated under an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or airport
specific plan shall be operated in conformance with the applicable Wildlife
Hazard Mitigation Plan for that airport.
r. Street trees and trees established to satisfy shading criteria of
applicable special permits and subdivision maps shall not be removed to
accommodate agricultural or community gardening activity. Other tree
removal shall be subject to requirements of subsection 12-306-N-24.a.
s. Prior to tillage or excavation for cUltivation parties undertaking
the activity shall confirm that there are no Fresno Metropolitan Flood
Control or Fresno Irrigation District underground facilities and shall call
the Underground Service Alert program Ithe "811 - Call Before You Dig")
line. Parties intending to cultivate trees or trellis crops shall conform to
utility company policies and regUlations wjth regard to separations from
overhead lines,
t. In order to protect cultural resources sites proposed and used
for cultivation are subject to the following reguirements:
Ii) If suspected human remains are found the Fresno
County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If
jt is determined that the remains or other
archaeological materials are possibly of Native
American origin, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall be contacted immediately, and
the California Archaeological Inventorv's Southern
San Joaguin Valley Information Center shall be
contacted to obtain a referral list of recognized
archaeologists.
(2) An archaeological assessment shall be conducted
for the site if prehistoric human relics are found that
were not previously assessed during any prior
environmental assessment which may have been
conducted for the property. The site shall be
formally recorded, and the archaeologist shall make
recommendations to the City on further site
investigation or site avoidance/preservation
measures.
(3) If the site of proposed cultivation is found to contain
unigue archaeological or paleontological resources,
and it can be demonstrated that the project will
cause damage to these resources, reasonable
efforts shall be made to permit any or all of the
resource to be scientifically removed, or it shall be
preserved in situ (left in an undisturbed state),
Preservation may include the following options, or
eguivalent measures approved by the city's Historic
Resource Project Manager
(j) Amending construction/cultivation plans to
avoid the resources,
(ii) Setting aside sites containing these
resources by deeding them into permanent
conservation easements,
(liD Capping or covering these resources with a
protective layer of soil adeguate to protect
the resources from cultivation,
(Iv) Incorporating parks green space or other
open space into the project to leave the
resources undisturbed and to maintain a
protective earth cover over them,
(v) Avoiding public disclosure of the location of
these resources until or unless the site is
adeguately protected from vandalism or
theft,
(4) On a property being cultivated, any maintenance,
repair stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration,
preservation, conservation or reconstruction of an
identified historical resource shall be done
consistent with the Secretarv of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,
available from the City of Fresno Historic
Preservation Project Manager,
v, In order to protect biological resources, parties proposing to
cultivate land should first determine if the site is a sensitive habitat area
and/or if it contains sensitive species, City of Fresno General Plan
Master Environmental Impact Report Mitigation measures pertaining to
sensitive species and habitats shall pertain as appropriate to cultivation
activities.
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TA-13-02, for
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02
INITIATING PARTY:
Director of the Development and Resource
Management Dept.
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
PROJECT SPONSOR (paid application/processing fees)
1396 W. Herndon Ave., Ste. 101
Fresno, CA 93711
Notice of Intent was filed with the
FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2221 Kern Street,
Fresno, CA 93721
on August 28, 2013
The Initial Study for this project, as well as
Master EIR No. 10130 (SCH# 2001071097) and
EA No. A-09-02 (SCH# 2009051016) are on file
at the City of Fresno Development and Resource
Management Department,
Fresno City Hall, 3rd Floor,
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, California 93721
Electronic copies of this document (on CD) can
be obtained by contacting Sandra Brock at the
above address or by telephone, (559) 621-8041
PROJECT LOCATION:
The project is applicable within the corporate boundaries of the City of Fresno in Open Conservation ("0").
Exclusive Agricultural CAE") and single-and multi-family residential zone districts
36
047'
10" N Latitude, 119
047'
20" W Longitude (centroid)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project objectives of Text Amendment No. TA-13-02 are:
1. To expressly permit commercial agricultural uses and community gardens in open space, agricultural,
and residential zone districts
2. To establish special standards of practice and regulation which would pertain to agricultural and
community gardening activities in the City of Fresno in order to reduce potential adverse impacts of
those uses and to make those uses more compatible with adjacent urban development.
The project amends various sections of Chapter 12 (the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fresno) to establish a
definition of "community gardens" and to expressly allow agricultural and community garden cultivation in the 0
(Open Conservation) and single- and multi-family residential zone districts. It establishes special standards of
practice and regulation applicable to these zone districts and the AE (Exclusive Agricultural) zone districts, in
order to ensure protection of health and resources and to minimize land use conflicts for properties adjacent to
The City of Fresno has conducted an environmental analysis for the above-described project, contained in
the attached initial study. The City of Fresno, as Lead Agency, proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this project. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is tiered from Master Environmental Impact
Report No. 10130 (State Clearing House No 2001071097) certified for adoption of the 2025 Fresno General
Plan ("MEIR") and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. A-09-02 (SCH# 2009051016) prepared for the 2025
Fresno General Plan Air Quality Update ("Air Quality MND"). Copies of the initial study, MEIR and Air
Quality MND may be reviewed in the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department,
at the address noted above.
After conducting a review of the adequacy of the MEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section
21157.6(b)(1), the Development and Resource Management Department, as lead agency, finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified
and that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the
MEIR was certified as complete, has become available.
The proposed project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of
the MEIR and Air Quality MND. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21157.1 and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 15177, this project has been evaluated with respect to each
item on the attached environmental impact checklist to determine whether this project may cause any
additional significant effect on the environment which was not previously examined in the MEIR. The
checklist, its associated narrative, and proposed mitigation measures reflect applicable comments of
responsible and trustee agencies and research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship
between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the project
application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment,
checklist, initial study narrative, and any attachments thereto, combine to form a record indicating that an
initial study has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA
Guidelines.
Based upon the evaluation guided by the environmental checklist form, it was determined that there are
foreseeable impacts from the Project that are additional to those identified in the MEIR, impacts which
require mitigation measures not included in the MEIR Mitigation Measure Checklist. For these impacts,
project-specific mitigation measures have been proposed. Both the MEIR mitigation checklist measures and
the project-specific mitigation checklist measures will be imposed on this project.
For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental
effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to be of concern. Such an effect may be inherent
in the nature and magnitude of the project. The completed environmental checklist form indicates whether
an impact would be less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Effects so rated are not
sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and have been
mitigated to the extent feasible.
All new development activity and many non-physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward
cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect
contributed by this project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself,
and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with
application of feasible mitigation measures.
With the project specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project
may have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant
and that were not identified and analyzed in the MEIR.
The initial study has concluded that the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall
within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The finding is, therefore, made that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and that a finding of Mitigated Negative Declaration is, therefore, appropriate under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15178.
Additional information on the proposed project, including the proposed environmental finding and the initial
study may be obtained from the Development and Resource Management Department, Development
Services Division, Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor Fresno, California 93721-3604. Please
contact Sandra Brock at (559) 621-8041 or via e-mail at Sandra.Brock@fresno.gov for more information.
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: SUBMITIED BY:
ike Sanche lanning Manager
CITY OF FRESNO DEVELOPMENT AND
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 28, 2013
Sandra L. Brock, Planner
Attachments: Notice of Intent to make a finding of Mitigated Negative Declaration for EA No.TA-13-02,
filed with the Fresno County Clerk on Augusts 28, 2013
Exhibit A, Initial Study Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) with attachments
Exhibit B, Review of MEIR No. 10130 (SCH# 2001071097)
Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure Checklist for EA No. TA-13-02
Exhibit D, Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist for EA No. TA-13-02
201310000220
.
CITY OF FRESNO
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATtVE DECLARATION
EA No. TA-13-02
Prepared for Text Amendment Application No. TA1302
INITIATING PARTY:
Directorof the Development and Resource Management Dept.
2600 Fresno Street, Room3065
Fresno, CA 93721-3604 .
PROJECT SPONSOR (paid applicationlprocessing fees)
1396W. Herndon Ave., Ste. 101
Fresno, CA 93711
PROJECT LOCATION:
Applicable within the corporate boundaries of the City of Fresno in
OpenConservation ("0"). Exclusive Agricuitural ("AE") and
single-and multi-family residential zone districts
36' 47' 10" NLatitude, 119' 47' 20" W Longitude (centroid)
Filed with:
.. ..
AUG 28.2013
. COUW1;Y,GLERK
By 7-:S!itJ $C{l 'f!.
DEP
FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2221 Kern Street, Fresno, CA 93721
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project objectives ofText Amendment No. TA-13-02 are:
1. To expressly permit commercial agricultural uses and community gardens in open space, agricultural,
and residential zone districts
2. To establish special standards of practice and regulation which would pertain to agricultural and
community gardening activities in the City of Fresno in order to reduce potential adverse impacts of
those uses and to make those uses more compatible with adjacent urban development.
The project amends various sections of Chapter 12 (the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fresno) to establish a
definition of "community gardens" and to expressly allow agricultural and community garden cultivation in the 0
(Open Conservation) and single- and multi-family residential zone districts. It establishes special standards of
practice and regulation applicable to these zone districts and the AE (Exclusive Agricultural) zone districts, in
order to ensure protection of health and resources and to minimize land use conflicts for properties adjacent to
The City of Fresno has conducted an initial study of the above-described project and it has been determined to
be a subsequent project that is not fUlly within the scope of the Master Environmental Impact Report No. 10130
(MEIR) prepared for the 2025 Fresno General Plan (SCH # 2001071097) and Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for Plan Amendment No. A-09-02 (SCH # 2009051016) (Air Quality MND). Therefore, the
Development and Resource Management Department proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
this project.
With the project specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may
have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that
were not identified and analyzed in the MEIR or Air Quality MND. After conducting a review of the adequacy of
the MEIR and Air Quality MND pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21157.6(b)(1), the Development
and Resource Management Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with
respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified and the Air Quality MND was adopted; and
that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the MEIR was
certified as complete and the Air Quality MND was adopted, has become available. The project is not site-
specific and therefore is not specifically proposed to be located on a site which is on any of the lists
enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; it does not pertain to commercial or industrial
property which comprise the majority of sites which are hazardous waste facilities, land designated as
hazardous waste property or hazardous waste disposal sites.
Additional information on the proposed project, including the MEIRIAir Quality MND proposed environmental
finding of a mitigated negative declaration and the initial study may be obtained from the Development and
Resource Management Department, Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor Fresno, Room 3070,
California 93721-3604. Please contact Sandra Brock at (559) 621-8041, or you may email her email at
sandra.brock@fresno.gov, for more information or to obtain a copy of the document in electronic format (on
CD-ROM).
ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the proposed environmental finding. Comments must be in
writing and must state (1) the commentor's name and address; (2) the commentor's interest in, or relationship
to, the project; (3) the environmental determination being commented upon; and (4) the specific reason(s) why
the proposed environmental determination should or should not be made. Any comments may be submitted at
any time between the publication date of this notice and close of the Fresno Planning Commission hearing on
Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 and this related environmental finding, scheduled for September
18, 2013 at 6:00pm or thereafter in the Fresno City Council Chambers (2
nd
floor of Fresno City Hall).. Please
direct written comments to Sandra Brock, Planner, City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department, City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3076, Fresno, California, 93721-3604; or by email to
sandra.brock@fresno.gov; by facsimile to (559) 498-1026.
SUBMITTED BY:
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:ja.ud-ta.. ~
Sandra L. Brock, Planner
DATE: August 28,2013
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J / A t ~
Mike sr:::t/z, Planning Manager
CITY OF FRESNO DEVELOPMENTAND
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
E201310000220
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. TA-13-02
EXHIBIT A, INITIAL STUDY
Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G)
1. Project title:
TEXT AMENDMENT ApPLICATION No. TA-13-02
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department (DARM)
2600 Fresno Street, 3'd Floor
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
3. Contact person and phone number:
Sandra Brock, Planner III
Planning Division, DARM (see address above)
Phone: (559) 621-8041; Fax: (559)- 498-1026; email: sandra.brock@fresno.gov
4. Project location: This project could affect such incorporated property within the City of
Fresno that is zoned for open space, agricultural, and single/multi-family residential
uses. The activities permitted by means of this text amendment are more likely to
occur on vacant parcels, but could also occur on vacant portions of developed land.
36
047'
10" N Latitude, 119
047'
20" W Longitude (centroid for City of Fresno)
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
This text amendment was initiated by the Director of the City of Fresno Development
and Resource Management Department, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3076, Fresno,
California 93721-3604
The project sponsor, who requested the text amendment and paid the application
processing fees for it, is Granville Homes, Inc., 1396 West Herndon Avenue, Suite 101,
Fresno, California 93711.
6. General/Community Plan Land Use Designation changes proposed:
The text amendment would be generally applicable to land planned for open space,
agricultural, and residential uses; however activities permitted by this text amendment
could be instituted on parcels which are planned for other land use designations but
have nonconforming zoning for Open Conservation District, an Exclusive Agricultural
Zone District, or a single/multiple family residential zone district.
7. Zoning Classification changes proposed:
The text amendment does not propose to change any zone district designations, but
would formalize the right to cultivate land for remuneration when that is classified in the
a (Open Conservation) zone districts and in zone districts which permit single and
multiple family residentiai development. It would also impose special standards of
practice and regulation on cultivation operations (agricultural and community
gardening).
EA No. TA-13-02
- 1 -
August 28, 2013
8. Description of project:
The objectives of the project application for Text Amendment No. TA-13-02 are:
1. To expressly permit agricultural uses and community gardens in open space,
agricultural, and residential zone districts of the City of Fresno; and
2. To establish special standards of practice and regulation which would pertain to
agricultural and community gardening activities in the City of Fresno in order to
reduce potential adverse impacts of those uses and to make those uses more
compatible with adjacent urban development.
The project amends various sections of Chapter 12 (the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Fresno) to establish a definition of "community gardens" and to expressly allow
agricultural and community garden cultivation in the 0 (Open Conservation) and single-
and multi-family residential zone districts. It establishes special standards of practice
and regulation applicable to these zone districts and the AE (Exclusive Agricultural)
zone districts, in order to ensure protection of health and resources and to minimize
land use conflicts for properties adjacent to agricultural and community gardening
operations.
9. Setting: The text amendment would change land use regulations applicable to land
classified in the 0 (Open Conservation), AE (Exclusive Agricultural) and single- and
multi-family residential zone districts located within the corporate boundaries of the
City of Fresno, a municipality having approximately 106 square miles of annexed area
within a 140-square mile Sphere of Infiuence in the County of Fresno in the San
Joaquin Valley region of California (please see Attachment 1, a map of the City of
Fresno's corporate boundary; Attachment 2, a map of vacant parcels in the
incorporated city of Fresno; Attachment 3, Generalized Fresno County Zoning
surrounding the City of Fresno; and Attachment 4, a 2013 aerial photo of the Fresno-
Clovis Metropolitan Area.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
No approvals from other agencies are needed for the text amendment. However, the
uses allowed via text amendment may require approvals from one or more of the
following agencies: City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities Water Division; City of
Fresno BUilding and Safety Services; Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District;
Fresno County Department of Agriculture; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District; Fresno County Certified Unified Program Agency; and CalEPA Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 2-
August 28, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21001.1, and 21080, the purpose of this initial study
is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project, to determine whether the project
would have significant adverse environmental impacts requiring preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report, or whether adverse impacts may be mitigated below a level of significance with
features incorporated into the project and imposition of mitigation measures.
It is noted that the environmental setting for this project and a range of potential environmental
effects of development and use of land in the City of Fresno Sphere of Influence were described
in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the 2000 Fresno County General Plan
Update, State Clearinghouse (SCH) No 99051024; the Master Environmental Impact Report
(MEIR) certified for the 2025 Fresno General Plan (SCH # 2001071097), and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) approved for City of Fresno Plan Amendment A-09-02, the Air
Quality Update to the 2025 Fresno General Plan (SCH # 2009051016).
Environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, although none
of the impacts would be potentially significant with application of project-specific mitigation
measures:
x X
Agriculture and Forestry
X Aesthetics Resources Air Quality
--
Biological Resources
X
Cultural Resources
X
Geology /Soils
X
Greenhouse Gas
X
Hazards & Hazardous
X
Hydrology/ Water
Emissions Materials Quality
--
X
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources X
Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Mandatory Findings
TransportationlTrafflc Utilities/Service Systems of Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that, although some aspects of the activities that would be allowed subsequent to
the proposed project could have some adverse' effects on the environment, those effects
would not result in a significant adverse effect because revisions in the project have been
made and project-specific mitigation measures will be applied, as agreed to by the
project proponent. I further find that the project will not have additional significant
adverse effects on the environment beyond those identified in City of Fresno Master
Environmental Impact Report No. 10130 (SCH No. 2001071097) certified for the 2025
Fresno General Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for Plan
Amendment No. A-09-02/ Air Quality Update to the General Plan SCH No. 2009051016).
Therefore, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x ~ k d J3&;ck..
Sandra L. Brock, Planner III, City of Fresno
EA No. TA-13-02
- 3-
August 28, 2013
August 28, 2013
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. "No Impact" means the subsequent project will not cause any additional significant effect
related to the threshold under consideration which was not previously examined in the
MEIR or Air Quality MND (see attached Exhibit B for a summary of MEIR findings).
b. "Less Than Significant Impact" means there is an impact related to the threshold under
consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR or Air Quality MND, but
that impact is less than significant;
c. "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation" means there is a potentially
significant impact related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously
examined in the MEIR or Air Quality MND, however, with the mitigation incorporated
into the project, the impact is less than significant.
d. "Potentially Significant Impact" means there is an additional potentially significant effect
related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the
MEIR or Air Quality MND.
2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the
checklist answers must then indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
5. A "Finding of Conformity" is a determination based on an initial study that the proposed
project is a subsequent project identified in the MEIR and that it is fully within the scope of
the MEIR and Air Quality MND because it would have no additional significant effects that
were not examined in the MEIR or the Air Quality MND.
6. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
EA No. TA-13-02
- 4-
August 28, 2013
7. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR or MIER, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the MEIR or another earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
8. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
9. Supporting Information Sources: A list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
10. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to
a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
11. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
EA No. TA-13-02
- 5 -
Augus128,2013
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Significant with Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS - Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
x
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
x
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
statescenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its x
surroundings?
d) Create a newsource of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or x
nighttime views in thearea?
The project would not adversely affect scenic vistas in the City of Fresno, and would not
degrade Fresno's existing visual character, because the height of crops and structures
associated with agricultural uses are consistent with, or less than, those of current viewsheds in
the City. Current zoning regulations allow owners of residential property to plant orchards for
personal use and to construct accessory structures.
Cultivated parcels add aesthetic value from plant material. Vacant land which is not subject to
ongoing cultivation and maintenance is frequently rendered un-aesthetic by seasonal growth of
weeds, disking which leaves the property in a barren condition, and occasional litter. The
special standards of practice and regulation incorporated into the project require parties using
land for agriculture and community gardens to remove trash and debris. Protections against
removing existing shade trees along streets are incorporated into the special standards of
practice and regulation portion of the text amendment.
Nothing in the text amendment potentiates damage to scenic resources. Mitigation measures
specific to protecting historic buildings and other cultural resources are being proposed for this
project. They are the same measures that pertain to development applications city-wide; for
historic buildings the applicable measure is implemented when demolition permits are sought.
Headlights on agricultural equipment are not expected to generate any more light or glare than
headlights on vehicles which may traverse roadways and private property, and would be
present at lower frequency because night agricultural operations occur less frequently than
vehicle trips in the urban area. Agricultural activity on vacant land may create some light or
glare, but Building Code requirements address that potential impact by requiring that lighting be
shielded and down-directed.
Therefore, this project is not expected to damage any scenic resource, nor will it degrade the
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As a result, a determination has been
made that this project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics, with mitigation
measures applied to protect historic bUildings.
EA No. TA-13-02
-6-
August 28, 2013
Mitigation Measure for potential aesthetic impacts relating to historic buildings
Implement the mitigation measures for cultural resources as identified in the Project-
Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for this project, dated August 28,2013.
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Significant with Significant No Impact
Incorporated
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES: In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California
Agriculturai Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. -- Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland x
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Confiict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
x
contract?
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 x
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 511 04(g))?
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
x
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
California's Central Valley achieved primacy among the state's growing regions, primarily due to
its expansive plains of fertile alluvial soils and mild climate. The natural fertility of the San
Joaquin Valley (SJV) and its suitability for dry-land grain cultivation was recognized early, and
was the impetus for routing main railroad lines through the most fertile part of the SJV in order
to facilitate shipping of grain. The development of farm equipment and irrigation/water storage
facilities (which allowed the region's episodic winter rains to be controlled and directed) provided
EA No. TA-13-02
- 7 -
August 28, 2013
for a wide diversity of crops, including vineyards, orchards, berries, field crops and row crops
(such as vegetables).
Cities grew up around the original grain shipping points, precipitating the Valley's future conflict
between retaining the maximum amount of cropland, and use of that land for homes and
commerce as the shipping points evolved into cities.
While California rernains the premier agricultural state in the nation, decades of incremental loss
of the state's high-quality farmland to development, and the need to protect farmland from urban
encroachment, are longstanding and continuing matters of concern to the state government.
See Attachment 5, the California Right to Farm Act (Civil Code Section 3485.5, originally
enacted in 1981) and Attachment 6, the Legislative Findings for the 2011 California Farmland
Conservancy Program Act).
In conjunction with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly called the Soil
Conservation Service), The State of California Department of Conservation (DOC) carefully
classifies farmland as to quality and utility, and tracks its conversion to other uses.
A primary responsibility of California's statewide network of Local Agency Formation
Commissions (LAFCo) is to "[discourage] urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime
agricultural lands.... " (California Government Code/GC 56001, the Legislative finding and
declaration of state interests for the Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000).
Fresno County has been the premier agricultural county in California for decades, and has also
faced the issue of agricultural land conversion for urban development. For portions of the City
of Fresno Sphere of Influence not already annexed to the City, the County maintains agricultural
zoning to provide for continuing cultivation (see Attachment 3). Much of the land comprising
and surrounding the City of Fresno could meet at least one of the criteria in GC 56064, the
comprehensive definition of "Prime Agricultural Land" in the Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Act:
"Prime agricultural land" means an area ofland, whether a single parcel or
contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an
agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
(a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification,
whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.
(b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating.
(c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that
has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre
as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National
Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003.
(d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a
nonbearing period ofless than five years and that will return during the
commercial bearing period on an annual bases from the production of
unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars
($400) per acre.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 8-
August 28, 2013
(e) Land that hasreturned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
products an annual grossvalue of not lessthan four hundreddollars ($400)
per acrefor threeof the previous five calendar years.
Fresno County LAFCo administers the Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Act through its review of
proposed Sphere of Influence amendments and annexations which change the City of Fresno's
corporate boundary. The LAFCo Board requires recordation of Right to Farm Covenants for
annexed land, in order to help ensure that the intent of the state law and county ordinance
protecting agricultural activity are fulfilled by removing potential legal actions that could cause
discontinuation of farming when nearby land is urbanized.
Despite the efforts of several laws and agencies, there is continuing attrition of productive
farmland in Fresno County due to urban expansion. Attachment 7 hereto presents a series of
DOC tables showing the acreage of important farmland in Fresno County that has been
annually converted to urban uses over recent years. In general, the loss of farmland has been
due to voluntary action on the part of its owners, and constitutes a cessation of farming when
the land is sold, rezoned, and/or subdivided for development of urban uses.
Attachment 8 is an excerpt of the DOC 2010 Important Farmland Map for the area around the
City of Fresno (the Eastern Fresno County map may be accessed at
ftp:/Iftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/201 O/fre10_e.pdf
However, land is reclassified by the DOC when the local land use agency reports it as being
rezoned or entitled for urban use. This map re-c1assification does not mean that it has become
unsuitable, or even unavailable for, productive cultivation. The assignment of a shade of pink to
property on the DOC farmland map only indicates that this land is not likely to be farmed in the
future due to existing or impending urban development.
Over the past five decades, the County and the City of Fresno have individually and jointly
attempted to minimize unnecessary conversion of farmland. Fresno County has enacted a
Right to Farm Ordinance and is a long-term participant in the "Williamson Act) program
Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts (ALCCs). The City of Fresno does not have its own
Right to Farm Ordinance, and does not have regulations which would allow for annexed land to
enter new ALCCs, but has adopted Resolution No. 2006-130 which allows the City to succeed
to an ALCC entered in the County when land is annexed. The City and County have
cooperated on planning policies which direct intensive development to established cities and
service districts with capacity to provide urban services.
The 2003 Restated Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County of Fresno
includes STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION that have been intended to limit conversion of
agricultural land by requiring that candidate properties for annexation have approved urban
development entitlements (approved tentative subdivision maps for residential uses, and
approved site plans for other uses). Provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Act require that
annexed land be assigned a city zoning classification prior to annexation, so that urban zoning
will apply immediately to land upon its inclusion within city boundaries.
However, the STANDARDS also provide for annexing land in addition to the property approved
for urban development proposal, when necessary to maintain or create logical boundaries for a
city (avoiding islands, peninsular or isthmus configurations of annexed land). The action of
these annexation rules is that land which is being farmed, or which could be farmed, is assigned
EA No. TA-13-02
- 9-
August 28, 2013
an urban zoning classification when annexed, even in the absence of urban development
applications for that land.
The City of Fresno's Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance, Zoning regulations, and
General Plan Land Use Consistency matrix require that zone districts consistent with planned
urban uses be assigned. The County and City General Plans and zoning classifications differ
greatly in the portion of Fresno west of Freeway 99. This area is predominantly planned for
agricultural and rural residential use in the Fresno County General Plan, and when in the
unincorporated area is automatically assigned a consistent zone district. When land is annexed
to the City of Fresno-which does not have land planned for agricultural uses or an agricultural
reserve within its Sphere of Influence-that land is reclassified to an urban zone district
consistent with its planned urban use designation pursuant to the City's General Plan.
Loss of agricultural land has been deemed a significant and unavoidable adverse environmental
impact in the environmental analysis of a succession of City General and Community Plans.
The 2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR concluded that 9,333 acres of vacant land and/or
productive agricultural land would be permanently displaced by full buildout of the urban land
uses depicted in the Urban Form Element (land use map) of the General Plan; further, that
"residential uses may conflict with agricultural operations which typically result in generation of
pesticide residues, noise and dust."
2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure No. E-4 preserves the viability of
agricultural land by reiterating the requirement to record "Right to Farm" covenants and
otherwise requiring that developers of urban projects adjacent to designated agricultural land
incorporate measures to reduce potential for conflicts with urban uses. This mitigation measure
is intended to apply to development project applications filed within the City's Sphere of
Influence, and would direct treatment of the urban project/designated agricultural land interface
at the Sphere of Influence boundary itself, because all land within the Sphere of Influence is not
designated for agricultural use, but for urban development.
Most of Fresno's Sphere of Influence boundary is comprised by major street rights-of-way which
provide a considerable buffer distance. The proposed text amendment incorporates buffer zone
provisions by prohibiting permanent crops in portions of property planned for major street right-
of-way, and by requiring a six-foot setback for any enclosing fences from all street rights-of-way.
Since mechanized equipment is required to prepare ground and cultivate permanent crops such
as trees and vines, the California Right to Farm Act would not support a blanket prohibition of
tractor or other equipment use. Mitigation measures proposed pursuant to other portions of this
environmental assessment (implemented via further augmentations to the text amendment's
special standards of practice and regulation) provide other types of protections for the
urban/agricultural interface.
In certifying the MEIR for the 2025 Fresno General Plan, Findings of Over-riding consideration
were made for these impacts (see attached Attachment 9). It was concluded that the impacts
could not be completely mitigated, but that the General Plan and MEIR contained policies and
mitigations which were feasible for mitigation, referencing General Plan Goals and policies "to
facilitate continued cultivation of agricultural lands within the urban boundary until such time as
the urban development is necessary and appropriate. These strategies are particularly
applicable to properties that will constitute the transition area between urban and agricultural
areas." Policies and mitigation measures for maintaining water quality and quantity, and
supporting attainment of air quality standards were also referenced.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 10 -
August 28, 2013
In 2009, the Air Quality Update to the 2025 Fresno General Plan was approved with additional
measures for improving air quality and reducing global climate change. In addition to the
revisions in the MEIR Mitigation Measure Checklist adopted through the MND for this General
Plan Amendment (No. A-09-02), objectives and policies were added to the General Plan to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, improve carbon sequestration, and protect human
health.
The proposed text amendment augments the agricultural land preservation and resource
protection policies and mitigation measures of the 2025 Fresno General Plan and in General
Plan Amendment A-09-02 by providing for ongoing and re-established productive cultivation of
Fresno's high-quality agricultural soils with additional regulations to protect water and air
resources and human health from potential effects of cultivation activity.
The 2008-2009 Great Recession and its attendant (and lingering) real estate development
activity downturn have shown that the best prospective controls for farmland conversion can be
thwarted by economic factors that are not amenable to planning laws or annexation standards.
The State of California has conceded that planned and approved urban development may take
years to be built out; hence, a series of state laws extending the life of approved tentative tract
maps years into the future.
Over the long term, Planning staff has noted that between five and ten percent of Fresno's
urbanized area has remained undeveloped even in portions of the City predominantly built out.
This has been attributed to property owner preferences and legal and financial issues
associated with properties and owners (estate complications, etc.). When the number of
foreclosures increased during the Great Recession, elevated numbers of urban parcels became
vacant due to fires in vacant structures and the lack of financing for prompt rebuilding. At the
fringes of the urban area, the City has experienced a higher incidence of trash dumping and
vegetation fires on properties approved for development but unbuilt and abandoned due to
financing delays and bankruptcies of development firms. The City has attempted to recruit
replacement uses for once-developed urban lots which have been cleared.
While the City has informally approved some community gardens by amending prior special
permits for parks and similar public and quasi-public facilities, the zoning ordinance does not
classify "community garden" as a use-and the structure of the City's Zoning Ordinance is that
of a "permissive Euclidian" zoning code which does require uses to be classified in order to be
permitted.
Similarly, the City has not taken zoning enforcement action against annexed Vineyards and
orchards at the urban fringe when those properties have been zoned for residential uses, even
though assignment of a City residential zone district classification technically disallows
continued farming after annexation. And, there has been sporadic use of parcels throughout the
incorporated area of Fresno for row crops that have been sold by the growers. Provided that
these properties have been cultivated according to regulations pertinent to farming, air quality,
and water usage, enforcement agencies have allowed growers to operate on land within
Fresno's corporate boundaries.
Further evidence of City's intent to preserve agricultural production until urban development
(i.e., re-use of agricultural and rural residential land for more intensive uses) may be imminent is
the enactment of the "ANX" overlay district at the end of the past decade. The "ANX" overlay
district is intended to expressly allow property owners on land that was zoned for agricultural.
and rural residential uses which were legal in Fresno County to continue agricultural and rural
EA No. TA-13-02
- 11 -
August 28, 2013
residential activities after the property is annexed to the City, whereupon it is generally rezoned
for urban residential use.
However, the "ANX" overlay district has only been applied to properties which were brought into
City boundaries to "round off' the boundaries; it has not been applied to the properties which
were subject to development applications.
If not used to grow crops or ornamental plants, vacant land is required by City ordinance and
fire protection regulations to have its vegetation removed. Changes in the transfer and handing
of mortgage notes have made it increasingly difficult, often impossible, to locate a responsible
party who can be required to spray for weeds or disk vacant land prior to fire season. Even
when a responsible entity performs the disking and spraying required by the City's Weed
Abatement Ordinance, it exposes the soils to leaching and erosion which adversely affect
natural fertility. The vacant ground remains open for trash dumping and provides harborage for
undesirable rodents.
The proposed text amendment would facilitate re-use of these un-used sites for cultivation, for
community gardening or agriculture. These activities establish active and frequent maintenance
by responsible parties and concomitantly improve residents' economic and nutritional well-
being. Cultivation activity adds moisture and organic matter that maintain soil biota and fertility,
preserving the essence of high-quality agricultural soils. The growing of crops and improvement
of soil organic content sequesters carbon, establishes providing ground cover to reduce fugitive
dust and contaminated runoff, and provides cooling to combat the urban heat island effect.
The proposed project is required to accomplish these ends on the City's vacant land because
the current zoning ordinance allows only personal gardens in residential zone districts. It does
not permit collective use by community gardening, and outside of the City's two Exclusive
Agricultural zone districts, it does not expressly permit agricultural activity (as "Agriculture" is
defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "The financial practice of growing food..."),
The act of zoning land for residential or open space use does not automatically remove its
usefulness or suitability for growing crops. With the proposed project, high-quality farmland
which is undeveloped or vacant would again become a potentially useful agricultural resource, a
supply of food and economic input for the community, preserving some of Fresno's high-quality
farmland for an intervening period of time until its re-use for more intensive urban development
is feasible. No mitigation for agricultural land impacts is necessary, because the project itself
enhances city protection of protection of this resource.
Mitigation Measures
The proposed project incorporates and implements as applicable MEIR mitigation
measures relating to agricultural and preservation as identified in the attached Exhibit C,
MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist, dated August 28, 2013.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 12-
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Potentially Significant LessThan
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact
Incorporated
III. AIR QUALITY AND GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE - (Where available, the
significance 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) Confiict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan (e.g., by
having potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed the San
x
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds for these
pollutants)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
x
projected air qualityviolation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project regionis non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
x
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
x
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
x
substantial numberof people?
Environmental and regulatory setting with regard to air quality
The project is located in Fresno County and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB).
This region has had chronic non-attainment of federal and state clean air standards for
ozone/oxidants and particulate matter due to a combination of topography and climate. Some
air pollutants are fairly constant throughout the year in the region, while others vary in
concentration according to location and are changeable from day to day and even hour to hour,
due to complex interactions of topography, climate, and weather.
Regional factors affect the accumulation and dispersion of air pollutants within the SJVAB. The
SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long, averages 35 miles wide, and is the second largest air
basin in the state. It is bounded, and its climatological characteristics are essentially defined by
geography: The floor of the Valley is flat (with a slight downward gradient to the northwest) and
is hemmed in on three sides by mountain ranges:
the Sierra Nevada to the east rises from 8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation;
the Tehachapi mountains in the south range from 5,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation; and
the Coast Range in the west averages 3,000 feet in elevation.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 13-
August 28,2013
The Coast Range barrier has an opening to the Pacific Ocean at the Carquinez Straits where
the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay and via the Altamont Pass.
However, air entering the Valley at these points carries pollutants and pollutant precursors from
urbanized coastal areas. (In turn, the SJVAB contributes pollutants and precursors to downwind
air basins when air escapes the Valley through mountain passes or high-level flows.)
Topography, wind speed and direction, temperature, inversion layers, precipitation, and fog
exacerbate the air quality problem in the SJVAB. These factors can combine to create air
pollution and affect the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants.
The Valley has a Mediterranean climate, with a high number of sunny days (over 260 per year,
on the average) and little or no measurable precipitation for several months of the year. High
temperature readings in summer average 95F. This fosters photochemical reactions in the
atmosphere that generate oxidants and particulate matter.
Summertime wind speed and direction data indicate that the Valley's air mass moves from the
north end of the Valley and flows in a south-southeasterly direction through the Valley, through
Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin.
During the winter, average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s and the average daily
low temperature is 45F. Temperatures below freezing are unusual, but highs in the 30s and
40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. Wintertime wind speed and
direction data indicate that prevailing flows occasionally reverse, with wind originating from the
south end of the Valley and blowing in a north-northwesterly direction. While the Valley
generally experiences light winds (less than 10 mph), more disturbed weather conditions with
stronger ground level winds can generate fugitive dust and exacerbate particulate matter
pollution. Winter also predisposes the SJVAB to inversion layers, where warm air in the upper
atmosphere caps cold air at lower elevations, with little or no normal convection to mix the air
mass. Inversions can exist at the surface or at any height above the ground, and tend to act as
a lid on the Valley, holding in the pollutants that are generated here.
Occurrences of high barometric pressure at any time of the year tend to cause the Valley
atmosphere to stagnate and allow pollutants to concentrate. These factors create a climate
conducive to elevated particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations and accumulation of
carbon monoxide (CO).
Valley air quality has adverse impacts on human health, a situation rendered more serious due
to the elevated proportion of sensitive persons (children and the elderly) in the local population.
Childhood and adult asthma are prevalent and there with a high level of asthma mortality in the
region. Outdoor recreation is often contraindicated, which has secondary cardiopulmonary
effects from lack of physical activity.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (hereinafter, "APCD") 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. In the early
1990s, this agency was created to replaces the separate air pollution authorities formerly
administered by individual Valley Counties. The regional APCD has provided a means to
undertake regional climatological studies for understanding transport and evolution of air
pollutants, and a comprehensive approach to reducing air pollution in the entire Valley.
The SJVAPCD has promulgated a series of air quality attainment plans pursuant to
requirements of Federal and state Clean Air Acts, complementing the efforts of the California Air
EA No. TA-13-02
- 14-
August 28, 2013
Resources Board. These plans include a range of strategies to improve air quality through land
use planning and transportation control measures, vehicle inspection programs, industrial point
source permit controls, emission offsets, incentive programs to replace higher-polluting
equipment/vehicles with newer/cleaner technologies, and even regulations aimed at reducing
the amount of pollutants transported into the Valley from the coastal (Bay) area. APCD
Rulemaking efforts have focused on cost-effective technologies and measures which have
aimed to reduce the most pollutants at the least cost on a regional basis.
Through these attainment plans and implementing regulations (e.g., Rules), the APCD has
reduced emissions of pollutants and pollutant precursors overall and has achieved attainment of
some national ambient air quality standards. However, ozone/oxidant air pollution is a refractive
problem. The SJVAB has a current designation of Extreme Non-Attainment. Full attainment is
not projected until year 2024.
The 2025 Fresno General Plan, augmented by Pian Amendment No. A-09-02 (the Air Quality
Update), contains significant City policy direction for measures to reduce potential air pollution
and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. While MEIR NO.10130 was certified with adoption
of an over-riding consideration for the intractable regional air pollution problem, policies of the
General Plan, MEIR mitigation measures, and additional policies added through the Air Quality
Update require that restrictions and standards be applied to reduce pollution emissions as much
as possible.
The cultivation of plants on otherwise vacant land has an inherently positive effect on air quality.
Photosynthesis sequesters carbon and generates oxygen, and the foliage of plants absorbs
pollutants and traps dust. Transpiration and shade of plants alleviates the urban heat island
effect, reducing ambient temperatures and thereby slowing the rate of ground level
photochemical activity.
Several APCD Rules apply to aspects of cultivating land, including those which regulate mobile
equipment over 50 horsepower, bulk storage of materials, agricultural road dust control, burning
of plant waste materials, and architectural coatings. Compliance with those regulations should
mitigate air pollutants from those sources, as the APCD Rules form the main strategy for
attaining National and State Ambient Clean Air Standards.
In order to protect urban neighbors of agricultural and community gardening sites, the text
amendment's proposed special standards of practice and regulation (an augmentation of
Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-306-N-11) proposes additional restrictions.
The text amendment imposes is a prohibition on agricultural burning, which would otherwise be
allowed, weather and air quality conditions permitting, by the APCD. The text amendment is not
permitting animal rearing uses (except to allow beehives under certain conditions), so it is not
expected to result in objectionable odors that could be caused by manures and livestock.
Some dust-causing activities related to cultivation are formally exempted from SJVAPCD rules
as associated with the statewide Right to Farm Act; these activities would include tillage,
harvesting, application of sprays/dusts, ground sweeping, etc. when moisture levels are low
(when there is insufficient soil moisture or dew to hold soil particles on ground and foliar
surfaces). At the time of the first Planning Commission hearing on the proposed text
amendment, concerns were raised regarding the need to protect nearby property owners from
fugitive dust which could be generated from agricultural practices such as plowing (tillage) and
equipment which harvests nuts by shaking trees.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 15 -
August 28, 2013
Particulate matter studies conducted by Maricopa County, Arizona (cited and referenced by the
SJVAPCD in its emission inventory compilation for particulate matter) have demonstrated that
the critical wind speed for entrainment and movement of dust is 12 miles per hour (mph).
Therefore, mitigation is proposed in the form of additional policy language which prohibits
mechanized cultivation activities when wind speeds are 12 mph or greater.
Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, air quality-related
mitigation measures Nos. B-5 through B-7, and C-1 as identified in attached Exhibit C,
the MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for this project, dated August 31,
2012.
2. Augment the text amendment's proposed special standards of practice and regulation to
prohibit mechanized cultivation activities that could generate fugitive dust when moisture
levels are too low to adhere dust particles to surfaces and when wind speed is 12mph or
greater and capable of entraining dust.
LessThan
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Significant with Significant No Impact
Incorporated
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
x
regionai plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantiai adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
x
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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
x
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
EA No. TA-13-02
- 16-
August 28, 2013
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Significant with Significant . No Impact
Incorporated
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
x
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Confiict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
x
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Confiict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
x
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Vacant residential property in Fresno is not allowed to be kept in a natural state, because
seasonal growth of plants which subsequently dry out poses a recognized fire hazard. Land is
required to either be cleared of all vegetation pursuant to existing weed abatement regulations,
or to be kept landscaped with ornamental plants. The proposed project would provide some
habitat value by ensuring plant cover on properties which would otherwise be plowed or sprayed
to remove or prevent plant growth.
Any prior action to zone land for residential use would have included assessment of the project
to determine the presence of listed species, wetlands, and important habitat, and would have
incorporated mitigation of those potential impacts. Therefore, the text amendment itself would
not result in or have the potential to harm, harass" or "take" of any fish and/or wildlife species
(where the term "take" means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue,
catch, capture, or kill as defined in the California Fish & Game Code). The project itself would
not, directly or indirectly, affect any sensitive, special status, or candidate species; nor would it
modify any habitat that supports them. The text amendment would also not have the potential to
result in noise, vibration, dust, light, pollution, or an alteration in water quality that would affect
fish and/or wildlife directly or from a distance, because vacant land in the incorporated City of
Fresno is already required to either be landscaped or kept denuded of vegetation; cultivation of
the land is does not introduce wildlife or habitat effects which would exceed either of those
conditions.
The proposed project requires that no stormwater or runoff be directly discharged to Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) drainage infrastructure, and that those cultivating
land participate in the Cal EPA Water Board Irrigated Lands program as applicable.
The special standards of practice and regulation incorporated into the text amendment require,
for reasons of airport safety, that agricultural activities conducted in proximity to airports conform
to the Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan adopted tor that airport; however, all land located in
designated areas proximal to airports is required to implement the Wildlife Hazard
EA No. TA-13-02
- 17 -
August 28, 2013
Mitigation Plan, so that the proposed text amendment is not introducing any new potential
impacts affecting floral or faunal species; or, their habitat.
The proposed project itself would not result in, or have the potential to result in, any interference
with the movement of any fish and/or wildlife species. No habitat conservation plans or natural
community conservation plans in the region pertain to land in the City of Fresno outside of the
San Joaquin Riverbotlom. Activities which may change biota in the San Joaquin Riverbotlom
are subject to state and federal regulations protecting listed species.
The proposed project was routed to the California Department of Fish and Game Region IV
office. No comments or proposed conditions or mitigation measures have been provided by that
agency. Within four days of City Council approval of Text Amendment No. TA-13-02, the
required California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fee shall be paid to the Fresno County
Clerk with the filing of the Notice of Determination for EA No. TA-13-02, pursuant to California
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4.
In certifying the 2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR, its mitigation measures were deemed
sufficient to mitigate potential effects on biological resources below a level of significance.
Therefore, mitigation for this project will be incorporated into the project in the form of a
subsection in the special standards of practice and regulation that requires cultivation activities
to conform to applicable MEIR mitigation measures for biological resources.
Mitigation Measure
Augment the special standards of practice and regulation portion of the text amendment
to incorporate a reference to MEIR mitigation measures Nos. J-1 through J-4 (as
identified in the atlached Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist, dated
August 28, 2013).
Less Than
Incorporated
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as
x
defined in CEQA Guidelines 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
x
resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
x
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, inciuding
x
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
EA No. TA-13-02
- 18-
August 28, 2013
The text amendment serves to continue historic cultivation practices and helps preserve
associated vernacular structures such as barns. When any demolitions are considered, the City
of Fresno requires a review of the subject property for resources which might be eligible for the
National or Local Register of Historic Places, and the subject site is not within either a
designated or proposed historic district.
Most property which could be cultivated under the proposed project has been leveled/graded
and cultivated in the past, therefore, it is not expected that cultural remains would be disturbed
as an indirect result of the project.
However, MEIR Mitigation measures were developed for situations where remains, artifacts or
fossils are unexpectedly found due to ground disturbing activities, such as those which could
occur through cultivation of land. Mitigation measures Nos. J-1 through J-4 from the 2025
Fresno General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist relate to protecting cultural
and paleontological resources which may be discovered during activities conducted pursuant to
the text amendment. Because most community gardens and agricultural uses will not be
subject to the special permit process, the requirements memorialized in those mitigation
measures need to be added to the proposed special standards of practice and regulation
portion of the text amendment.
If a cultivation site has an identified historic resource the MEIR mitigation measure requires that
any changes to the resource follow accepted guidelines. The U.S. Department of the Interior
offers a website to provide an overview on choosing the appropriate treatment method:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/overview/choosetreat.htm. Work done to preserve,
maintain, rehabilitate, restore, stabilize, or conserve the resource is considered to mitigation that
reduces impacts below a level of significance if the work is done according to the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, with guidance available at this
website: http://www.nps.gov/hpsITPS/standguide.
Mitigation Measure
Augment the special standards of practice and regulation portion of the proposed text
amendment to incorporate the content of MEIR mitigation measures Nos. J-1 through
J-4 (as identified in the attached Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Checklist, dated August 28, 2013) into.
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant NoImpact
Incorporated
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including therisk
x
of loss, injury, or death involving:
EA No. TA-13-02
- 19-
August 28, 2013
LessThan
Incorporated
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
x
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strongseismic ground shaking?
x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
x
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
x
loss of topsoil?
c) Be locatedon a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
x
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-Bof the UniformBuilding Code
x
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
x
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Fresno has no known active earthquake faults, and is not in any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zones. The immediate Fresno area 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.
Fresno is classified by the U.S. Geologic Survey as being in a moderate seismic risk zone,
Category "C" or "D," depending on the soils underlying the specific location being categorized,
the project's location's proximity to the nearest known fault lines, the occupancy classifications
of new structures, and their type of construction.. All new structures are required to conform to
current seismic protection standards in the current California Building Code.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 20-
August 28, 2013
The highly erodible face of the San Joaquin River bluff, and small areas of expansive clay in the
northeastern portion of the city's Sphere of Influence, are the only unstable soil conditions
known to exist in the City. These areas will not pose a problem to, or from, the proposed project
because
The presence of expansive clay does not preclude agricultural or community gardening
uses of land; and
The River bluff is too steep to cultivate and prohibitions on irrigating this area would
further render it an infeasible area to garden or grow crops (because the project's
special standards of practice and regulation requires a permit for irrigation equipment,
the City has a means to prevent watering of the bluff face).
Despite long-term overdrafting of groundwater that has lowered the static groundwater level
under Fresno by as much as 100 feet over the past century, negligible surface subsidence has
noted in the City. This is probably due to the nature of Fresno's underlying geologic strata,
which feature "lenses" of clay and hardpan layers interleaved with alluvial sand and gravel
deposits.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service has extensively
classified soils in, and surrounding the City of Fresno. Most have very shallow slopes, providing
little erosion potential. The proposed project would allow cultivation, and some crops do
maintain bare soil between rows of plants as a cultivation practice. However, the special
standards of practice and regulation do not permit drainage to affect adjacent properties or silt
to affect the municipal drainage system, and for parcels in excess of an acre a grading permit is
required to ensure stormwater pollution prevention practices. Since those cultivating land at any
scale work to improve soil quality to improve moisture retention, deep drainage capacity, and
nutrients, the proposed project would improve soil conservation practices.
Therefore, no adverse environmental or safety effects related to topography, soils or geology
would result from the proposed project and no mitigation for potential impacts should be
necessary except for drainage engineering to comply with standards of Fresno Metropolitan
Flood Control District and seismic design standards as outlined in the certified MEIR for the
2025 Fresno General Plan. No mitigation for geological or seismic impacts is required beyond
that already incorporated into the proposed text amendment.
Less Than
Incorporated
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -
Would theproject:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
x
significant impact on theenvironment?
EA No. TA-13-02
- 21 -
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Incorporated
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
x
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Environmental and Regulatory Selling
When sunlight strikes the Earth's surface, some of it is reflected back into space as infrared
radiation. When the amount of infrared energy reaching Earth's surface is about the same as
the amount of infrared energy radiated back into space, the average ambient temperature of the
Earth's surface is expected to remain more or less constant. However, when atmospheric
conditions prevent re-radiation of this infrared energy, the world's temperature equilibrium is
expected to be disturbed.
Global climate change (colloquially referred to as "global warming") is the term coined to
describe very widespread climate change characterized by a rise in the Earth's ambient average
temperatures with concomitant disturbances in weather patterns and resulting alteration of
oceanic and terrestrial environs and biota. The predominant opinion within the scientific
community is that global climate change is occurring, and that it is being caused and/or
accelerated by human activities, primarily the generation of "greenhouse gases" (GHGs).
GHGs are gases having properties that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared
range, and that would cause thermal energy (heat) to be trapped the earth's atmosphere. It is
believed that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can disturb the thermal
equilibrium of the earth when natural carbon cycle processes (such as photosynthesis) are
unable to absorb sufficient quantities of carbon dioxide and other GHGs in comparison with the
amount of GHGs being emitted. It is believed that a combination of factors related to human
activities, such as deforestation, emissions of GHG into the atmosphere from carbon fuel
combustion, etc. are causing climate change.
Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through both natural processes
and human activities. Other GHGs are created and emitted solely through human activities.
Water vapor is the most predominant GHG, and is primarily a natural occurrence:
approximately 85% of the water vapor in the atmosphere is created by evaporation from the
oceans. The major anthropogenic greenhouse gases (those that enter the atmosphere because
of human activities) are carbon dioxide (C02), methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases.
Some GHGs exert a much more powerful effect of trapping radiant energy in the atmosphere.
The effect of methane, for instance, is 29 times as powerful as that of an equal mass of C02. In
order to describe global warming potential of these differing gases, a convention has been
established to quantify GHGs in terms of equivalent quantities of C02, and to use metric tonnes
as the unit of measure for the C02 (hence the abbreviation "MMTC02e," for million metric
tonnes of C02 equivalent.
A major problem with GHGs is that most of them are not very reactive and that makes them
extremely long-lived in the atmosphere. For instance, once C02 rises above the troposphere
(the portion of the atmosphere where plants may absorb some of it for photosynthesis), there
EA No. TA-13-02
- 22 -
August 28, 2013
are no natural processes that would effectively remove it. The C02 will persist and exert its
global warming effect for centuries.
GHGs were not generally thought of as air pollutants because the criterion air pollutants (such
as ozone) and air toxics directly affect health at ground level in the general vicinity of their
release to the atmosphere. The impacts of GHGs are global and diffuse in nature, and take
time to exert effects that could harm humans. However, it has been realized that the climate
changes associated with GHGs can drastically harm health and well-being around the world, not
only with regard to heat-related illnesses but through broadscale changes in the environment:
ocean level rise that would displace populations,
economic and infrastructure damage related to ocean rise as well as heat and
storm intensity;
exacerbation of criteria air pollutants (more air pollutants are formed when the
atmosphere is warm);
spreads of infectious diseases through proliferation of mosquitoes and other
vectors carrying "tropical" diseases into temperate climate zones;
alteration of natural flora and fauna in terrestrial and aquatic environments;
disruption of agriculture and water supply;
The last point is of particular importance to Fresno. One oft-cited prediction for global climate
change is that the Sierra snowpack could be reduced to as little as 20% of its historic levels.
This could have dire consequences, since over 70% of California's population relies on the
"frozen reservoir" of Sierra snowpack for its water supply. Fresno's aquifer has been declining
and the City's Metropolitan Water Resources Master Plan notes that the city will need to make
greater use of its surface water entitlements... which are derived from Sierra snowpack.
The State of California formally acknowledges these risks and has tasked state and local
governments with working toward reduction of potential global climate change. The Governor
issued Executive Order No. S-03-05, and subsequently signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which was codified as Health & Safety Code
Section 38501 et seq.
There are, at this time, no "attainment" standards established by the federal or state government
for greenhouse gases (although some GHGs are regulated as precursors to criteria pollutants
regulated by the federal and California Clean Air Acts). However, in AB 32 the State codified a
mandate to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In order to roll back GHG
emissions to this level, a reduction of 174 MMTC02e needs to be achieved statewide-against
the background of California's general population increase and the need for ongoing land and
economic development. The combination of the need to reduce GHGs and the need to grow
equates to a need to reduce per capita GHG emissions by some 29% from the "business as
usual" scenario of continuing the former rate of escalated GHG emissions over time.
It has been recognized that new development projects would incrementally add GHG emissions
and could cumulatively exacerbate global climate change problems, even if the projects are,
themselves, small in scale and do not involve powerful GHGs. In order to standardize
evaluation of projects under CEQA, Senate Bill 97 (codified as Public Resources Code
Sections 21083.05 and 21097) requires the State Resources Agency to adopt guidelines for
EA No. TA-13-02
- 23-
August 28, 2013
addressing climate change in environmental analysis. The California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) produced a comprehensive publication on this topic in August
of 2010 titled Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which provides methods for
quantifying emission reductions via application of a specified list of project-level and municipal-
level mitigation measures. This document is intended to further support the efforts of local
governments to address the impacts of GHG emissions in their environmental review of projects
and in their planning efforts.
In order to standardize global climate change assessments within the San Joaquin Air Basin,
the SJVAPCD adopted a protocol for evaluating land use projects: the 2009 Guidance for
Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.
The District determined that the most appropriate assessment criteria would be oriented to
performance based standards to streamline the CEQA process for determining significance of
project impacts, rather than numerical modeling of GHG emissions and emission reductions.
Projects meeting the Best Performance Standards ("BPS") established by the SJVAPCD would
be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact on global climate change.
If projects could not demonstrate compliance with BPS, then a quantification of GHG emissions
and demonstration of a 29% reduction in GHG emissions below the "business as usual" level
will be required to determine that a project would have a less than significant cumulative impact.
In and of itself, the proposed text amendment would mitigate global climate change by
improving vegetative cover on otherwise bare land in Fresno, serving as a means of "carbon
capture"l"carbon sequestration" to remove CO
2
from the atmosphere and providing ground
shading to combat the urban heat island effect. Guidelines for quantifying GHG emission
impacts and GHG reduction methods provide specific data on the positive effects of adding
vegetation, but the acreage that will benefit from the proposed project cannot be prospectively
determined with any useful accuracy.
Some aspects of cultivation would generate GHGs, and those are regulated by APCD Rules
pertaining to mobile equipment engines and the project's proposed special standards of practice
and regulation that impose controls on water consumption. This will reduce groundwater usage,
lessening the electrical power demand for operation of water wells. The project provides for use
of recycled and surface irrigation water supplies when those sources of water are available.
The proposed project meets this requirement by furthering the City's GHG Mitigation program,
established through City of Fresno Plan Amendment No. A-09-02, the Air Quality Update to the
2025 Fresno General Plan. Plan Amendment A-09-02 augmented the City's General Plan
Resource Element/Air Quality Objectives and Policies by adding new General Plan Objective
and several supporting policies, as well as expanding the MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Checklist, to address global climate change through municipal activities and regulation of local
development.
A-09-02 added new appendices to the 2025 Fresno General Plan, including a 2008 California
Attorney General's Office gUidance document titled, 'The California Environmental Quality Act
Mitigation of Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level" which contains specific
guidance on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through planning and regulation of
development. Periodic broadscale GHG modeling will be used to validate the efficacy of these
measures and guide implementation and further City rulemaking.
The proposed project works in conjunction with other codes and regulations designed to reduce
adverse climate change. Through the California Building Code and statewide regulation of
EA No. TA-13-02
- 24 -
August 28, 2013
appliance standards, agricultural structures will conform to energy-efficient building, lighting, and
appliance standards (the City of Fresno does not have a separate, lower building code standard
for agricultural buildings). Updated engine and tire efficiency standards would apply to vehicles
that travel to the cultivated properties. Initiatives applicable to air conditioning and refrigeration
equipment will continue to reduce fluorocarbon emissions from storing and processing of crops.
The proposed project does not provide for manufacturing activities that would generate potent
industrial GHGs such as SF
6
, HFCs, or PFCs, and or for animal rearing uses which would
generate methane from manures.
Through its water use requirements in the special standards of practice and regulation section,
the proposed text amendment implements and incorporates applicable MEIR mitigation
measures Nos. 0-3, 0-8, 0-9, 0-11 and 0-12 relating to global climate change, as identified in
the attached Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist (dated August 28,2013).
With this mitigation incorporated into the project, and with the additional beneficial effect of
carbon sequestration and cooling created by adding vegetation to the City, there is no evidence
that this text amendment project would have a potentially significant cumulatively adverse
impact on global climate change. Additional project-specific mitigation is not required.
LessThan
Incoroorated
VIII. HAZAROS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL-- Would the project:
a) Createa significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
x
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Createa significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
x
involvinq the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
x
substances, or waste withinone-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
x
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
EA No. TA-13-02
- 25-
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Incoroorated
e) For a project located within an airport land
use planor, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
x
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
x
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
x
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
x
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Hazardous Materials
Pesticides are typically employed to some extent in cultivation of crops. "Pesticide" may be
generally defined as a compound or biological agent which inhibits or destroy microbes, weeds,
arthropods, or rodents. They are an essential tool for controlling crop pests and pathogens, and
some level of treatment may be required to meet phytosanitary standards for transport or
market orders. Even organic growing operations can use pesticides of certain types.
Cultivation of land may also involve fertilizers (concentrated nutrient compounds); some
fertilizers can cause injury via some routes of direct exposure.
Some pesticides and fertilizers are sold to the general public at grocery and hardware stores;
locations of usage and quantities used are not tracked. However, in conjunction with an
agricultural operation or community garden, the storage of these compounds would be subject
to agricultural storage and disclosure requirements of the Fresno County Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA), staffed by Fresno County Environmental Health Services.
Other pesticides and fertilizers are restricted to varying degrees, and may only be sold to
growers and pest control advisors. These compounds are regulated at all levels; even
discarding the empty containers is subject to regulation. Fresno County CUPA disclosure and
storage requirements apply, but for this level of pesticides the Fresno County Agricultural
Commissioner takes the primary role in regulation and tracking, under authority delegated by
the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) Department of Pesticide Regulation
and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The Agriculture Commissioner
exercises discretion when issuing pesticide permits, in order to protect sensitive adjacent
EA No. TA-13-02
- 26 -
August 28, 2013
properties such as school buildings, parks, day cares, and residential neighborhoods. The
Agricultural Commissioner's inspectors ensure that pesticides are used according to product
labels; that they are properly stored; that persons handling them have proper licensure and
protective equipment; and that no harmful residues remain on the crop products. In the event of
a reported pesticide illness or misuse, the Agricultural Commissioner responds and investigates
in conjunction with other health and safety agencies.
While pesticide usage in general is a matter of public discussion and concern, there is no
evidence in the record to demonstrate that the proposed project could have an adverse effect
on health and safety with regard to hazardous materials, given compliance with pesticide
labeling and regulations. The existing great extent of interface between agricultural activities
and residences in Fresno has caused no hazardous release incidents involving cultivation
activities. Intensive, large-scale agricultural activities have been conducted for decades on
portions of the California State University-Fresno campus in close proximity to urban housing
tracts, without incidents relating to pesticide exposures. As the Attachment 1 and Attachment 3
maps indicate, extensive urban development at the City's western fringe has resulted in
neighborhoods being located in close proximity to, and abutting, commercially grown tree, vine,
and field crops--again without reported hazardous material incidents affecting public health.
The text amendment's proposed standards of practice and regulation include provisions
mandating compliance with regulations of Fresno County Environmental Health and the
Agricultural Commissioner, incorporating mitigation into the project itself. In compliance with
MEIR Mitigation Measure No. E-4, the text amendment has been augmented with a prohibition
on aerial spraying, because aircraft application methods could not reasonably confine applied
pesticides to individual parcels located in the midst of urbanized areas. (An exception is made
for area-wide spraying which may be ordered by the State of California or the Agricultural
Commissioner for abating a serious pest outbreak.)
California's Division of Occupational and Safety and health (CalOSHA) administers Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations for workplace safety; Section 5194 requires a Hazard
Communication and on-site access to (ProducVMaterial) Safety Data Sheets at locations where
any chemical substances are kept or used-not only pesticides, but also fertilizers, cleaning
agents, solvents, fuels, manufacturing substrates, etc. The Safety Data Sheets are required to
furnish product information in all languages pertinent to the workforce, listing contents of the
material, risks and precautions, and how to treat any exposures to the substance. CalOSHA
also requires persons who operate businesses to compile Injury and Illness Prevention Plans,
and the agency conducts site inspections to enforce workplace safety regulations.
Aside from safety risks associated with chemicals, urban areas have overhead and buried
power, gas, and communication utility lines. Appropriate mitigation for this potential safety
hazard is to incorporate direction in the proposed text amendment's special standards of
practice and regulation requiring that, prior to tilling or excavating, persons intending to cultivate
property the national "Call Before You Dig" number (811) and contact Fresno Metropolitan Flood
Control District and Fresno Irrigation District (which do not register their underground facilities
with the Underground Service Alert program); also, that parties cultivating tree or trellis crops
conform to restrictions pertaining to overhead utility lines.
Hazardous Materials Sites
Not all vacant land located in Fresno is suitable for cultivation, because some of this land may
contain residues of hazardous materials. Former legal and illegal landfill sites are typically the
EA No. TA-13-02
- 27 -
August 28, 2013
types of properties where this has been an issue in this area. Other properties are affected by
leaking underground storage tanks, or chemical contamination associated with former industrial
uses.
If a property appears on one of the agency lists that comprise the overall list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, any re-use of the
contaminated site requires approval of the agency having jurisdiction over cleanup and
abatement per federal, state, and local regulations. These agencies include the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cal-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State
Water Board (Regional Water Quality Control Board), and Fresno County Environmental Health
(in its role as CUPA or Lead Enforcement Agency for CalRecycle solid waste regulations).
Typically, these agencies would require a site assessment, and may require cleanup and
abatement, prior to any subsequent use of contaminated properties.
Mitigation for this potential impact is to augment the proposed special standards of practice and
regulation to require that properties proposed for cultivation not be on the list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, or, if they are on that
list, to require that the appropriate regulatory agency provide a clearance letter affirming that
persons involved in cultivation activity and persons consuming the produce grown on the site
would not be adversely impacted by any hazardous material residues on the premises.
Airport Safety
The Federal Aviation Administration requires public airport operators to adopt and administer
Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plans to reduce the risk of bird strikes. Through interagency review of
the proposed text amendment, the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission notified
Planning staff that agricultural and community gardening operations in designated airport safety
zones are required to conform to the Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan for that airport, in order to
minimize the presence of raptors and other birds. A subsection was added to the special
standards of practice and regulation to notify those cultivating land of this.
Mitigation Measures
1. The City shall continue to implement, as applicable, mitigation measures No. E-4 relating
to agricultural land as identified in the attached Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Checklist for this project, dated August 31,2012, and shall augment the text
amendment's special standards of practice and regulation to prohibit aerial spraying.
2. Augment the text amendment's special standards of practice and regulation to require
that, prior to tilling or excavating, persons intending to cultivate property the national
"Call Before You Dig" number (811) and contact Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District and Fresno Irrigation District (which do not register their underground facilities
with the Underground ServiceAlert program).
that parties cultivating tree or trellis crops conform to restrictions pertaining to overhead
utility lines.
that sites proposed for cultivation not be listed on the hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, or, if they are on that list, to require that
the appropriate regulatory agency provide a clearance letter affirming that persons
EA No. TA-13-02
- 28-
August 28, 2013
involved in cultivation activity and persons consuming the produce grown on the site
would not be adversely impacted by any hazardous material residues on the premises.
Less Than
Incoroorated
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALlTY-
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
x
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the iocal groundwater table level
X
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or
P l a n n e ~ ) ' uses for which permits have been
nranted ?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
x
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) SUbstantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
x
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
x
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
x
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
x
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
EA No. TA-13-02
- 29-
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Incorporated
h) Place within a 1DO-year fiood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
x
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, Injury or deathinvolving flooding,
x
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a leveeor dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
x
mudflow?
Water Supply, Water Treatment and Deliverv Infrastructure
Fresno is one of the largest cities in the United States still relying primarily on groundwater for
its public water supply. Surface water treatment and distribution has been implemented in the
northeastern part of the City, but the city is still subject to an EPA Sole Source Aquifer
designation. The City's network of interconnected water wells/pump stations, recharge facilities,
water treatment and distribution systems have been expanded incrementally and upgraded to
meet increased water demands and respond to groundwater quality challenges.
While the aquifer underlying Fresno typically exceeds a depth of 300 feet and is capacious
enough to provide adequate quantities of safe drinking water to the metropolitan area for the
foreseeable future, the aquifer level has been declining and localized water supply limitations
with low well yields and limited storage capacity in portions of ttie semi-confined aquifer have
evolved. Agricultural wells have long existed on the fringe of Fresno, but the existence of good
surface water availability throughout the region has prevented these wells from having serious
effects on drawdown. As land has been retired from cultivation and as surface water irrigation
has ceased, however, replacement of agricultural wells with domestic and municipal wells has
exacerbated drawdown.
One of the issues that the City is attempting to resolve in order to stabilize aquifer levels is its
historic trend of high consumptive use of water on a per capita basis (some 250 gallons per day
per capita). Under recently adopted California Building Codes and the Master Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, text amendment requires cultivation sites to incorporate water
conservation features, a requirement which heretofore has not applied to agricultural activity in
the city or county (although, for larger cultivation sites, the cost of water is a major consideration
that has caused the agricultural industry to move toward conservation practices on its own.)
Adverse groundwater conditions have been well-documented by environmental impact reports
and technical studies over recent decades, including the EIR prepared for the 1995 Fresno
Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan (SCH No. 95022029), City of Fresno EIRs
Nos.10100, and 10117, and MEIR No. 10130 for the 2025 Fresno General Plan.
Insidious groundwater degradation has occurred in the region due to pollution from pesticides
which were not properly evaluated prior to being marketed (chiefly, dibromochloropropane, or
DBCP, and its manufacturing byproduct trichloropropane, or TCP); nitrates from on-site
EA No. TA-13-02
- 30 -
August 28, 2013
wastewater systems, industrial scale composting, and overuse of fertilizers on domestic and
agricultural properties; salinization from wastewater and industrial brine discharges; methyl-tert-
butyl ether (MTBE) from gasoline; and industrial solvents such as perchlorethylene (PCE) and
its degradation product vinyl chloride..
Fresno also has areas of naturally occurring water contaminants such as arsenic, iron, uranium,
and manganese. Increasingly stringent water quality regulations have greatly increased the
cost and difficulty of supplying municipal needs via water wells.
Improperly abandoned water wells, and older wells constructed without restrictive casing to
prevent cross-contamination between layers of the aquiver may impair groundwater quality by
providing a direct conduit for shallower contamination to reach the deeper and cleaner levels of
the aquifer. For that reason, the proposed text amendment's special standards of practice and
regulation require that the City Department of Public Utilities Water Division review existing
wells on a site proposed for cultivation, and determine whether the well is suitable for ongoing
use. If a well is not going to be used for continuing irrigation, and is not useful for ongoing
monitoring or reconstruction for an urban water supply, it is required to be destroyed according
to procedures of the City Water Division and the most current version of the California
Department of Water Resources Well Standards (DWR Bulletin 74-99 or an update thereto).
As noted previously, the text amendment's special standards of practice and regulation require
adherence to the regulations of the Agricultural Commissioner and Fresno County CUPA with
regard to storing, using, and disposing of pesticides and fertilizers and their containers.
California's registration process for pesticides includes an evaluation of potential ecologically
active residues, and the will de-list, or refuse to list, substances which may cause future
contamination by persistence in the environment.
In addition, the California Water Boards "Irrigated Lands Program" (regulations found in
California Water Code Section 13260) requires that nutrient loading and potential contamination
of ground and surface water supplies be monitored and controlled. There is no minimum
acreage for applicability of the Irrigated Lands Program; an entity cultivating land is regulated if
they file a tax return relating to cultivation activity. A provision in the text amendment's special
standards of practice and regulation is included with a reference to the regulatory agency
administering this program.
The City of Fresno works with Fresno Metropolitan "Flood Control District (FMFCD), Fresno
Irrigation District (FID) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
to ensure that the City's acreage-based surface water entitlements and contractual surface
water supplies are put to the best possible use. Over the past decade, Fresno and has begun
to treat and distribute a share of its surface water via a water treatment plant, instead of solely
using its surface water supplies for recharge.
To the extent that surface water supplies of annexed property are assigned to the City of
Fresno, any proposal to cultivate land and use surface irrigation requires that the City Water
Division evaluate the proposal and enter an agreement that would formalize a temporary
reassignment of these surface waters to irrigation.
The Department of Public Utilities operates a large and efficient water recharge facility ("Leaky
Acres") northwest of Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, and also utilizes suitable FMFCD
drainage throughout the metropolitan area basins for its groundwater recharge program.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 31 -
August 28, 2013
Stormwater ponding basins provide significant opportunity to recharge the aquifer with collected
precipitation runoff in the winter as well as surface water obtained from FlO (primarily a Kings
River supply) and the USSR (supplied by the San Joaquin River) in the months when storms
are not anticipated.
When development entitlements are approved, applicants are required to support recharge and
water supply efforts by preserving the patency of FlO canals and pipelines used to deliver
surface water to drainage/recharge basins and downstream users. Whenever feasible, open
canals are piped (to prevent accidental drowning and incidental water loss). In locations subject
to vehicle travel, irrigation pipelines are required to be replaced with reinforced pipe to sustain
wheel loads.
These requirements are memorialized in the text amendment's special standards of practice
and regulation, and there is a requirement that irrigation facilities be installed outside of future
street rights-of-way to the maximum extent possible, to try to prevent future water delivery
service interruptions that could be caused by subsequent relocations of these pipes.
Future water demand, water supply projections, and measures to make the best use of that
supply are contained in the City's most recent (2008) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
Current conservation measure implementation involves universal water metering (mandated by
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act via the City's contract for its main surface water
supply from the San Joaquin River). The City's Metropolitan Water Resource Management
Plan is also being updated per requirements of the California Water Code, and is evaluating
scenarios for further increased use of treated surface water and recycled wastewater.
The City has also adopted a Recycled Water Master Plan which would allow appropriately
treated wastewater to be used for non-potable uses that may include irrigation of landscape and
some types of crops where the irrigation water will not have direct contact with produce.
The purpose of these management plans is to formulate a strategy to meet the future water
needs of the metropolitan area, ensuring a safe and dependable water supply that is
economically feasible. The plans address the full range of existing and potential city water
supplies focusing on the type and timing of water facilities and programs needed to protect
water quality, combat groundwater overdraft; ensure water conservation, and provide
contingency measures for drought and/or supply disruptions.
The proposed text amendment's special standards of practice and regulation contain extensive
water conservation measures to prevent overconsumption of potable water supplies and to
prevent aquifer overdraft. The text amendment's special standards of practice and regulation
section incorporate requirements from MEIR mitigation measures Nos. 0-3 through 0-10 and
F-3 relating to hydrology (water supply, water quality, and drainage), as identified in the
attached Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist, dated August 28, 2013.
The text amendment specifically ensures that any private water wells retained for irrigation are
limited to appropriately sized parcels, are restricted to only supplying those parcels, and are
metered for purposes of monitoring groundwater use. The text amendment references the City
Master Fee Schedule requirement for payment of recharge fees (generating funds that the City
uses to purchase and convey water to percolation basins for recharge) based on private well
withdrawals.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 32-
August 28, 2013
The text amendment further provides beneficial flexibility in mitigation for groundwater use, by
providing for the ability to create a recharge facility on, or near, the site of an agricultural well or
some equivalent arrangement (whereas, the recharge fee is used to acquire and percolate
water on a City-wide basis). This alternative mitigation may be approved at the discretion of the
Water Division. This provision of the special standards of practice and regulation portion of the
proposed text amendment constitutes mitigation incorporated into the project for potential
groundwater withdrawal impacts.
Drainage, Stormwater Management, and Flood Control
As noted previously, Fresno receives low annual precipitation-but this precipitation tends to
occur in episodic storm events which generate peak stormwater flows. In the absence of strong
natural drainage features, the Fresno metropolitan the area has had to develop extensive
infrastructure to direct and contain these flows to avoid property damage. Much of Fresno's
drainage infrastructure is provided by roadside surface gutters and curbing, tributary to drainage
pipelines discharging into large ponding basins managed by FMFCD. The City of Fresno
drainage ordinance (which governs grading practices) requires all properties to be graded so
that they drain to the street and to storm drain inlets, not to abutting properties.
As also noted previously, FMFCD captures these flows to the maximum extent possible for
groundwater recharge purposes. In order to protect the quality of stormwater runoff and the
percolability of FMFCD basins used for recharge, the text amendment's special standards of
practice and regulation require that grading and drainage arrangements for a cultivated site not
allow silt or contaminants to enter the municipal stormwater drainage system.
Cultivation of small portions of land under provisions of this ordinance would involve parcels
formerly graded for residential development. The extent of impervious surfacing on property
with agricultural and community gardening would be far less than that associated with urban
development of the same property (roofs, driveways, streets, sidewalks, etc.). Therefore,
properties of less than an acre devoted to cultivation would not need to be re-graded to have
appropriate drainage characteristics, but would need a stormwater filtration system to trap any
silt or debris that may be washed off the cultivated area during a major storm. The special
standards of practice and regulation mitigate this potential effect by requiring a vegetated swale
for natural filtration to serve parcels under an acre in size.
In the fringe areas of Fresno, sites which have not been previously developed for residential
uses may not have the concrete work (curb and gutter) installed on street frontages. Under
Fresno County grading requirements, these properties are likely to be sloped to retain
stormwater flow on the property rather than discharging these flows to the street. Therefore, an
approved grading and drainage plan is needed to ensure appropriate drainage and stormwater
pollution prevention provisions for portions of cultivated land over an acre in size. The text
amendment further requires that anyon-site stormwater detention facilities or percolation basins
are required to conform to City policies for controlling potential mosquito breeding.
Mitigation Measures
Through its special standards of practice and regulation, the proposed project implements
as applicable MEIR mitigation measures relating to hydrology (water supply, water quality,
and drainage) as identified in the attached Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Checklist, dated August 28, 2013.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 33-
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Incorporated
X. LAND USEAND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established
x
community?
b) Confiict with any applicable land useplan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
x
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Confiict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
x
conservation plan?
The proposed project is a text amendment providing for agricultural and community gardening
uses on properties zoned for residential use; it does not physically divide an established
community because it does not provide for new roadways or physical barriers except to address
modifications to existing fencing requirements that apply to individual parcels.
Fresno does not have any established habitat plans within its boundaries and the City has not
adopted a natural community conservation plan. In the Biological Resources section of this
analysis, biological resources are discussed and mitigation has been incorporated into the
project to protect biologically sensitive portions of the City.
Land Use Plans and Policies
Enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Fresno and plan for the projected
population within the moderately expanded Fresno urban boundary in a manner
which will respect physical, environmental, fiscal, economic and social issues.
Provide quality open space, park and recreational facilities and programs to
GoallO.
The proposed text amendment furthers several 2025 Fresno General Plan goal statements
which are supportive of agricultural and community gardening activities, particularly Goals 11,
14 and 16:
Goall.
Goaill. Protect, preserve, and enhance significant biological, archaeological, and
paleontological resources and critical natural resources, including, but not
limited to, air, water, agricultural soils, minerals, plants, and wildlife resources.
Goall4. Protect and improve public health and safety.
Goall5. Recognize, respect and plan for Fresno's cultural, social, and ethnic diversity.
EA No. TA-13-02 August 28,2013
- 34-
Goal 16. Work cooperatively with the local agricultural industry to conserve prime
farmland and respect its importance as Fresno County's base economic
resource.
Growing crops and/or ornamental plants on such land provides new economic input, whether at
a commercial truck gardening or farming scale, or at the level of neighborhood and household
food security and dietary enhancement. The General Plan's Economic Development Element
promotes all types of economic input. Growing food is also a deeply rooted cultural practice of
most societies, and the option to raise specialty crops preserves Fresno's diverse ethnic
heritages. Providing for community gardening in open space and park settings will foster
community involvement and improve neighborhoods' sense of ownership and stewardship of
those sites. As a base economic resource, Fresno County farmland has over $6 billion in cash
receipts (2012 data) and there is an economic multiplier effect that at least triples the value of
this revenue stream in the local economy. As a city over 100 square miles in size in the heart of
the irrigation district with the best water entitlements in the county, the City of Fresno has long
been a participant in the agricultural economy.
Because the 2025 Fresno General Plan Urban Form Element was oriented to showing full
buildout of all buildable land within its Sphere of Influence, most General Plan objectives and
policies dealing with agricultural land were directed toward "metering" development to avoid
premature conversion of agricultural land. While no "agricultural reserve" land was designated
in the 2025 Fresno General Plan, Plan policies did not call for a cessation of farming; instead, in
recognition of property owners' right to farm and in recognition of the economic benefits of
farming, General Plan objectives and policies to protect farming on land designated for
agricultural use. Numerous City subdivision maps were processed with a requirement that the
subdivider execute a Right to Farm covenant, which would be binding on all subsequent land
owners, requiring acceptance of the usual effects of living in proximity to land being actively
cultivated.
Even though General Plan objectives and policies inveighed against "premature" conversion of
agricultural land, there was no regulatory mechanism to prevent large enclaves of Fresno's
fringe area, with viable agricultural operations, from being rezoned for residential use and
approved for tentative subdivision maps. Economic conditions subsequently occurred that
caused planned (and zoned) enclaves of residential land to fail to timely develop with urban
housing. Additionally, the required rounding off annexation boundaries has required prezoning
of land that was being actively farmed which was not subject to any urban development
applications or entitlements (owners of this land had no intention to stop farming; they were not
actively seeking annexation or urban residential zoning).
In addition to the policies intending to protect farming outside areas where land is designated for
agricultural use, the 2025 Fresno General Plan contained two specific policies for farming land
inside the city. Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 serves as an implementation
measure for these 2025 Fresno General Plan policies:
G-6-a. Policy: Allow for continued agricultural use of vacant land in the city
consistent with standards for the protection of the environment,
public safety and well-being, and the planned, orderly, and
efficient development of the urban area.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 35 -
August 28, 2013
G-5-g. Policy: In the San Joaquin River Bottom, accommodate agricultural
uses that do not stimulate unplanned growth or conversion of
designated open space land to urban uses.
Policy No. G-6-a expressly acknowledges that within City boundaries has been cultivated. This
policy was drafted in the late 1990s and adopted by the City in 2002, evidence that agricultural
use of property in the City is a longstanding practice. It should be additionally noted that this
longstanding practice has not resulted in hazardous material incidents or widespread nuisance
problems. Because the proposed project is consistent With, and implements, goals and policies
of the 2025 Fresno General Plan, no additional mitigation for land use impacts is required.
The City is engaging in a series of workshops toward formulating a General Plan Update. The
proposed new General Plan will include a "Healthy Communities" Element, which is proposed to
feature a section on "Access to Healthy Food." Attachment 10 presents the background
discussion from a workshop draft of that General Plan update section, which indicates a clear
need to use all reasonable means to increase the availability of fresh food for Fresno residents.
Because community gardens may be co-located with other facilities that have existing special
permits, and because the group activity nature of community gardening creates a need for clear
identification of responsible party, set operating parameters, and written authorization of
property owners (who may not choose to participate in the group gardening activity), the text
amendment has requirements for establishment of these facilities. In consultation with local
community gardening advocates, the text amendment was revised from its August 6, 2013 draft
version to reduce the regulatory burden with regard to special permit applications and grading
clearances for parcels under an acre. Backflow prevention requirements were also clarified so
that the special standards of regulation and practice clearly require cross-contamination
prevention equipment appropriate to the nature and scale of irrigation systems used.
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant NoImpact
Incorporated
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result intheloss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
x
theregion and theresidents of thestate?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource recovery
x
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land useplan?
Areas of Fresno classified as having high-quality aggregate mineral resources are depicted in
Exhibit 10 of the 2025 Fresno General Plan, and are located in the San Joaquin Riverbottom.
Cultivation of designated aggregate mineral resource land is not considered a competing or
conflicting use that would prevent mineral resource preservation or impede access to or
recovery of these resources. Activities conducted pursuant to the text amendment would not
EA No. TA-13-02
- 36-
August 28, 2013
utilize an undue amount of aggregate mineral resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required for
mineral resources.
LessThan
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No impact
Incoroorated
XII. NOISE-- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
x
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
x
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
x
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
x
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
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
x
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
x
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
In developed areas of the community, noise conflicts often occur when a noise-sensitive land
use is located adjacent to a noise generator. Urban noise is ubiquitous and generated by many
sources.
In certifying the MEIR for the 2025 Fresno General Plan (in Appendix B of City Council
Resolution No. 2002-378), the City adopted a Finding of Over-Riding Consideration for
significant and unavoidable adverse noise impacts that reads, in part,
"The innumerable activities associated with urban living environments typically
generate noise that contributes to the ambient noise levels that occur within the
community....
EA No. TA-13-02
- 37-
August 28, 2013
"The City of Fresno hereby determines that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other considerations... outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final MEIR, including any effects not
mitigated because of the infeasibility of mitigation measures....
"The City of Fresno further determines that, based on the findings herein and the
evidence in the record, the benefits identified below are each one, in and of
themselves, sufficient to make a determination that the adverse environmental
effects are acceptable... " [following are listings for considerations categorized as
"Economic Considerations," Social Impacts," "Job Creation," "and "Provision of
Affordable Housing"-each substantiated by documentation]."
In the MEIR analysis of noise impacts, , agricultural acreage was deemed to be at risk of noise
from urbanization (rather than the other way around): "There are no reasonable mitigation
measures available to the City of Fresno which would assure the reduction of impacts upon
agricultural land within the planned urban area to a less-than-significant level."
Use of mechanized agricultural equipment may periodically generate noise and vibration, but
those impacts are generally commensurate with, or less than, the levels of noise and vibration
that would be involved in preparing the land for construction of homes and infrastructure.
Grading and compaction activities for building roads and homes have a duration of days, with
multiple layers of material traversed multiple times by water trucks and compaction equipment.
In contrast, deep tillage to prepare land for permanent tree and vine crops is completed in one
pass. Potential noise from subsequent mechanized cultivation of farmland is commensurate
with routine maintenance of vacant land to disk for weeds, as required by the City's Weed
Abatement Ordinance. Use of smaller mechanized equipment for cultivation of smaller plots of
land would generate noise commensurate with residential use of roto-tillers, lawn mowers,
weed-whackers, and so forth.
Harvest activities which involve shaking trees to dislodge nuts do utilize specialized padded
shakers, but the level of vibration is kept to a minimum to avoid breaking trees. Vibration from
this activity does not cause disturbance in ground surfaces and is not sufficient to adjacent
damage property.
The ambient noise characteristics for agricultural property are not characterized in the City's
Noise Ordinance (Fresno Municipal Code Sections 10-102 et seq.). However, subject to
qualification by recorded "Right to Farm" covenants, state Right to Farm law, and the Fresno
County Right to Farm Ordinance, properties affected by excess farm equipment noise can seek
redress under the City's Noise Ordinance abatement procedures.
The proposed text amendment does prohibit two potential sources of agricultural noise that
would not be ordinary activities essential to the right to farm or to prepare and maintain
residential zoned property: aircraft application of pesticides, and the use of percussive
equipment to repel birds and disrupt hail. Those noise mitigating prohibitions are incorporated
into the project. .
EA No. TA-13-02
- 38 -
August 28, 2013
LessThan
Incorporated
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
x
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
x
replacement housingelsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
x
replacement housingelsewhere?
The text amendment pertains to property which has no existing dwelling units and no residents;
no displacement could occur. The project would not result in diminution of the inventory of land
available to construct housing, because it would not involve amending the planned land use to
anything other than residential, or rezoning the land to anything other than residential.
Property with residential zoning and provision for urban utilities is more cost-effective to develop
with homes than property that has not been zoned (or pre-zoned) for residential use. Therefore,
when market demand and financial conditions support development of housing on this land,
cultivation activities would end and planned residential development would proceed as provided
by its assigned residential zoning. For this reason, its interim use for cultivation would not
induce population growth outside of areas planned for residential uses. No mitigation is
required for population and housing impacts.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 39 -
August 28, 2013
LessThan
Incorporated
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES --
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impactsassociated 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
publicservices:
Fire protection? x
Police protection? x
Drainage andflood control?
x
Parks? x
Schools?
x
Other public services?
x
The text amendment project will not add service demand for public services or facilities, and
contains provisions to prevent demands upon public drainage and flood control facilities. By
allowing vacant land to be put into managed use (with cultivation and irrigation), the project
should reduce service demand on fire protection services by reducing Fresno's inventory of
vacant lots requiring weed abatement and trash clean-up.
Potential physical alteration of parks for community gardening activities will not be adverse, due
to the requirement that the conditional use permit for such parks be formally revised. Through
the review process for the revised special permit for the park, the Development and Resource
Management Department will have the ability to place conditions on community gardening
activities to ensure adequate park space remains to serve other community needs so that parks
continue to meet their objectives in a beneficial way.
Therefore, the proposed project will not pose any adverse impacts on public services, and no
additional mitigation is necessary beyond that provided in the project's special standards and
regulations and through City requirements and procedures for revising special permits.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 40 -
August 28, 2013
LessThan
Incoroorated
XV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
x
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
x
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
The project does not remove any existing recreational facilities, inasmuch as using portions of
parks for community gardening is a form of recreational use of park sites.
As noted previously, establishment of community gardens on City park property would be
evaluated through the special permit revision process, and conditions may be applied (in
addition to the requirements set forth in the text amendment's special standards of practice and
regulation section) to prevent physical deterioration of the facility or other adverse effects on the
environment. Therefore, the proposed project will not pose any adverse impacts on recreation,
and no additional mitigation is necessary beyond that provided in the project's special standards
and regulations and through City requirements and procedures for revising special permits.
LessThan
Incoroorated
XVI. TRANSPORTATIONffRAFFIC - Would
the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circuiation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
x
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicyclepaths and mass transit?
EA No. TA-13-02
- 41 -
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Incorporated
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures or other standards
x
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in trafficlevels or
x
a change in location that result in substantial
safetyrisks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
x
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
x
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
theperformance or safetyof suchfacilities?
Fresno's street network design is the product of an iterative planning and analysis process that
projects traffic capacity needs based on vehicle trip generation experienced and anticipated for
planned land uses. The hierarchy of street designations, and the location of major roadways,
recognizes traffic generating characteristics of tributary local streets and the aggregate traffic
generation of planned land uses. The street network provides access to individual properties,
collectively affording the community an adequate and efficient circulation system. In recent
decades, the city has increased its emphasis on non-vehicular travel, requiring additional
infrastructure improvements to serve bicycle, pedestrian, and mass transit modes of travel.
When property develops with intensive urban uses, developers are required to improve street
frontages with the full range of transportation facilities that the new residents and customers at
the site will require. (There is a rational nexus between added vehicle trips and alternative
transportation demand, and the improvements necessary to meet that demand.) Land that is
cultivated does not generate sufficient vehicle trips to necessitate (or justify) exaction of the
City's urban level of street improvements.
Land subject to the proposed project would already be zoned for residential uses, and may be
located near existing developed urban uses or land in the process of developing. For that
reason, it was determined that, while full street improvements could not be required in order to
cultivate property, some provisions are needed to protect future planned right-of-way, and to
provide for safe vehicular travel on abutting streets and safe pedestrian passage outside of
paved traffic lanes of streets. Therefore, mitigation has been incorporated into the project: the
proposed special standards of practice and regulation which disallow the planting of trees and
EA No. TA-13-02
- 42 -
August 28, 2013
vines in planned rights-of-way, prohibit construction of new water wells in those areas, and
which limit the type and extent of irrigation facilities installed in those areas. The required
setbacks provide for on-site turning area at the ends of rows to distancing road traffic from farm
equipment engaged in cultivation. '
As is the case for all San Joaquin Valley cities, roadways at the urban fringe of Fresno are used
to move pieces of farm equipment; it is acknowledged that this equipment may travel slower
than posted speed limits. The required setback of trees and vines from roadways also provides
an enhanced line-of-sight for driveways and side streets that intersect public thoroughfares, so
that farm equipment drivers can avoid entering travel lanes in front of oncoming traffic.
Because the properties subject to this text amendment are within the corporate boundary of
Fresno, the City Police Department Traffic Unit will have jurisdiction to cite any unsafe travel by
such equipment, and can enforce requirements for placarding, vehicle safety lights, and failure
to yield.
Less Than
Incorporated
XVII. UTILITIES ANDSERVICESYSTEMS -
- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
x
Water QualityControl Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
x
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
x
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies availableto
serve the project from existing entitlements
x
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
x
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
EA No. TA-13-02
- 43-
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Incorporated
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
x
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
x
waste?
The proposed project would not create service demand for sewage (wastewater) treatment or
conveyance, because any structures or support stnucture rest rooms constructed to serve
agricultural activities or community gardens would be well below the service demand posed by
buildout of more intensive residential or recreational facilities.
As has been noted in previous sections relating to water (hydrology, quality, and drainage), the
proposed text amendment contains extensive water- and drainage-related provisions that
constitute mitigation incorporated into the project for ensuring adequate water supplies (via
conservation mandates and appropriate mitigation for water use) and for preventing burdens on
the municipal drainage system. The special standards of practice and regulation include
provisions applicable to anyon-site drainage facilities. Adverse impacts would be prevented
through the grading plan review process and the requirement to conform to the City's Basin
Design Guidelines for prevention of mosquito breeding (see Attachment 11).
The special standards of practice and regulation require that provision be made for managing
trash generated on cultivated property. The quantity of solid waste generated from cultivation is
expected to be less than that which would be generated from buill-out residential neighborhoods
on the property, and the type of waste generated from cultivation is typically green waste, more
amenable to composting than municipal trash. Non-green waste trash collected in Fresno is
routed through a material sorting and recycling facility, so that the net quantity of solid waste
being sent to a repository is relatively small. The City of Fresno has one of the highest waste
recycling rates in the nation, exceeding State (AB 949) standards for a fifty percent waste
diversion rate. The designated repository for the City's non-recyclable waste stream is the
Fresno County American Avenue Landfill, whose capacity is sufficient for the foreseeable future
(over 35 years remaining in current permitted capacity).
With the mitigation incorporated into the project via the special standards of practice and
regulation, no project-specific mitigation is determined to be necessary for utility and service
system impacts.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 44-
August 28, 2013
Less Than
Incorporated
XVIII. 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
x
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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
x
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probablefuture projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
x
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
In summary, given the preceding analysis and mitigation measures implemented by, and being
incorporated into, the text amendment, it may be concluded that the proposed project:
);> does not have environmental impacts which 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 important examples of elements of California history or
prehistory.
);> does not have impacts which would be cumulatively considerable even
though individually limited.
Therefore, there are no mandatory findings of significance, and preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report is not warranted for this project.
EA No. TA-13-02
- 45-
August 28, 2013
Attachments:
1. Map of the City of Fresno's corporate boundary with Sphere of Influence Boundary
2. Map of vacant, agricultural, and rural residential parcels within the City of Fresno
(graphic updated September 12, 2013)
3. Map of Generalized Fresno County Zoning in the Fresno-Clovis MetropolitanArea
4. 2013 Aerial photo of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area
5. The California Right To Farm Act (Civil Code Section 3482.5)
6. Legislative Findings for the 2011 California Farmland Conservancy Program Act
.7. Tables tracking acres of important Fresno County farmland converted to other uses, 1984
through 2012 (California Department of Conservation)
8. 2010 Califomia Department of Conservation Map of Important Farmland excerpt,
Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area, with map key
9. Excerpt from Fresno City Council Resolution No. 2002-378 for certification of the
2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR, Exhibit B - Findings relating to significant
unavoidable adverse impacts relating to preservation of agricultural land.
10. Excerpt from Workshop Discussion Draft of the "Access to Healthy Food" section of the
"Health[y] Communities Element" of the pending City of Fresno General Plan Update
11. City of Fresno Guidelines for Basin & Pond Maintenance with Public Works Standards
P-62 and P-45 for constructing and fencing ponding/percolation basins
Exhibit B, MEIR No. 10130 Review Summary
Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist, dated August 28, 2013
Exhibit D, Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist, dated August 28, 2013
EA No. TA-13-02
- 46-
August 28, 2013
List of Agencies and Sources Consulted
Fresno County Certified Unified Permit Agency (Environmental Health Services/Health Department)
Fresno County Agricuiture Commissioner
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission
Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission
City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department, Development Services
Division, Building & Safety Services Section
City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, Water Division
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
2025 Fresno General Plan, its MEIR, and Fresno City Council Resolution No. 2002-378 for MEIR
Certification
Fresno Municipal Code
December 9,2008 Report to the Fresno City Council, PARCS Department budget allocation for
community gardens
Black's Law Dictionary, online 2
nd
Edition
City of Fresno Community Gardening handout (DARM, 2010)
2000 Fresno County General Plan, Background Report, and its EIR (SCH #99051024)
Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act
Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission Right To Farm sample covenant
Fresno City Council Resolution No. 2006-160, establishing procedures for the City to succeed to
Agricultural Land Conservation (Williamson Act) contracts
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, maps and data tables
California Agriculture's Role in the Economy and Water Use Characteristics (Califomia State
University, Fresno, 2011)
2012 Fresno County Annual Crop & Livestock Report
California Farmland Conservancy Act (2011)
South Coast Air Quality Management District, SIP Rule 403-1 (wind entrainment)
Maricopa County [Arizona] PM10 Inventory, Dust Emission Factor methodology section
ICF International Community-Based Surveillance of Supports for Healthy Eating/Active Living
(CBS HE/AL) Surveillance Pilot Study, 2012
Food Hardship in America study (Food Research and Action Center, 2012)
Cornmunity Garden Policy Reference Guide (Public Health Law Center, William Mitchell College of Law)
EA No. TA1302
- 47
August 28,2013
Attachment 1: Map of the City of Fresno's corporate boundaries
(The City of Fresno Sphere of Influence boundary is the red dash &dot line)
w
0
....
o
z
E COPPER
:!
....
w
U>
'"
E BEHYMER
c
U>
8
a:
z
w
:li
g
>- z
z
E SHEPHERD
z
'"
z E NEES
E HERNDON
./
E BUI4lo'C!OVIS
E SHAW
W
W BELMOIllr-=......_"--j-+-+...+,_
WWHITESBRIDGE
W CALIFORNIA
>-
d
w
;E
K
'"
U>
-c
a:
I:;
CIl
U>
U>
U>
U>
W L
Attachment 2: Vacant, Agricultural, and
Rural Residential Parcels in the City of Fresno
(updated September 12, 2013)
North
f
Alwl>!
"'"'
Neea
Bullard
Copper
Herndon
Behymer
Shepherd
American
I
"
i
Jensen
california '----'---iP-
i
---
---
-
Belmont
ow.
Show
Bullard
Ash/an
Ne
City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department Planning Division September 12, 2013.
Data is from The Existing Land Use Summer 2013 update.
The red color represents parcels that have been found
to be vacant, open space/agriculture, or rural residential
partlyvacant (RRV) through a survey of aerial photography.
NOTICE: This map is believed to be an accurate
representation of the Cityof Fresno GIS data, however we
make no warranties either express or implied for the
correctness of this data. This map is a draft work in progress
and may contain errors
or omissions.
Legend
_ Vacant, Open/Agriculture, or RRV
o City of Fresno
Alluviol
Attachment 3
Generalized Zoning
Fresno County & Clovis Area
N
W . ~ E
S
00,30,6 1.2 t.e 24
.;
......-'... ""'"
Attachment 4: 2013 Aerial Photo of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area
2013 GoogleMap product, satellite photo credited to TerraMetrics
Attachment 5
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3482.5, "THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT"
California Agricultural Protection Act
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 3. NUISANCE
TITLE 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
3482.5. Agricultural activity not a nuisance; exceptions; construction with other
laws
(a) (1) No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or
maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted
customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the
same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed
condition in or about the locality, after it has been in operation for more than three years if it
was not a nuisance at the time it began.
(2) No activity of a district agricultural association that is operated in compliance with
Division 3 (commencing with Section 3001) of the Food and Aqricultural Code, shall be or
become a private or public nuisance due to any changed condition in or about the locality,
after it has been in operation for more than three years if it was not a nuisance at the time it
began. This paragraph shall not apply to any activities of the 52nd District Agricultural
Association that are conducted on the grounds of the California Exposition and State Fair,
nor to any public nuisance action brought by a city, county, or city and county alleging that
the activities, operations, or conditions of a district agricultural association have substantially
changed after more than three years from the time that the activities, operations, or
conditions began.
(b) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall not apply if the agricultural activity, operation, or
facility, or appurtenances thereof obstruct the free passage or use, in the customary
manner, of any navigable lake, river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park,
square, street, or highway.
(c) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) snail not invalidate any provision contained in the Health
and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Food and Agricultural Code, or Division 7
(commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code, if the agricultural activity, operation, or
facility, or appurtenances thereof constitute a nuisance, public or private, as specifically
defined or described in any of those provisions.
(d) This section shall prevail over any contrary provision of any ordinance or requlation of any
city, county, city and county, or other political subdivision of the state. However, nothing in
this section shall preclude a city, county, city and county, or other political subdivision of this
state, acting within its constitutional or statutory authority and not in conflict with other
provisions of state law, from adopting an ordinance that allows notification to a prospective
homeowner that the dwelling is in close proximity to an agricultural activity, operation,
facility, or appurtenances thereof and is subject to the provisions of this section consistent
with Section 1102.6a.
CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO FARM ACT, CIVIL CODE 3482.5
PAGE 2
(e) For purposes of this section, the term "agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or
appurtenances thereof" shall include, but not be limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the
soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural
commodity including timber, viticulture, apiculture, or horticulture, the raising of livestock, fur
bearing animals, fish, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as
incident to or in conjunction with those farming operations, including preparation for market,
delivery to storage or to market, or delivery to carriers for transportation to market.
ENACTED IN 1981, AMENDED IN 1993 AND 1999.
REVIEWED AND UPDATED BY AAHS IN JUNE 2001.
Attachment 6 - 2011 California Legislative Findings
CALIFORNIA FARMLAND CONSERVANCY PROGRAM ACT
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
10200. This division shall be known, and maybe cited, as the California Farmland Conservancy
Program Act. Any other references in this divisionto theAgricultural Land Stewardship Program
Act of 1995shall hereaftermeanthe California Farmland Conservancy Program Act.
10201. The Legislature herebyfinds anddeclaresall of the following:
(a) The agricultural landsof the statecontribute substantially to the state, national, and
world food supply and are avital part of the state's economy.
(b) The growing population and expanding economy of the statehave had a profound
impact on the ability of the publicandprivatesectorsto conserve landfor the production
of food and fiber, especially agricultural land around urbanareas.
(c) Agricultural lands near urban areasthat are maintained in productive agricultural useare
a significant part of California'S agricultural heritage. Theselands contribute to the
economicbetterment of local areasand the entire stateandare an important source of
food, fiber, and other agricultural products. Conserving theselandsis necessary due to
increasing development pressures and the effectsof urbanization on farmlands closeto
cities.
(d) The long-term conservation of agricUltural landis necessary to safeguard an adequate
supply of agricultural landandto balance the increasing development pressures around
urban areas.
(e) A program to encourage and make possible the long-term conservation of agricultural
lands is a necessary part of the state's agricultural landprotection policies and
programs, and it is appropriate to expend money for that purpose. A program of this
naturewill only be effective when used in concert with local planning andzoning
strategies to conserve agricultural land. (f) Funding is necessary to better address the
needs of conserving agricultural land near urbanareas.
10202. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this division, to do all of the following:
(a) Encourage VOluntary, long-term privatestewardship of agricultural landsby offering
landowners financial incentives.
(b) Protect farming and ranching operations in agricultural areas from nonfarm or nonranch
land uses that may hinder andcurtail farming or ranching operations.
(c) Encourage long-term conservation of productive agricultural lands in order to protect the
agricultural economy of rural communities, as well as that of the state, for future
generations of Californians.
(d) Encourage local land useplanning for orderly and efficient urban growth and
conservation of agricultural land.
(e) Encourage local land use planning decisions that are consistent with the state's policies
with regard to agricultural landconservation.
(f) Encourage improvements to enhance long-term sustainable agricultural uses.
Attachment 7: Calfornia Department of Conservation Statistics for Conversion of Important Farmland in Fresno County
2000-2010 FRESNO COUNTY Land Use Summary
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTYINVENTORIED: 63%
2000-2010 AVERAGE
ACREAGE BY CATEGORY (1)
NET ANNUAL
LAND USE CATEGORY
ACREAGE ACREAGE
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 (3) 2010
CHANGED CHANGE
Prime Farmland 734,052 731,936 722,584 713,085 693,174 685,411 -48,641 -4,864
Farmland of Statewide Importa 491,569 490,266 483,786 478,729 439,020 415,689 -75,880 -7,588
Unique Farmland 104,223 102,232 100,316 98,090 94,177 92,649 -11,574 -1,157
Farmland of Local Importance 70,691 74,357 84,857 95,534 149,907 176,524 105,833 10,583
Important Farmland Subtotal 1,400,535 1,398,791 1,391,543 1,385,438 1,376,278 1,370,273 -30,262 -3,026
Grazing Land 835,870 835,123 834,254 827,114 826,953 825,752 -10,118 -1,012
Agricultural Land Subtotal 2,236,405 2,233,914 2,225,797 2,212,552 2,203,231 2,196,025 -40,380 -4,038
Urban and Built-Up Land 104,934 107,535 110,899 115,366 117,567 120,753 15,819 1,582
Other Land 95,365 95,256 100,013 108,782 111,702 115,722 20,357 2,036
Water Area 4,911 4,911 4,911 4,912 4,914 4,914 3
Total Area Inventoried (2) 2,441,615 2,441,616 2,441,620 2,441,612 2,437,414 2,437,414 -4,201 -420
(1) Figures are generatedfrom the most current version of the GIS data.
(2) Total area inventoried changed in 2000 with the additionof the Western Fresno soil survey area. At the same time, SSURGOdata was
incorporated into the 2000 data for the remainder of the mapped area.
(3) Totai Area Inventoriedchanged in 2008 due to a legal boundarychange in which land was transferredfrom Fresnoto Merced counties. This
change was effective January 2008.
(1984 - 2000 data on next page)
Attachment 7, Page 2
1984-2000 FRESNOCOUNTY Land Use Summary
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTY INVENTORIED: 29%
ACREAGE BY CATEGORY (1)
1984-2000 AVERAGE
NET ANNUAL
LAND USE CATEGORY
ACREAGE ACREAGE
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 (2\ 1998 2000
CHANGED CHANGE
Prime Farmland 381,079 380,571 380,014 378490 375,164 374,246 371,858 367,196 363,758 -17,321 -1,083
Farmland of Statewide Importa 146,408 146,338 146,562 145732 144,689 144,176 143,004 141,046 139,546 -6,862 -429
Unique Farmland 96,593 97,068 99,464 99089 96,957 96,620 96,007 95,212 93,751 -2,842 -178
Farmland of Local Importance ( 29,262 28,615 27,533 29909 29,421 29,644 31,167 42,135 45,112 15,850 991
Important Farmland Subtotal 653,342 652,592 653,573 653,220 646,231 644,686 642,036 645,589 642,167 -11,175 -698
Grazing Land 333,406 333,460 329,183 314845 309,042 308,993 308,216 319,814 319,691 -13,715 -857
Agricultural Land Subtotal 986,748 986,052 982,756 968,065 955,273 953,679 950,252 965,403 961,858 -24,890 -1,556
Urban and Built-Up Land 74,148 75,493 77,192 81410 84,650 86,124 89,272 93,309 97,002 22,854 1,428
Other Land (3) 57,734 56,984 58,600 69104 78,656 79,306 79,525 60,594 60,446 2,712 170
Water Area 4,562 4,667 4,646 4614 4,615 4,086 4,146 3,891 3,891 -671 -42
Total Area Inventoried (4) 1,123,192 1,123,196 1,123,194 1,123,193 1,123,194 1,123,195 1,123,195 1,123,197 1,123,197 5 0
(1) Figures are generated fromthe most current version of the GISdata. Files dating from 1984 through 1992were reprocessedwith a standardized county line in the Albers
Equal Area projection, and other boundary improvements.
(2) Acreage for Water changed in 1996 when refinementswere made to lake and river boundariesfrom imagery and 1:24,000-scalequadrangles.
(3) Farmland of Local Importance increases, while Other Land decreases, between 1996 and 1998 due to a change in the Farmlandof Local Importancedefinition-Ihe county
added confined animal facilities to the definition.
(2) Total area inventoried changed in 2000 with the addition of the Westem Fresno soil survey area. See other worksheet for newer data.
Attachment 8: 2010 california Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map-
Eastern Fresno County, excerpt showing area around the Cityof Fresno
(map key is on following page)
D
1'"ARf<UA'\D lIAS TUt &'::!:.TCOw::l"l..-u.nosor JI.'IDc rt.\TUli'l::::
.. nllllLA-'>.!,) t'1/:l';sou,
seeoenrc
I:lOJI ne.os. Ul'H)!dL":!'l' ItA"!.'.: 1.!':.ll11'01I UIIdC.\n':1l AC."IX:CIS..V.Al.i'>roOUt.'f'.c.'l
Kt 7ue. DUP.i."'Hl ':'If:! WJJ!Z IIDoll -ro-nreMAl'\'l-"iO
FARMLANDOF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE 439,020 """.
1'.\rnc.A:'1,) (' 1"'1'OlrT.... "K"'I.: e YOl'Imtl': FAli:MLA."l).!!V7 wr.lf.
OR JI..'!l.l...m' 70 eroae ecc,
U,-.u ML'S'r UI,\'l'.: l',e..lt:'l f'l)R lm'"....::A'tw ACP.:ct!L!'""c.'W.L 1'R:)D!x:nc..'l s:tt =X!-::IU
t1JlllS<l nil! I'O:.'R 1'\!lOll 70':"l!:1.
UNIQUE: FARMLAND 94,177 acres
I.!l'l;QlJt .. r'$or lJ':::Z.r.a ecc,s ueen n.'9; recccc...KJS Uf
"tlit. ewres U'.A!.'{.'iO AUld.:L!L:"' ..Rl.LCI'!Oi':ii. 111mlA"mWLJ::U1.w..y oom,rw, t'1"... 't fl. ...t
L'.-u.:.:lll'.: OR L'\l scee
11> CA:..ll'ORNl.\. Ul!ID .w:"'.;rr lV. ..-e&l-"'l cac-ee rxJV":liG TUI'; ItJIJIi': f!A.'-:s
I'i'.:o;:.t ro w,1"1';..
o FAP..l.1LANDOF LOCAL IMPORTANCE - 1;'7,507 acres
.UL u....o:: Il..;nll.'f fPJ"::1iO CCUl>T'J' TltAT 00 Mr. Ml'::!':t 'll.l':. ...moss OY
u..'1nnlhr Ii: t.'O/I'-\S;;/!t:j l!:i.W!"rn1:
W.AA:\.\11':() tml'L\.'iU FAiOU.'\1.l, (."()!\l"w"'<r.o UlI=o:::K "I>ll
VACll.:'I'lY.::.. ...mClt\Zl.'\U Win
GRAZING LAh"D 826,955 acres
lP_":::::'l(l!..'.ND ts ..... '\u 0:.- \'t::Gl':'l'A1"H..\S
or
CONFINED ANIMAL AGRICULTURE - 12,399 acres
1..'-'<"nx!tu .. n.Y"::l;,u:t:.
!'!oCUT';t::l:. A:llJ r.::!ll"AI<u:L INtX.>lt1': \..'UN"'M"i ...::I ..... cs A
CI.JMI'<ll>L'IT cense ..o.ce L(X:N,. IMI'OKt.... (;Al'l:lOUI1Y.
NONAGRICULTURAL A1iD NATUP.AL VEGETATION - 33,466 acres
WNMlltJ(;1JI.T.:l'W..""'''O:<An.;P.\L ,.. WOU(lW, I'XXKf
1\!..1,) "'Y.T.A"O IXl !\\,ll
{f,-'.t:n" u..... ll ro nl!'::l! OP. u....!) MA.... 'J..l.!'.wr.l>T
::lU.l.l. '...... l1".lt xm w.ur.."! ...::lJUl.Y.::I. M<I'.-
/lUlU :M:I..'.;UW to;
SElwUAGRICULTURALAND RURAL COMMERCIAL LAND - 6,72", acres
tlillAl. u... ..u
A.. .. c 1'1.L:U't.l :>11l.lJ::. .I.J1I'.4::, COWl'.'V::lIh'Q rxcnrnr-.:.
.....,!-J
VACA1IT OR DISTURBED LAND - 30,611 acres
'0'=(;01< I .... M> Ol'!:!> Y,r.UI Mrtll:.;-l'Il.\lUU scr <';lJlI:JrY nm''''1
..... 1) Ull. '(l':IXl..r. 1.J:t.. .::.
::Ul:l::1"AnO:'l::.l.:I!........... .. AWl. A.."C)I.u:l!'l,l,.!"i'I.I'.i':\lt.I.l'
1:'//:'/1 RURAL P..ESIDENTIAL LAND - 40,906 acres
t:u!<A:. ..m L"'::1.:J0!':ll O' TOl'W.l.
M.:.R...:>.
URBA..1i A..'iDBUILT-UP LA.:'1'D - 117,568 acres
L'>!llA."zxc t:l HY ';.-1111 1I\'1;:::..!.';'':'u l)f 1'>:
1.Y....::r t r.s 1....Y.lZ.O'{ IIllY.fJ:G1U.l"l':LY J'. !o,M:I!I'; j'.>.lil;"::"
()')'\lIlO"l !'.x..y'I'tJ';:;: 1.."lt,."Uiur..l/".J::;::;;l':l>I1.\.l..
ccu- t.:\:l,JRSf.::. L..,,::."ML,U;.
-:"J'"J...'"1l?IT.
WATER 4,915 acres
Attachment 9
Dralt MEIR No. 10130
2025 FresnoGeneral Plan
Page 4
3. Preservation of Agricultural Land
Council Resolution No. 2002-378
City Council Hearing 'i17i9ici2
Exhibit B
Implementation of the 2025Fresno General Plan will result in the permanent displacement of
9,333acresof vacant landand/orproductive aqncuttura' land; and residential usesmay
conflict with agricultural operations which typically result in generation of pesticide residues,
noise and dust. The following are the facts, findings statement and analysis associated with
expected unmitigable impacts of the lossof productive agricultural resources:
Findings - Evidence and Explanation in Support of Findings
a. The MEIR identifies numerous mitigation measures (E-1, E-2, E-3 andE-4) intended to
reduce the impactsupon agricultural landthat is actively cultivated within or adjacent to the
plannedurbanboundary. The 2025Fresno General Plan, as the project, specifies numerous
general plangoals (1,3,5,6,7,9, 11,14. 16) andimplementing objectives and policies
(objective G-5 and policies G-5-athrough G-5-gand objective G-6 and policies G-6-a through
G-6-d) that direct the planning andimplementation of landuse, publicfacility expansion and
resource management strategies to facilitate the continued cultivation of agricultural lands
within the plannedurbanboundary until such timeas urban development is necessary and
appropriate. Thesestrategies areparticularly applicable to properties that will constitute the
transition areabetween urban and agricultural areas.
b. The MEIR and the 2025Fresno General Plan identifynumerous mitigation measures (D-1
through D-9) and goals andpolicies (goals 1, 3, 5, 6, 7. 9, 11,14, 16) together with numerous
policiescontained in the Regional Cooperation, Urban Form, Economic Development, Public
Facilities, Open Spaceand Resource Conservation Elements) to provide comprehensive
strategies to maintainwater quantityand quality, support the attainment of air quality
standards and managethe projected demand for urban development in a mannerthat limits
adverseimpactsupon agricultural operations within and adjacentto the planned urban area.
In addition, the Final MEIR responses to written comments (L-1 through L-35, 88-1 through
88-5) further elaborateuponthe plan'sstrategies to protectand enhance the area's
agricultural resources.
Conclusions: Loss of Productive Agricultural Resources
The conversion of agricultural landto urbanuseswithin the planned urbanboundary to
accommodate the projected. population and employment growth of the 2025 Fresno General
Plan is a significant and unavoidable adverse impact, which can not be completely mitigated
by measures within the control of the City of Fresno. The mitigation measures identified
above(alsoIncludedwithin Exhibit Eof this resolution), and the numerous policymeasures of
the 2025 FresnoGeneral Plan are feasible and will be incorporated into the project in
accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section 15126.4. However, thereareno reasonable
mitigation measures available to onlythe City of Fresno which wouldassurethe reduction of
impactsupon agricultural land within the planned urban areato a less-than-significant level.
In order to providea suitable living environment within the metropolitan area, the planstrives
to facilitate expanded economic growth that will support increased employment opportunities.
This is a particularly high priority considering the acutely severelocal economic conditions,
which includerates of unemploymentlypically ranging between 12 and 15 percent.
Therefore, this impact would remain significant andunavoidable.
Attachment 10
Healthy Communities
ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD
In addition to lack of exercise, poor diet is another major risk factor
contributing to chronic disease prevalence. In the U.S., obesityand diet.relat!<", "
chronic disease rates are escalating; people are experiencing rising antibiot
resistance as a result of the treatment of farm animals; food, air, SOil,R;!d
are being contaminated from chemicals and pathogens related to' ;
and natural resources such as fresh water and prime farmland . g
depleted. Thesethreats haveenvironmental, social, and t are
growing, cumulative, and unequally distributed. These issue all to the
food system-what we eat and how it is produced.
Obesity is a patticulatly important concern for the al evelopment of
children. Childhood obesity has more than ast 30 yeatS. The
prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 t increased from 6.5
percent in 1980 to 19.6 percent in e nee of obesity atllong
adolescents aged 12 to 19 yeatS increase percent to 18.1 percent)
Obese youth are more likelyto have risk to or cardiovasculat disease, such
as high cholesterol or high blood dren and adolescents who are
obese are also at greater risk fOe joint problems, sleep apnea, and
social and psychological probl as stigmatization and poor self-
esteemP Finally, obese e likely than youth of normal weight to
become overweight or ob a , and therefore more at risk for associated
adult health problems . c1u eatt disease, Type 2 diabetes, stroke, several
types of cancer, and iiis.
Fresno Coun and adults are more overweight, suffer from diabetes
and heatt ess physically active and have less access to healthyfood
and ources than their statewide counterparts. According to the
2009 alth Interview Survey, the percentage of overweight and
34.4 percent and 30.2 percent, compared to 33.6 percent and
ent statewide, respectively,'
me communities, healthy food access is a big factor in obesity rates,
icularly where there are challenges to both physical proximity and
affordability. Residents in communities with a more "imbalanced food
1Ogden, CL., et aL "Prevalence of highbodymass indexin USchildren andadolescents, 2007-2008:'
]aard ifthe ArrerimnM<dimI.Assa:idtiJJn, 303(3):242-9 (2010).
2 Daniels, S.R, et al."Overweight inchildren andadolescents: pathophysiology, consequences,
prevention, and treatment," GroJaJUn, 111;1999-2002,2005.
3 U.s. Surgeon General. OrerueiiPtan:iCfuity Hodih Cons",!,,,,,,,,,,, Rockville: MD (2001).
4 California Health InterviewSurvey; 2009:
http;//www.chis.ucla.edulrrnin/DQ3/ou!puLasp? m=0 7438928
: I 1
environment" (where fast food restaurants and comer stores are more
convenient than grocery stores) have more health problems and higher
mortality than residents of areas with a higher proportion of grocery stores,
other factors held constant.iLikewise, the presence of a supermarket in a
neighborhood is linked to higher fruit and vegetable consumption and a
reduced prevalence of overweight and obesityN In low-income neighborhoods,
the addition of a supermarket has been found to increase residents' likelihood
of meeting nutritional guidelines byone-third.t
"Food deserts;' defined as large and isolated geographic areas where
mainstream grocery stores are absent or distant, are linked to poor food "-
and associated negative diet-related health outcomes. The 2007
"Searching for Healthy Food: The Food Landscape in California Gries and ....
Counties" report found that fast food restaurants and convenien;&e
five times more prevalent in Fresno County than supermarkets ro
vendors," According to the USDAFood Desert Locator, . us
tracts in the countythat are classifiedas food deserts.'? The' tion of retail
food outlets in the county is: 50percent fast-food resta percent
convenience stores, 12 percent supermarkets, 3 perce od e stores, and 1
percent farmer's markets."
Furthermore, 21.6 percent of the populatio . unty is categorized as
"food insecure" compared to 16.6 . '. Fresno County, one of
the world's top producers of fruits and ege . exports much of its bounty
out of the county. It is not uncommo . uce from Fresno County to be
sold to a distributor who ships it ounty, out of California or out of
the U.S. for processing or pac then finds its way back to
Fresno via national supermar t a higher cost.
ns where fresh food can be purchased in
st' s and fresh produce markets, with a quarter-
, which is often a walkabledistance; farmers markets;
. Convenience stores are also mapped, although they
resh produce available for purchase. Figure HC5 also
rts identified by the USDA that are located within the city
her Research and Consulting Group, Examining the Impact of Food Desertson Public
Chicago, 2006.
agami, S., et al., "You are where youshop:grocerystorelocations, 'Weight, andneighborhoods,"
American Journal of Preventative Medicine, VoL 31,Issue 1(2006).
7 Sturm, R, andA Datar, "Body mass index in elementaryschool children, metropolitan area food
prices, and food outlet density," Public Health, Vol. 119 (2005).
Figure HCS shows the
Fresno: full-service
mile radius shown
and community
mayor mayn
shows the
limits.
8 Morland, K., et al., "The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents' diet",
American Journal of PublicHealth, Vol.92, Issue 11 (November2002).
9 CACenterfor Public HealthAdvocacy. (2007). Searching for HealthyFood, The Food Landscape in
FresnoCounty.
10 UnitedStates Department of Agriculture. (2011). FoodDessertLocator, FresnoCounty.
11FeedingAmerica. (2011). Food Insecurity& Food Cost In the US,Fresno County.
l-2 I ",. DRAFT
Full service grocery stores and produce markets are actually well distributed
around Fresno, with fewer on the city's edges; the areas west of Highway99 are
largelydevoid of grocery options. All of the city's food deserts are located south
of Belmont Avenue, with two west of Highway 99 and one south of the
fairgrounds; the fourth one in southeast Fresno is an area under development.
Most city residents would be unable to easily walk to a grocery store though,
since their locations are spread out. Only 10 percent of residential land in the
city is within walking distance of a grocery store or fresh produce market.
Farmers markets are clustered in the Downtown,but distributed in most areas J'(
except for central Fresno. The city has few community gardens, and these 'Jf(,;
mostly located in the eastern areas of Fresno. . ........ ,
Figure HG6 represents the overlay of healthy food access with p . ~
This map reveals that the central areas of Fresno south of Shaw d
west of Highway 41-on both sides of Highway 99-are by
grocery stores as well as parks, with fewer and smaller parks tl 0 arts of
the city. This quadrant could be considered to be the part no with the
least access to healthy living options. Smaller areas . lie thy lifestyle
access include the neighborhood between McKinley< l : l l ~ g y.; 41, 168, and
180; the neighborhood immediatelywest of the f ~ - . ~ , d the area east of
Highway41 between Herndon, Bullard, and ~
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEME ~ -
The City became involved in health foo cess issues in 2007 when it was
approached by several entities s' establish farmers' markets. One of
these applicants had received ding, only to discover that in order to
allow a farmers' market 0Sl' tty, a rezoning was necessary to comply
with land use regulations. a onsequence, the City has made the zoning
regulations for farme ore flexible. Additional initiatives for farmers'
markets are pres in this element, and the concurrent Citywide
Development e te will offer regulations for integrating healthy
community co . to the City's regulations, consistent with General Plan
policies and .
In #=agriculture and 00=,",'" gardening are on the rise in
F cities around the country. The term "urban agriculture" refers to
or production of food for consumption or sale in and around a city
wn. The term "community gardening" can include urban agriculture as well
recreational gardening in a community setting. Urban agriculture and
mmunity gardening typically occur on a small-scale in urban and suburban
areas, such as in a backyard, school yard, or public communitygarden.
The benefits include:
Recreational and community-buildingopportunities for residents;
Inexpensive access to fresh, healthy produce - which can serve as part
of the solution to food deserts and other public health issues related to
diet, including obesity;
Business opportunmes for residents to sell goods they grow
themselves, e.g. at farmers' markets; and
Productive use for vacant or underutilizcd land.
The General Plan reflects the Gty's recent efforts to commit to several broad
strategies to address these issues including
The 2007 Fresno Green Strategyincludes a policyto "encourage all city
facilities (including schools) to serve at least 20 percent locally grown A
and organic foods beginning in 2009." While this policy was intende . ~ "
mostly as an economic development strategy, it has the possibility
improve healthyfood access;
As part of a multi-jurisdictional working group dedicated to' p g
health by improving the built environment. The G ~ ' te a
"Resolution Supporting the Collaborative Efforts of the ~ sno
Planning and Development Department and the Co ty sno in
their Efforts to Incorporate Public Health Strate . Local Land
Use, Transportation and Community Design P .
Additional partnerships with the Co de Walkability
Workshops in underserved neighborho icipation in Farmers
Market and Community Garden c c , and now, work on
healthy communities in the Gene de updates; and
The City also has been wo e California Endowment in
partnership with the comm entral, southeast, and southwest
Fresno as part of its Buil . .y Communities campaign.
Also, several successful co ns are thriving in Fresno and offer a
precedent for further exp . n. ecause of the close ties between Fresnans and
agriculture, there is si - . 'can ertise available to assist new gardeners with
getting started. Ex ' of these resources include Fresno Metro Ministries,
the Center for d Recycling, the Youth Council for Sustainable
Communities, resno Economic Opportunities Commission.
pporting urban agriculture, farmers markets, and community
e eneral Plan promotes institutional regional food purchasing,
of local food culture and restrictions on fast food restaurants.
Figure HC-S:
Food Accessibility
Full-Service Grocery Store
or FreshProduce Market
o Convenience Store
1/4Mile Service Area
e Farmers Market
o Community Garden
o Food Desert (by CensusTract)
---- City Limits
SEGA Boundary
Sphere of Influence
L,
1TWlpk I'\Qt firulproduct

559-621-8003orQ:lrItzct UStt
_Jremo.gov/newpll:n
i
Figure HC-6:
Access to Food and Park
1/4 MileService Area for
Full-Service Grocery Store
or Fresh Produce Market
e Farmers Market
o Community Garden
c:::::J Food Desert (by Census Tract)
'''!})d Parks and Open Space
1/4 Mile Park Service Area
---- City limits
SEGA Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Attachment 11
GUIDELINES FOR PONDING BASIN /POND CONSTRUCTION
AND MANAGEMENT TO CONTROL MOSQUITO BREEDING
Immature mosquitoes develop in shallow water habitats. Fresno has enough year-round
urban runoff from sprinklers, car washing, and pool drainage to keep water in drainage
basins even in the summer--when mosquitoes breed the fastest. The design and
management of ponding basins and ponds is of critical importance for mosquito control.
Following are some new guidelines for these facilities:
*1. Ponding basins and ponds with fluctuating water levels should have a "iow fiow" area, a
deeper area or sump where drainage will accumulate, instead of a uniform flat bottom. This
allows for water to accumulate to a greater depth, and helps "mosquito fish" survive. The low
flow area should be located at the pond inlet and should be at least four feet deeper than the
rest of the basin floor. The rest of the basin should be graded so that drainage is directed into
this low flow area.
*2. Side slopes of ponds and ponding basins should be as steep as is compatible with
safety and grading considerations. They should have a slope ratio of 1:2 (vertical:horizontal).
3. Decorative ponds and artificial wetlands should be constructed so that water depths are
maintained in excess of four feet, to preclude invasive emergent vegetation such as cattails.
*4. Ponds and ponding basins should be constructed to provide for free, unobstructed access
around their entire perimeter by vehicle and/or by foot, to allow for maintenance and
mosquito abatement activities.
*5. All ponding basins should be enclosed in chain-link fencing at least six feet tall (to City of
Fresno Public Works Standards), with double gates to provide an unobstructed total opening
at least ten feet wide (no center post between the gates). Gates should be secured with a
standard padlock to allow for access by maintenance workers and mosquito and vector
control personnel: a No.5 Masterl.ock" with key numbers 1C95, 3203 or 0855.
6. Ponds and ponding basins should be constructed to allow easy de-watering when needed.
7. Ponding basin and pond edges should be maintained free of excess vegetation and trash that
would harbor insects and support mosquito breeding when it falls or blows into the water.
S. Ponding basins and ponds should be managed to control algae and emergent vegetation
(plants that emerge from shallow water), to remove harborage for mosquito breeding and to
allow "mosquito fish" and other mosquito predators better access to their prey.
9. Ponding basins and ponds should maintain water quality that supports the survival of
"mosquito fish" (Gambusia affinis, available from local mosquito and vector control agencies).
Use caution when selecting herbicides and pesticides for use in or near ponding basins and
ponds, because many pesticides are toxic to fish.
* The asterisked guidelines modify the current City of Fresno Public Works Standard No. P-62 for
Temporary Ponding Basins.
10/29/04
PLAN VIEW OF TYPICAL TEMPORARY PONDING BASIN
5' MIN,
FENCE PER
8' FOR
1/2 STO.DWG. P-45
ACRE OR EXCEPT MOW STRIP
URGER LOW FLOW AREA' TO BE EUMINATED
BASINS
TYPE T' OUTLET
OR AS APPROVED
1 BY THE ENGINEER
r
L
.../
r"
,-MIN. la' OOUBLE GATE, NO
CENTER POSTS
..
" .
OR ::APPROYEB:,EQUAL
-: .'; :,;,s'!w;.' '., ..
. ..
,.....
. .....
t , :
..
..
. '.'
. ....-.. . .. ,' . '.. . ......, '. "
..
r'
,CURB
'. '
.... -... . ' , ..
' .. ." ,",
.
.. ", ..::-
.
..
,',
.'
.. .. I., .. ",' ,
"-F,U.F,C.D,
GUTTER.......
TYPE "0" INLET
P.L. P.L.
I I
I HIGH WATER) 6" I
I
ELEVATION I
III.
-III: c, 2 %..1.. I r1:i=111:"
- -'IT 1I", rfB7- 5 MIN.
ELEv
, '...!.C.'II l...!.C.j I I-III '-'- I 11-'
8' FOR 1/2 ACRE OR
LARGER BASINS
SECTION
NOTES; DESIGN MINIMUMS
1. OVERFLOW MUST BE TO THE STREET.
2. DESIGN WATER SURFACE ELEVA110N SHALL BE TWO FEEr BELOW THE LOWEST INLET FLOW
LINE OR POND PERIPHERAL ELEVATION, WHICHEVER IS LOWER.
3, REQUIREO CAPACITY, V=CIA WHERE V=REQUIRED BASIN CAPACITY IN CUBIC FEET, C=RUNOFF
COEFFlCIENT, I=RAINFALL FROM A DESIGN STORM (0.35 FEET), AND A=TRIBUTARY AREA IN
SQUARE FEET.
4. PROVIDE COMPOSITE "C" CALCULATIONS.
5, THE ENGINEER MAY REQUIRE AN 8' WIDE VEHICLE RAMP WITH A MAX. SLOPE OF 15% IN 1/2
ACRE OR LARGER BASINS.
6. TEMPORARY PONDING BASINS SHALL BE FENCED WITHIN 7 DAYS TIME AFTER THEY BECOME
OPERATIONAL OR WHEN REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER.
7, THE CITY ENGINEER MAY CONSIDER OTHER BASIN DESIGN ALTERNATIVES, AS A SUBSl1TUTE
FOR PROVIDING THE 2 FOOT FREEBOARD, WHEN THE BASIN SIZE PROJECT
FEASIBILITY,
8. LOCKS FOR THE GATE TO BE #5 MASTER LOCKS. NO. 1C95. 3203 OR 0855.
.. SIZE AND DEPTH OF LOW FLOW AREA TO BE DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
REF, & REV. CITY OF FRESNO
TEMPORARY PONDING BASIN
DEC., 2004
P-62
TRUSS TIGHTENER
3/8"
TRUSS RODS_
LINE
POST
REFER TO STATE SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT
FOR GATES IJHICH ARE 9 GAUGE.
""a>
2 .
........ -"RACE I S/B
M
0.0.
2" #9 GAGE WIRE---..:sl
GALV. AFTER WEAVING '
Mow Strip_______
3 1/2"x6"
LINE POST
2.25" H COLUMN
OR APPROVED EOUAL
#7 GAGE SPRING STEEL
BOTTOM TENSION WIRE
e 24" A.C.
"0:'>
:.>'"
oU)
"OS
Concrete
liB"
TIE WIRE @ 24" O.C.
CORNER BRACE
1 5/8" 0.0.
1'0<::'
nu
SS

TRUSS

.
36"
v.V
)
-L- _._...
I--- -. .--...-;
- MOW STRIP
.
3 1/2"-
CENTERED ON POSTS
i'------ Class :I
:1 ItI
I I '" I -.j I" I
I 10'- 0" I I '0'- 0" I I I - 8 10'- 0" I I
LINE POSTS @ 1000' MAX, INTERVALS
BRACED & TRUSSED IN BOTH DIRECTIONS
I
;;;:"":3
0>-<:
::E'"l:l
-
<.nn
s:>
"Ot"'"
I
0
0
0

Cf);:t>
1-:3_
()
"'0

';0
OZ
. m
c:::
0;0
-c
Or
0
'"
-<
1-:3-
-z

llii
Z I

1-:30

-r
Cf)
::0
>t>l
C::.."
c;"l'
'Il:'
l\:)
0::0
0t>l
l\:)<
-
"
-<
'""'d
0
I
.."
.."
::0
t>l
CJl
CIJ
Z
0
EXHIBITB
MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MEIR)
REVIEW SUMMARY
Projected Population and Housing. The City of Fresno experienced a period of notable
growth in the construction of single family residences over the first five-year period of the 2025
Fresno General Plan (2003 through 2007). However, this development has occurred within the
parameters anticipated by the General Plan and the mitigation measures established by Master
Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 10130/SCH 2001071097). The General Plan and its MEIR
utilized a projected population growth rate for purposes of land use and resource planning. This
projection anticipated an annual average population growth of approximately 1.9 percent over
the 23-year planning period. Population estimates provided by the State of California
Department of Finance (DOF) indicate a population growth of approximately 60, 000 people
between 2002 and 2007 with a growth rate varying from 1.47 to 1.97 percent per year. These
estimates are well within the growth projections of the General Plan and MEIR.
The City has processed 134 plan amendment applications since the adoption of the 2025
Fresno General Plan. These applications have resulted in changes of planned land use that
affected approximately 1,422 acres, representing approximately two percent of the land area
within the 2025 Fresno General Plan boundary. The impacts of these amendments are minimal
and not significant in relation to the balance of the density and intensity of the land uses
impacted by the plan amendment applications.
Based upon this, many of the assumptions relied upon for the MEIR to address other impacts,
such as traffic, air quality, need for public utilities, services and facilities and water supplies are
still valid to the extent that these assumptions relied upon projected population growth during
the General Plan planning period. For this reason and the others provided below, the Staff finds
that the circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new
information is not known pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1) and the MEIR may
still be relied upon.
Transportation and Circulation. Subsequent to the certification of the MEIR the City of
Fresno has required the preparation of approximately 200 site specific traffic impact studies and
had required the provision of street, intersection signalization and transportation improvements
in accordance with the adopted mitigation measures of the MEIR. The City's Traffic Engineer
reports that through review of these approximately 200 traffic impact studies, the City has not
seen traffic counts substantially different than those predicted by the MEIR. Concurrently with
these efforts, the City adopted a new program for traffic signal and major street impact fees to
pay for planned improvements throughout Fresno (not just in new growth areas, as has been
the case with the previous impact fee program). These fees will more comprehensively provide
for meeting transportation infrastructure needs and will expedite reimbursement for
developments, which construct improvements that exceed the project's proportionate share of
the corresponding traffic or transportation capacity needs.
In addition to the local street system, the City has entered into an agreement with the California
Department of Transportation to collect impact fees for state highway facilities which may be
impacted by new development projects. The City participates in the Fresno County
Transportation Authority, which recently was successful in obtaining voter re-authorization of a
half-cent sales tax to be dedicated to a wide range of transportation facilities and programs
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 2
(including mass transit). The City is also an active participant in ongoing regional transportation
planning efforts. such as a freeway deficiency study, a corridor study for one or more additional
San Joaquin River crossings, and the State's "Blueprint for the Valley" process. All these studies
were commenced after the MEIR was certified, but none of them is yet completed. Therefore. it
cannot be concluded that Fresno's environmental setting or the MEIR analysis of traffic and
circulation have materially changed since November of 2002.
Therefore, staff finds that the circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was
certified and/or new information is not known based upon traffic impacts pursuant to CEQA
Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Air Quality and Global Climate Change Staff has worked closely with the regional San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) since the November 2002 certification
of the 2025 Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR). Potential air
quality impacts have been analyzed for every environmental assessment initial study done for
City development projects. Projects are required to comply with SJVAPCD rules and
regulations via conditions of approval and mitigation measures formulated in the MEIR.
Overall. revisitation of these issues leads to the conclusion that, while there have been changes
in air quality laws, planning requirements, and rules and regulations since certification of the
MEIR. the actual environmental selling has not evidenced degradation of air quality. (Because
air quality and global climate change are matters of some public controversy, additional
documentation has been supplied on this issue; please refer to the appended full analysis with
supporting data.)
In conjunction with SJVAPCD attainment plans and attendant rules and regulations that were
adopted prior to the certification of the MEIR, policies in the 2025 Fresno General Plan and
MEIR mitigation measures aimed at improving air quality appear to be working. Since 2002.
data show that pollutant levels have been steadily decreasing for ozone/oxidants and for
particulate matter (10 microns and 2 microns in size). Recent adoption of new air quality
attainment plans by SJVAPCD. calling for broader and more stringent rules and regulations to
achieve compliance with national and state standards. is expected to accelerate progress
toward attainment of clean air act standards.
Analysis of global climate change analysis was not part of the MEIR in 2002. due to lack of
scientific consensus on the matter and a lack of analytical tools. However, under the MEIR and
General Plan mitigation measures and policies for reducing all forms of air pollution, levels of
greenhouse gases have been reduced along with the other regulated air pollutants. At this point
in time. detailed analysis and conclusions as to the significance of greenhouse gas emissions
and strategies for mitigation are still not feasible. because the legislatively-mandated
greenhouse gas inventory benchmarking and the environmental analysis policy formulation
tasks of the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board and the
Governor's Office of Planning and research are not completed. The information available does
not support any conclusion that Text Amendment No. A-13-02 or other City projects would have
a significantly adverse impact on global climate change. Similarly, there is insufficient
information to conclude that global climate change would have a significant adverse impact
upon the City of Fresno or specific development projects.
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 3
Staff is not aware of any particular circumstance or information that would make impacts to air
quality a reasonably foreseeable impact or more severe impact from that identified in the MEIR.
Therefore, Staff finds that the circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was
certified and/or new information is not known based upon air quality impacts pursuant to CEQA
Guideline Section 15179(b)( 1).
Water Supply, Quality and Hydrology. The City of Fresno has initiated, continued and
completed numerous projects addressing general plan and MEIR provisions relating maintaining
an adequate supply of safe drinking water to serve present and future projected needs. A water
meter retrofit program to meter service to all consumers by the end of the year 2012 is
underway, in compliance with State law that predated the MEIR and with new regulations
affecting the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Project. (While the federal regulation
has trumped a voter-approved City charter amendment that specifically prohibited using meters
for residential development, the City's plans and policies have always contained measures
calling for water conservation and for seeking ways to reduce average consumption of
households. Metering is recognized as the best implementation measure for this, and does not
constitute a change in the City's environmental setting or the analysis and mitigation in the 2025
Fresno General Plan MEIR.) After certification of the MEIR, the City commenced operation of
its northeast area surface water treatment facility; initiated and began construction of additional
groundwater wells with granular activated carbon filtration systems as necessary to remediate
groundwater contamination that was discussed in the MEIR and its mitigation measures;
provided for additional groundwater recharge areas; and expanded its network of water
transmission main pipeline improvements allowing for improved distribution of water supply.
As called for in 2025 General Plan policies and MEIR mitigation measures, the City has
implemented several programs for preventing water pollution: In conjunction with Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) City
inspectors assist in enforcing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater
Pollution Prevention regulations, The Planning and Development Department also consults with
RWQCB on specific development projects which may require on-site wastewater treatment, and
provides project-specific conditions and even supplemental environmental analysis for such
projects, with specific mitigation measures. The City's Department of Public Utilities has
enhanced its industrial pretreatment permitting program for industrial wastewater generators
who discharge to the Fresno-Clovis Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility.
Staff is not aware of any particular circumstance or information that would make impacts to
water supply, quality and hydrology a reasonably foreseeable impact or more severe impact
from that identified in the MEIR. The Director of Public Utilities finds that the circumstances
have not changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new information is not known
based upon traffic impacts pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Agricultural Resources. The implementation of applicable policies since adoption of the 2025
Fresno General Plan has encouraged the development of urban uses in a more systematic
pattern that avoids discontinuity and the creation of vacant by-passed properties. These efforts,
together with the requirement to record "right-to-farm" covenants, facilitate the continuation of
existing agricultural uses within the city's planned urban growth boundary during the interim
period preceding orderly development of the property as anticipated by the General Plan. Staff
is not aware of any particular circumstance or information that would make impacts from loss of
agricultural resources a reasonably foreseeable impact or more severe impact from that
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page4
identified in the MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances have not changed from the time the
MEIR was certified and/or new information is not known related to loss of agricultural resources
pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Demand for Utilities and Service Systems. The City of Fresno has continued to provide for
utilities and service systems commensurate with the demands of increased population and
employment within its service area, implementing policies of the 2025 Fresno General Plan and
conforming to MEIR mitigation measures. Programmatic measures have been continued,
expanded or initiated to increase the efficiencies of providing services in a manner that will
reduce potential impacts upon the natural and human environment. These improvements have
included bringing the City's first surface water treatment plant on-line to distribute treated
surface water, thereby preventing a worsening of groundwater overdraft in northeast Fresno;
converting a substantial portion of the City's service vehicle fleet to alternative fuels; and
expanding recycling and conservation measures (including contracting with a major material
sorting and recycling facility and a green waste processor to comply with AB 939 solid waste
reduction mandates) to more judiciously use resources and minimize adverse impacts the
environment. Adoption of City-wide police and fire facility development impact fees and a
contract to consolidate fire service with an adjacent fire prevention district have been
accomplished to assure the provision of adequate firefighting capacity to serve a broader
geographic extend of urban development and more intensive and mixed-use development
throughout the metropolitan area.
Because these changes were anticipated in, or provided for by, the 2025 Fresno General Plan
and its MEIR mitigation measures, they do not constitute a significant or adverse alteration of
Fresno's environmental setting. Staff is not aware of any particular circumstance or information
that would make impacts from increased demand for utilities and service systems and public
facilities a reasonably foreseeable impact or more severe impact from that identified in the
MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was
certified and/or new information is not known related to increased demand for utilities, service
systems, and public facilities pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Demand for Recreational Facilities. The City of Fresno has adopted and City-wide parks
facility and Quimby Act fee which provides for the acquisition of new open space and recreation
facilities as well as improvements to existing facilities and programs to provide a broader range
of recreation opportunities. Staff is not aware of any particular circumstance or information that
would make impacts from increased demand for recreational facilities a reasonably foreseeable
impact or more severe impact from that identified in the MEIR. Staff finds that the
circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new information is
not known related to increased demand for utilities, service systems, and public facilities
pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Biological Resources. The City continues to evaluate all development proposals for potential
impacts upon natural habitats and associated species dependent upon these habitats. The City
supports continuing efforts to acquire the most prominent habitats where appropriate, such as
portions of the San Joaquin River environs. When development or public works projects have
been proposed in this area, they have been subject to site-specific evaluation through
supplemental environmental analyses, and appropriate mitigation measures and conditions
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
PageS
applied as derived from consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game. The City has imposed MEIR mitigation measures related to
Biological Resources on projects that identified potential impacts to biological resources. Staff
finds that this has adequately addressed any potential impact to biological resources. Staff is
not aware of any particular circumstance or information that would make impacts from loss of
biological resources a reasonably foreseeable impact or more severe impact from that identified
in the MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was
certified and/or new information is not known related to loss of biological resources pursuant to
CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Potential Disturbance of Cultural Resources. The City of Fresno has implemented
numerous efforts to identify historic and cultural resources, and provide thorough consideration
as to their value and contributions to understanding or historic and cultural heritage.
Additionally, staff follows the MEIR mitigation measures for potential cultural resources. Staff is
not aware of any particular circumstance or information that would make impacts to cultural
resources a reasonably foreseeable impact that was not identified in the MEIR. Staff finds that
the circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new
information is not known related to loss of cultural resources pursuant to CEQA Guideline
Section 15179(b)(1).
Within the last five years, the City has lost two lawsuits (Valley Advocates v. COF and Heritage
Fresno v. RDA, City of Fresno) related to historical resources that related to six particular
buildings at two different particular sites. The CEQA projects at issue were reviewed under
independent CEQA documents, not under the MEIR as subsequent projects (i.e., one under a
separate EIR and one under a categorical exemption). These projects are site specific and are
not reasonably expected to create additional impacts to cultural resources that would affect a
finding under Section 15179. These particular projects may be properly assessed under the
MEIR focused EIR procedures or mitigated negative declaration procedures under Section
15178 and not affect the overall MEIR findings.
Generation of Noise. The City of Fresno continues to implement mitigation measures and
applicable plan policies to reduce the level of noise to which sensitive noise receptors are
exposed. These efforts include identification of high noise exposure areas, limiting the
development of new noise sensitive uses within these identified areas and conducting noise
exposure studies and requiring implementation of appropriate design measures to reduce noise
exposure. Staff finds that these efforts have adequately addressed any potential impacts that
may have arisen related to noise and is not aware of any facts or circumstance that would make
noise impacts have a more severe impact than that identified in the MEIR. Additionally, staff is
not aware of any information or data that was not known at the time that the MEIR was certified
that would be able to mitigate noise impacts beyond that identified and contemplated by the
MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances have not changed from the time the MEIR was
certified and/or new information is not known related to noise impacts pursuant to CEQA
Guideline Section 15179(b)( 1).
Geology and Soils. The City of Fresno has a predominantly flat terrain with few geologic or soil
quality constraints. The City continues to apply applicable local and state construction codes
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page6
and standards and continues to adopt new standards as appropriate to insure the safety of
residents and protection of property improvements.
Staff finds that these codes and standards have adequately addressed any potential impacts
that may have arisen related to geology and soils and is not aware of any facts or circumstance
that would make impacts related to geology and soils a reasonably foreseeable impact not
addressed in the MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances have not changed from the time the
MEIR was certified and/or new information is not known regarding impacts related to geology
and soils pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Hazards and Potential Generation of Hazardous Materials The City continues to implement
General Plan policies and assure compliance with MEIR mitigation measures as new
development is planned and constructed, and as Code Enforcement activities are conducted, in
order to prevent flood damage, structural failures due to soil and geologic instability, and wildfire
losses. Development in the vicinity of airports has been reviewed and appropriately conditioned
with regard to adopted and updated airport safety and noise policies. In consultation with
Fresno County Environmental Health and the California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control, industrial and commercial facilities that use, handle,
or store potentially hazardous materials are appropriately sited, conditioned, and inspected
periodically by the Fresno Fire Department to prevent adverse occurrences. Homeland Security
regulations have been taken into consideration when reviewing food production, processing and
storage facilities, and the City has conducted and participated in multiple emergency response
exercises to develop response plans that would protect life, health, and safety in the event of
railroad accidents and other potential hazards.
Staff finds that these procedures, as outlined in the 2025 Fresno General Plan and its MEIR (as
well as in related regulations and codes pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials) have
adequately addressed potential impacts that may have arisen related to hazards. Staff is not
aware of any facts or circumstance that would make impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials reasonably foreseeable impacts not addressed in the MEIR. Staff finds that the
circumstances have not materially changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new
information is not known related to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials pursuant to
CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Demand for Energy. The City of Fresno has taken a number of steps to reduce energy
consumption, both "in house" to set an example, and in the policy arena. The most notable "in-
house" actions are the follOWing:
Construction of solar panel generator facilities at the Municipal Services Center (MSC)
and at Fresno-Yosemite International Airport. The MSC facility, completed_ in 2004,
generates 3.05 GWt of energy (equivalent to operation of 286 homes per year) and has
resulted in reduction of 966 tons of CO
2
emissions (equivalent to 2,414,877 vehicular
miles not driven).
Replacement of a significant number of vehicles in the municipal fleet with clean air
vehicles (please refer to the following table).
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 7
CURRENT CITY OF FRESNO "CLEAN AIR" FLEET
I
501 CNG Transit Buses
~ I CNG Trolleys
~ I CNG Handi-Ride Buses
"-
FRetrofitted Diesel Powered Buses with REV (reduced
. emission vehicle) engines and diesel particulate traps
r--;- Hybrid (gasoline-electric) Transit Buses
r--;- Hybrid (diesel-electric) Transit Buses
~ Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Pickups, Vans and Sedans
~ Flex Fuel Pickups, Vans and Sedans (CNG/Unleaded Fuel)
~ Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Street Sweepers
F Hybrid (gasoline-electric) Sedans and Trucks
I
341Electric Vehicles
~ I Propane Powered Vehicles
FILNG Powered Refuse Trucks
FRetrofitted Diesel Powered Refuse Trucks with combination
_ lean NOx catalyst and diesel particulate filters
~ Retrofitted Diesel Powered Street Sweepers with
_ _ . _ combination lean NOx catalyst and diesel particulate filters
~ Plug-In eNG/Electric Hybrid Refuse Truck
F
Heavy duty diesel trucks and construction equipment
equipped with exhaust after-treatment devices
r-;- Off Road Equipment with exhaust after-treatment devices
1
473
Total "Clean Air" Vehicles in the City of Fresno fleet or
sold to City solid waste franchisee
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page8
In the development standards policy arena, the City is taking numerous steps to increase
residential densities and connectivity between residential and commercial land uses, thus
facilitating more walking, biking and transit ridership (which has increased 22% in recent
months) and saving energy:
Amended the zoning code to allow development of mixed use projects in all commercial
zone districts citywide, and in the C-M and M-1 zone districts within the Central Area.
Amended the zoning code to allow density bonuses for affordable housing projects.
Such bonuses permit density increases of approximately 30%.
Amended zoning code to eliminate the "drop down" provision, which permitted
development at one density range less than that shown on the adopted land use map.
Amended the zoning code to increase heights in various residential and commercial
zone districts and reduce the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district from 6,000 to
5,000 square feet.
Initiated the Activity Center Study, which is defining the potential Activity Centers located
in Exhibit 6 of the 2025 Fresno General Plan and proposing design classifications and
increased density ranges for these centers and corresponding transportation corridors.
Staff is not aware of any facts or circumstance that would make impacts related to energy
demands reasonably foreseeable impacts that were not addressed in the MEIR. Staff finds that
the circumstances have not materially changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new
information is not known related to energy demand impacts pursuant to CEQA Guideline
Section 15179(b)( 1).
Mineral Resources. The City of Fresno has adopted plan policies and City ordinance
provisions consistent with requirements of the State of California necessary to preserve access
to areas of identified resources and for restoration of land after resource recovery (surface
mining) activities. Staff finds that these policies and Fresno Municipal Code provisions have
adequately addressed any potential impacts that may have arisen related to mineral resources
and is not aware of any facts or circumstance that would make loss of mineral resources a
reasonably foreseeable impact not addressed in the MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances
have not changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new information is not known
related to loss of mineral resources pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
School Facilities. The City of Fresno continues to consult with affected school districts and
participate in school site planning efforts to assure the identification of appropriate location
alternatives for planned school facilities. Staff is not aware of any information from the school
districts or otherwise to demonstrate that adequate school facilities are not being
accommodated under the current General Plan and/or that the need for school facilities is
expected to cause impacts not identified in the MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances have
not changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new information is not known related
to need for school facilities pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 9
Potential Aesthetic Impacts. Design Guidelines were appended to the 2025 Fresno General
Plan through the plan adoption process conducted concurrently with MEIR analysis. As noted
previously, General Plan policies encourage and promote infill development, and the City of
Fresno Planning and Development Department has implemented design guidelines for
reviewing infill housing development proposals. The Department has prepared detailed design
guidelines for the Tower District Specific Plan area and the Fulton-Lowell Specific Plan area,
both of which contain enclaves of unique structures. The City has adopted policies promoting
incorporation of public art within private development projects, which will contribute to a more
appealing visual environment, benefitting users of the private property as well as the
surrounding community. In addition, the City of Fresno and the City of Fresno Redevelopment
Agency have funded public improvements which improve the general aesthetic. Staff is not
aware of any situation or circumstances where there are reasonably foreseeable aesthetic
impacts not identified and assessed in the MEIR. Staff finds that the circumstances have not
changed from the time the MEIR was certified and/or new information is not known related
aesthetic impacts pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15179(b)(1).
Appendix: Statusof MEIRAnalysis WithRegard to Air Quaiityand Ciimate Change
MEIRREVIEWSUMMARY
Page 10
APPENDIX
STATUS OF MEIRANALYSIS WITH REGARD TO AIR QUALITYANDCLIMATECHANGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning staff has worked closely with the regional San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD) since the November 2002 certification of the 2025 Fresno General Plan
Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR). Potential air quality impacts have been analyzed
for every environmental assessment initial study done for City development projects. Projects
are required to comply with SJVAPCD rules and regulations via conditions of approval and
mitigation measures formulated in the MEIR.
Overall, revisitation of these issues leads to the conclusion that, while there have been changes
in air quality laws, planning requirements, and rules and regulations since certification of the
MEIR, the actual environmental setting has not evidenced degradation of air quality. In
conjunction with SJVAPCD attainment plans and attendant rules and regulations that were
adopted prior to the certification of the MEIR, policies in the 2025 Fresno General Plan and
MEIR mitigation measures aimed at improving air quality appear to be working. Since 2002,
data show that pollutant levels have been steadily decreasing for ozone/oxidants and for
particulate matter (10 microns and 2 microns in size). Recent adoption of new air quality
attainment plans by SJVAPCD, calling for broader and more stringent rules and regulations to
achieve compliance with national and state standards, is expected to accelerate progress
toward attainment of clean air act standards.
Analysis of global climate change analysis was not part of the MEIR in 2002, due to lack of
scientific consensus on the matter and a lack of analytical tools. However, under the MEIR and
General Plan mitigation measures and policies for reducing all forms of air pollution, levels of
greenhouse gases have been reduced along with the other regulated air pollutants. At this point
in time, detailed analysis and conclusions as to the significance of greenhouse gas emissions
and strategies for mitigation are still not feasible, because the legislatively-mandated
greenhouse gas inventory benchmarking and the environmental analysis policy formulation
tasks of the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board and the
Governor's Office of Planning and research are not completed. The information available does
not support any conclusion that Text Amendment No. A-13-02, or other City projects would have
a significantly adverse impact on global climate change. Similarly, there is insufficient
information to conclude that global climate change would have a significantly adverse impact
upon the City of Fresno or specific development projects.
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page11
SUPPORTING DATA AND ANALYSIS
While there have been changes in air quality regulations since the November 2002 certification
of the 2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR, the actual environmental setting has not evidenced
degradation of air quality.
The adverse air quality impacts associated with the myriad of human activities potentiated by
the long range general plan for the Fresno metropolitan area can be expected to remain
significant and unavoidable, and cannot be completely mitigated through the General Plan or
through project-level mitigation measures. In order to provide a suitable living environment
within the metropolitan area, the General Plan and its MEIR included numerous air pollution
reduction measures.
The 2025 Fresno General Plan and its MEIR gave emphasis to pursuing cleaner air as an over-
arching goal. The urban form element of the General Plan was designed to foster efficient
transportation and to support mass transit and subdivision design standards are being
implemented to support pedestrian travel. Strong policy direction in the Public Facilities and
Resource Conservation elements require that air pollution improvement be a primary
consideration for all land development proposals, that development and public facility projects
conform to the 2025 Fresno General Plan and its EIR mitigation measures, and that the City
work conjunctively with other agencies toward the goal of improving air quality.
The MEIR mitigation checklist sketched out a series of actions for the City to pursue with regard
to its own operations, and City departments are pursuing these objectives. The Fresno Area
Express (FAX) bus fleet and the Department of Public Utilities solid waste collection truck fleet
are being converted to cleaner fuels. Lighter-duty vehicle fleets are also incorporating
alternative fuels and "hybrid" vehicles. Mass transit system improvements are supporting
increased ridership. Construction of sidewalks, paseos, bicycle lanes and bike paths is being
required for new development projects, and are being incorporated into already-built segments
of City rights-of-way with financing from grants, gas tax, and other road construction revenues.
Traffic signal synchronization is being implemented. The Planning and Development
Department amended the Fresno Municipal Code to ban all types of residential woodburning
appliances, thereby removing the most prominent source of particulate matter pollution from
new construction.
Pursuant to a specific MEIR mitigation measure, all proposed development projects are
evaluated with the "Urbemis" air quality impact model that evaluates potential generation of a
range of air pollutants and pollutant precursors from project construction, project-related traffic,
and from various area-wide non-point air pollution sources (e.g., combustion appliances, yard
maintenance activities, etc.). The results of this "Urbemis" model evaluation are used to
determine the significance of development projects' air quality impacts as well as the basis for
any project-specific air quality mitigation measures.
There are no new (i.e., unforeseen in the MEIR) reasonable mitigation measures which have
become available since late 2002 that would assure the reduction of cumulative (city-wide) air
quality impacts to a less than significant level at project buildout, even with full compliance with
attainment plans and rules promulgated by the California Air Resources Board and the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 12
Through implementation of regional air quality attainment plans by the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), as supported by implementation of 2025
Fresno General Plan policies and MEIR mitigation measures, air pollution indices have shown
improvement. Progress is being made toward attainment of federal and state ambient air
quality standards.
Ozone/oxidant levels have shown gradual improvement, as depicted in the following graphs and
charts from the California Air Resources Board (graphics with an aqua background) and from
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (those with no background color):
Ozone Trends Summary: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
0.12
0.10
c;
0.08
.S
-
e:
s,
0.06
'"
c.
"
.....
s,
ro
0.04
c.
0.02
~ Natl 8-Hr OV
Natl 8Hr Std
1997 National Attainment Standard
2008 National Attainment Standard
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
0.00 '-__'-__.L-__.L-__-'--__-'--__..l-_---'
2000
Years
GRAPH NOTES: The "National 1997 8-Hour Ozone Design Value" is a Ihree-year running average of the
fourth-highest 8-hour ozone measurement averages in each of the three years (computed according to the
melhod specified in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix I).
Under the 1997 standard, in effect through the end of 2007, "Attainment" would be achieved if the three-
year average were less than, or equal to, 84 parts per billion (ppb), or 0.084 parts per million (ppm). In 2008, a
new National 8-Hour Ozone Attainment standard went into effect: a three year average of 75 ppb (0.075
ppm). Data and attainment status for 2008 is expected to become available in 2009.
The California Clean Air Act has a different calculation method for its 8-hr oxidant [ozone] standard design
value, and an attainment standard that is lower (0.070 ppm). The ozone improvement trend under the state
Clean Air Act 8-hour ozone standard parallels Ihe trend for the national 8-hour standard.
Correspondingly, the number of days per year in which the National 8-hour Ozone Standard has
been exceeded have also decreased since the end of 2002:
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page13
Ozone Trends Summary: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
140
-e- Da!:;ls>8Hr Natl Std
120
100
80
60
40
20
2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005
Years
2001
0'------'----'----'------'-----'----'-------'
2000
In 1997, the Federal Clean Air Act repealed the former National 1-hour Ozone standard.
However, the California Clean Air Act retains this air pollution parameter. The days per year in
which the State of California 1-hour ozone standard has been exceeded have also shown a
generally decreasing trend in the time since the 2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR was certified:
1-hourOzoneExceedance Days
(California State Standard)
30
25
20
c
o
a15
~
E
,
z
10
5
o
r-t- r-r-
-I-
I
r- _
I
- -
I
r-
-
- 1- r- - r-
-
r-r-
.-
-
-
r- r- - r- -
--r-
n
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MEIRREVIEW SUMMARY
Page 14
The current ozone attainment plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, in place when the
MEIR for the 2025 Fresno General Plan was certified, is linked to a federal designation of
"Serious Nonattainment." While ozone/oxidant air quality conditions are showing a trend toward
improvement, the rate of progress toward full attainment is not sufficient to reach the national
ambient air quality standards by the target date established by the attainment plan. Mobile
sources (vehicle engines) are the primary source for ozone precursors, and the regulation of
mobile sources occurs at the national and state levels and is beyond the direct regulatory reach
of the regional air pollution control agency. As noted in the 2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR
and reflected in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made when the MEIR was certified,
potentially significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts are inherent in population
growth and construction in the City of Fresno, given the Valley's climatology and the limitations
on regulatory control of air pollutant precursors.
In 2004, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, in conjunction with the California
Air Resources Board, approved a re-designation for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to
"Extreme Nonattainment" status for ozone, approving a successor air quality attainment plan
that projects San Joaquin Valley attainment of the national 8-hour ozone standard by year 2023.
This designation and its accompanying attainment plan were submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in November of 2004. To date, no formal action has
been taken by USEPA to date on the proposed designation or the attainment plan; the Valley
remains in "Severe Non- attainment" as of this writing.
The change from "Severe" to "Extreme" ozone Nonattainment would represent an extension of
the deadline for attainment, but since the regional air basin would not have achieved attainment
by the original deadline, this does not materially affect environmental conditions for the City of
Fresno as they were analyzed in the MEIR for the 2025 Fresno General Plan. The proposed
revised ozone attainment plan includes not only all the measures in the preceding ozone
attainment plan, but additional measures for regulating a wider range of activities to attain
ambient air quality standards.
The Valley's progress toward attaining national and state standards for PM-10 (particulate
matter less than 10 microns in diameter) has been greater since certification of the MEIR:
60
"
I
SJV PMIO Progress
I
\
"
\
\
<,
-&.
.....
....
..JIY""
----
o
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page15
As the preceding chart reveals, levels of PM-1 0 air pollution have decreased since 2002. When
the MEIR was certified, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin was designated in "Serious
Nonattainment" for national standards. As of 2007, the number of days where standards were
exceeded has decreased to the extent that the Valley has been deemed to be in Attainment.
Under Federal Clean Air Act Section 107(d)(3), PM-10 attainment plans and associated rules
and regulations remain in place to maintain this level of air quality. New and expanded
regulations proposed to combat "Extreme" ozone pollution and PM-2.5 (discussed below) would
be expected to provide even more improvement in PM-10 pollution situation.
The 2025 Fresno General Plan provided policy direction in support of "indirect source review" as
a method for controlling mobile source pollution. Although vehicle engines and fuels are outside
the purview of local and regional jurisdictions in California, approaching mobile source pollution
indirectly, through regulation and mitigation of land uses which generate traffic, is an alternative
approach.
In March of 2006, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District adopted Rule 9510, its
Indirect Source Review Rule. Full implementation of this Rule has been delayed due to
litigation (mitigation fees are being collected and retained in holding accounts), but projects are
already being evaluated under Rule 9510 and are implementing many aspects of the Rule, such
as clean air design (pedestrian and bike facilities; proximal siting of residential and commercial
land uses; low-pollution construction equipment; dust control measures; cleaner-burning
combustion appliances, etc.).
It is anticipated that full implementation (release of mitigation impact fees for various clean air
projects throughout the San Joaquin Valley) and subsequent augmentation of the Indirect
Source Review Rule will accelerate progress toward attainment of federal and state ozone
standards, and will be an important component of the attainment plan for PM-2.5 (very fine
particulate matter) and for greenhouse gas reductions to combat global climate change.
PM-2.5 is a newly-designated category of air pollutant, the component of PM-10 comprised of
particles 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller. The 1997 Clean Air Act Amendments directed that
this pollutant be brought under regulatory control, but federal and state standards/designations
had not been finalized when the 2025 Fresno General Plan MEIR was drafted and certified. In
the intervening time, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been classified as being in
"Nonattainment" for the 1997 federal PM-2.5 standard and for the State PM-2.5 standard.
An attainment demonstration plan for the federal 1997 PM-2.5 standard has been adopted by
the SJVAPCD and approved by the California Air Resources Board, and forwarded to the EPA
for approval (status as of mid-2008). The attainment plan would achieve compliance with the
1997 federal Clean Air Act PM-2.5 standard by year 2014, in conjunction with California Air
Resources Board (and US EPA) action to improve diesel engine emissions. The San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin has not yet been classified under the more stringent revised federal 2006
PM-2.5 standard; this classification is expected by 2009.
As with ozone and PM-10 pollution, levels of PM-2.5 have already been reduced by already-
existing air quality improvement planning policies, mitigation measures, and regulations. The
following charts depict historic PM-2.5 monitoring data for the regional air basin. Once the
expected SJVAPCD attainment plan is implemented measures specific to PM-2.5 control, the
rate of progress toward attainment of federal and state PM-2.5 standards will accelerate.
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 16
24hour PM2.5 Levels
3year Average 98th Percentile Values
120
100
80
n
.
60
Ol
:::I.
40
20
O
; Attainment is met when the 3-year average
lis less than or equal to 65 ~ g / m ' (1997 standard)
I less than or equal to 35 ~ g / m ' (2006 standard).

1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007
Annual PM2.5 Levels
Three-Year Averages
IAttalnment is met when the 3-year averageI
is less than or equal to 15 1J9/m
3
-
r-r-r-r-
,-
~
I-
I
,
I
,- -
~ ...
,.. r-rr1Ir.W
I"
I
,.
~ .
I--- I---
I- I--
20
30
5
10
25
. 15
~
o
~
1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007
hen the 2025 Fresno General Plan and its MEIR were approved in late 2002, the planninq
a I d environmental documents did not directly or separately analyze p()tential global ;;farming
MEIR REVIEWSUMMARY
Page17
and climate change impacts. However, the general policy direction for consideration of air
quality parameters in development project evaluations and for reducing those air pollutants
which are already under regulation would operate to control these potential adverse impacts.
"Global warming" is the term coined to describe a widespread climate change characterized by
a rising trend in the Earth's ambient average temperatures with concomitant disturbances in
weather patterns and resulting alteration of oceanic and terrestrial environs and biota. When
sunlight strikes the Earth's surface, some of it is reflected back into space as infrared radiation.
When the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's surface is about the same as the amount
of energy radiated back into space, the average ambient temperature of the Earth's surface
would remain more or less constant. Greenhouse gases potentially disturb this equilibrium by
absorbing and retaining infrared energy, trapping heat in the atmosphere-the "greenhouse gas
effect."
The predominant current opinion within the scientific community is that global warming is
occurring, and that it is being caused and/or accelerated via generation of excess "greenhouse
gases" [GHGsj, that natural carbon cycle processes (such as photosynthesis) are unable to
absorb sufficient quantities of GHG and cannot keep the level of these gases or their warming
effect under control. It is believed that a combination of factors related to human activities, such
as deforestation and an increased emission of GHG into the atmosphere from combustion and
chemical emissions, is a primary cause of global climate change.
The predominant types of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (those caused by human activity),
are described as follows. It should be noted that the starred GHGs are regulated by existing air
quality policies and rules pursuant to their roles in ozone and particulate matter formation and/or
as potential toxic air contaminants.
carbon dioxide (C0
2
) , largely generated by combustion activities such as coal and wood
burning and fossil fuel use in vehicles but also a byproduct of respiration and volcanic
activity;
'methane (CH
4
) , known commonly as "natural gas," is present in geologic deposits and is
also evolved by anaerobic decay processes and animal digestion. On a ton-fer-ton basis,
CH
4
exerts about 20 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO
2
;
'nitrous oxide (N
20),
produced in large part by soil microbes and enhanced through
application of fertilizers. N
20
is also a byproduct of fossil fuel burning: atmospheric
nitrogen, an inert gas that makes up a large proportion of the atmosphere, is oxidized
when air is exposed to high-temperature combustion. N
20
is used in some industrial
processes, as a fuel for rocket and racing engines, as a propellant, and as an anesthetic.
N
20
is one component of "oxides of nitrogen" (NOX), long recognized as precursors of
smog-causing atmospheric oxidants.
'chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), synthetic chemicals developed in the late 1920s for use as
improved refrigerants (e.g., "FreonTM"). It was recognized over two decades ago that this
class of chemicals exerted powerful and persistent greenhouse gas effects. In 1987, the
Montreal Protocol halted production of CFCs.
'hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), another class of synthetic refrigerants developed to replace
CFCs;
MEIRREVIEW SUMMARY
Page 18
'perfluorocarbons (PFCs), used in aluminum and semiconductor manufacturing, have an

extremely stable molecular structure, with biological half-lives tens of thousands of years,
leading to ongoing atmospheric accumulation of these GHGs.
'sulfur hexafluoride (SF
6
) is used for insulation in electric equipment, semiconductor
manufacturing, magnesium refining and as a tracer gas for leak detection. Of any gas
evaluated, SF
6
exerts the most powerful greenhouse gas effect, almost 24,000 times as
powerful as that of CO
2
on a ton-for-ton basis.
water vapor, the most predominant GHG, and a natural occurrence: approximately 85% of
the water vapor in the atmosphere is created by evaporation from the oceans.
In an effort to address the perceived causes of global warming by reducing the amount of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases generated in California, the state enacted the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (Codified as Health & Safety Code Section 38501 et seq.). Key
provisions include the following:
Jl Codification of the state's goal by requiring that California's GHG emissions be reduced to
1990 "baseline" levels by 2020.
Jl Set deadlines for establishing an enforcement mechanism to reduce GHG emissions:
By June 30, 2007, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") was required to
publish "discrete early action" GHG emission reduction measures. Discrete early
actions are regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to be adopted by the
CARB and enforceable by January 1, 2010;
By January 1, 2008, CARB was required to identify what the state's GHG emissions
were in 1990 (set the "baseline") and approve a statewide emissions limit for the year
2020 that is equivalent to 1990 levels. (These statewide baseline emissions have not
yet been allocated to regions, counties, or smaller political jurisdictions.) By this same
date, CARB was required to adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification
of statewide greenhouse gas emissions.
By January 1, 2011, CARB must adopt emission limits and emission reduction
measures to take effect by January 1, 2012.
As support for this legislation, the Act contains factual statements regarding the potential
significant impacts on California's physical environment that could be caused by global
warming. These include, an increase in the intensity and duration of heat waves, the
exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state
from the Sierra snow pack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of
coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural
environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other
human health-related problems.
On August 24, 2007, California also enacted legislation (Public Resources Code 21083.05
and 21097) requiring the state Resources Agency to adopt guidelines for addressing climate
change in environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. By
July 1, 2009, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is required to prepare
quidelmes for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, and transmit those draft regulations
to the Resources Agency. The Resources Agency must then certify and adopt the guidelines by
January 1, 2010.
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 19
The recently-released update of the Urbemis computer model (used by the City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department for environmental assessments, pursuant to a specific
MEIR mitigation measure) does provide data on the amounts of CO
2
and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) potentially generated by development projects. However, at this point in time, neither
CARB nor the SJVAPCD has detenmined what the 1997 baseline or current "inventory" of GHGs
is for the entire state nor for any region or jurisdiction within the state. No agency has adopted
GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures, and because CEQA guidelines have
not been established for the evaluation and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (there is an
absence of regulatory guidance). Therefore, the City is unable to productively interpret the
results of the Urbemis model with regard to GHGs, and there is currently no way to determine
the significance of a project's potential impact upon global warming.
The 2025 Fresno General Plan provides an integrated combination of residential, commercial,
industrial, and public facility uses allowing for proximate location of living, work, educational,
recreational, and shopping activities within Fresno metropolitan area. This combination of uses
has been identified as a potential mitigation measure to address global warming impacts in a
document published by the California Attorney General's Office entitled, The California
Environmental Quality Act Mitigation of Global Warming Impacts (updated January 7, 2008).
Specifically, this document describes this mitigation measure as follows, "Incorporate mixed-
use, infill and higher density development to reduce vehicle trips, promote alternatives to
individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods"-echoing
objectives and policies of the 2025 Fresno General Plan adopted in late 2002.
The General Plan contains a mix of land uses would be expected to generate fewer vehicle
miles traveled per capita, leading to reduced emissions of greenhouse gases from engine
emissions. It provides for overall denser development with high-intensity enclaves, associated
with increased public transit use. The plan fosters mixed use and infill development (being
implemented by mixed-use zoning ordinances added to the Fresno Municipal Code, as directed
by 2025 Fresno General Plan) policies. The urban fonm element distributes neighborhood-level
and larger commercial development, public facilities such as schools, and recreational sites
throughout the metropolitan area, reducing vehicle trips.
Any manufacturing activities that would generate SF
6
, HFCs, or PFCs would be subject to
subsequent environmental review at the project-specific level, as would any uses which would
generate methane on site. The City of Fresno has adopted an ordinance prohibiting installation
of any woodburning fireplaces or woodburning appliances in new homes, which would reduce
CO
2
and N
2
0 from wood combustion.
Through updates in the California Building Code and statewide regulation of appliance
standards, City development projects confonm to state-of-the art energy-efficient building,
lighting, and appliance standards as advocated in the California Environmental Protection
Agency's publication Climate Action Team/ Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change
in California (April 2007) and in CARB's Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in
California (April 2007). The City has further incentivized "green" building projects by providing
subsidies for solar photovoltaic equipment for single-family residential construction, by reducing
development standards (including reductions in required parking spaces, which further reduces
air pollutant and GHG emissions), and by improving its landscape and shading standards (a
topic included in the Design Guidelines adopted with the 2025 Fresno General Plan).
MEIR REVIEW SUMMARY
Page 20
Updated engine and tire efficiency standards would apply to residents' vehicles. as well as the
statewide initiatives applicable to air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. regional
transportation improvements. power generation and use of solar energy. water supply and water
conservation. landfill methane capture. changes in cement manufacturing processes. manure
management (methane digester protocols). recycling program enhancements. and "carbon
capture" (also known as "carbon sequestration." technologies for capturing and converting CO
2
removing it from the atmosphere).

Due to the lack of data or regulatory guidance that would indicate the 2025 Fresno General Plan
had a significant adverse impact upon global climate change. the relatively small size of the
Fresno Metropolitan Area in conjunction with the worldwide scope of GHG emissions. and the
emphasis in the 2025 Fresno General Plan upon integrated urban design and air pollution
control measures. it could not be concluded in 2002 nor at present that the 2025 Fresno
General Plan would have a significant adverse impact on global climate change.
As to potential impacts of global warming upon the 2025 Fresno General Plan: the city is
located in the Central Valley. in an urbanized area on flat terrain distant from the Pacific coast
and from rivers and streams. It is outside of identified flood prone areas. Based on its location
we conclude that Fresno is not likely to be significantly affected by the potential impacts of
global climate change such as increased sea level and riverlstream channel flooding; nor is it
subject to wildfire hazards. While Fresno does contain areas with natural habitat (the San
Joaquin Bluffs and Riverbottom). a change in these areas' biota induced by global warming
would not leave them bereft of all habitat value-it would simply mean a change in the species
which would be encountered in these areas. The 2025 Fresno General Plan preserves this
habitat open space area for multiple objectives (protection from soil instability and flood
inundation; conservation of designated high-quality mineral resources), so any natural resource
species changes in those areas would not constitute a significant adverse impact to the city or a
loss of resource area.
Fresno has historically had high ambient summer temperatures and an historic heat mortality
level that is among the highest in the state (5 heat-related deaths annually per 100.000
population). Due to the prevalence of air conditioning in dwellings and commercial buildings. an
increase in extreme heat days from global warming is not expected by the California Air
Resources Board Research Division to significantly increase heat-related deaths in Fresno, as
opposed to possible effects in cooler portions of the state such as Sacramento or Los Angeles
areas (reference: Projections of Public Health Impacts of Climate Change in California:
Scenario Analysis. by Dr. Deborah Dreschler, Air Resources Board, April 9. 2008). Increased
summertime temperatures which may be caused by global warming will be mitigated by the
City's landscaping standards to provide shade trees. by statewide energy efficiency standards
which insulate dwellings from heat and cold. and by urban design standards which require east-
west orientation of streets and buildings to facilitate solar gain. Fresno has a heat emergency
response plan and provides cooling centers and free transportation to persons who do not have
access to air conditioning.
Secondary health effects of global warming could include increases in respiratory and cardiac
illnesses attributable to poor air quality. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
provides daily advisories and warnings in times of high ozone levels to help senior citizens and
other sensitive populations avoid exposure. The SJVAPCD has committed to attainment of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) standards by Year 2014 and to attainment of oxidant/ozone
standards by Year 2023. and would adopt additional Rules and emission controls as necessary
MEIRREVIEW SUMMARY
Page21
to decrease emissions inventories by those target dates. There is insufficient information to
indicate that global climate change would prevent attainment of air quality parameters affecting
health.
Pursuant to 2025 Fresno General Plan policy and MEIR mitigation measures, the City's
Department of Public Utilities and Fire Department are required to affirm that adequate water
service can be provided to all development projects for potable and fire suppression uses. The
City derives much of its water supply from groundwater, using its surface water entitlements
from the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers primarily to recharge the aquifer. A high percentage of
Fresno's annual precipitation is captured and percolated in ponding basins operated by Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District. If global climate change leads to a longer rainy season
and/or more storm events throughout the year, groundwater supplies could be improved by
additional percolation.
The City of Fresno currently treats and distributes only some 20% of its 150,000 acre-foot/year
(AFY) surface water entitlement for the municipal water system, directing another 50,000 to
70.000 AFY to recharge activities via ponding basins. Presently, the City is unable to recharge
the full balance of its annual entitlement in average and wet years, and releases any unused
surface water supplies to area irrigation districts for agricultural use in the metropolitan area,
(which further augments groundwater recharge through percolation of irrigated water).
Future surface water plant construction projects envisioned by the 2025 Fresno General Plan
would account for less than 120,000 acre-feet per year of the surface supply. The General Plan
direction for future Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plans includes exploring the use
of recycled treated wastewater for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation, which would
further effectively extending the City's water supply..
If the global climate change were to cause a serious and persistent decrease in Sierra
snowpack, some of Fresno's water supply could be affected. However, historic records show
that the very long-term prevailing climatic pattern for Central California has included droughts of
long (often, multi-year) duration, interspersed with years of excess precipitation. Decades
before global climate change was considered as a threat to California's water system, state and
local agencies recognized a need to augment water storage capacity for excess precipitation
occurring in wet years, to carry the state through the intervening dry years.
The potential for episodic and long-term drought is considered in the city's Metropolitan Water
Resource Plan and in its the Urban Water Management Plan Drought Contingency component,
to accommodate reductions in available water supplies. In times of extended severe regional or
statewide drought, a reprioritization of water deliveries and reallocation for critical urban
supplies vs. agricultural use is possible, but it is too speculative at this time to determine what
the statewide reprioritization response elements would be (the various responses of statewide
and regional water agencies to these situations are not fully formulated and cannot be predicted
with certainty). Because the true long term consequences of climate change on California's and
Fresno's water system cannot be predicted, and, it is too speculative at this time to conclude
that there could be a significant adverse impact on water supply for the 2025 Fresno General
Plan due to global climate change.
As noted above, it is theorized that global warming could lead to more energy in the atmosphere
and to increased intensity or frequency of storm events. Fresno's long-term weather pattern is
that rainfall occurs during episodic and fairly high-intensity events. The Fresno Metropolitan
MEIRREVIEW SUMMARY
Page 22
Flood Control District (FMFCD) drainage and flood control Master Plan, which sets policies for
drainage infrastructure and grading in the entire Fresno-Clovis area, is already predicated on
this type of weather pattern. FMFCD sizes its facilities (which development potentiated by the
2025 Fresno General Plan will help to complete) for "two-year storm events," storms of an
intensity expected in approximately 50 percent of average years; however, the urban drainage
system design has additional capacity built into the street system so that excess runoff from
rnore intense precipitation events is directed to the street system. The City's Flood Plan
Ordinance and grading standards require that finished floor heights be above the crowns of
streets and above any elevated ditchbanks of irrigation canals. FMFCD project conditions also
preserve "breakover" historic surface drainage routes for runoff from major storms. Ultimately,
drain inlets and FMFCD basin dewatering pumps direct severe storm runoff into the network of
Fresno Irrigation District canals and pipelines still extant in the metropolitan area, with outfalls
beyond the western edge of the metropolitan area.
Scientific information, analytical tools, and standards for environmental significance of global
warming and green house gases were not available to the Planning and Development
Department in 2002 when the 2025 Fresno General Plan and its MEIR were formulated and
approved--and at this point, there is still insufficient data available to draw any conclusions as to
the potential impacts, or significance of impacts, related to global climate change for the 2025
Fresno General Plan. Similarly, there is insufficient information to conclude that global warming
may have a potentially significant adverse impact upon the 2025 Fresno General Plan. In a
situation when it would be highly speculative to estimate impacts or to make conclusions as to
the degree of adversity and significance of those impacts, the California Environmental Quality
Act allows agencies to terminate the analysis. In that regard, there is no material change in
status from the degree of environmental review on this topic contained in the 2025 Fresno
General Plan MEIR.
EXHIBIT C
MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for EA No. TA-13-02
August 38,2013
INCORPORATING MEASURES FROM MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MEIR) NO. 10130 I CERTIFIED FOR
THE 2025 FRESNO GENERAL PLAN (SCH No. 2001071097) AND THE FINDING OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPROVED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. A-09-02, RELATING TO PLAN AMENDMENT NO. A-09-02,
THE AIR QUALITY UPDATE TO THE FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
Following is the mitigation monitoring checkiist from MEIR NO.10130 as applied to the above-noted project's
environmental assessment, required by City Council Resolution No. 2002-378 and Exhibit E thereof (adopted
on November 19, 2002) to certify the MEIR for the 2025 Fresno General Plan Update. On June 25,2009, through
its Resolution No. 2009-146, the City Council adopted Environmental Assessment No. A-09-02 confirming the
finding of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment Application No. A-09-02 which
updated the Air Quality Section of the Resource Conservation Element of the 2025 Fresno General Plan and
incorporated additional and revised mitigation measures as necessary within the following monitoring checklist.
NOTE: Letters B-Q in mitigation measures refer to the respective sections of Chapter V of MEIR NO.10130
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Mitigated
C - Mitigation inProgress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-wide Program
F - Not Applicable
WHEN COMPLIANCE
A B C D E F MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTED VERIFIED BY
B1. Development projects that are consistent with plans and policies but that Prior to approval
could affect conditions on major street segments predicted by the General of land use
Plan MEIR traffic analysis to perform at an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) level of entitlement
service (LOS) D or better in 2025, with planned street improvements, shall not
cause conditions on those segments to be worse than LOS E before 2025
without completing a traffic and transportation evaluation. This evaluation will
be used to determine appropriate project-specific design measures or
streeUtransportation improvements that will contribute to achieving and
maintaining LOS D.
B-2. Development projects that are consistent with plans and policies but that Prior to approval
could affect conditions on major street segments predicted by the General of land use
Plan MEIR traffic analysis to perform at an ADT LOS E in 2025, with planned entitlement
street improvements, shall not cause conditions on those segments to be
worse than LOS E before 2025 without completing a traffic and transportation
evaluation. This evaluation will be used to determine appropriate project-
specific design measures or street/ transportation improvements that will
contribute to achieving and maintaining LOS E.
Public Works
Dept.ffraffic
Planning;
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Public Works
Dept.ffraffic
Planning;
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. TA-13-02 August 28,2013
MITIGATION MEASURE
8-3. Development projects that are consistent with plans and policies but that
could affect conditions on major street segments predicted by the General
Plan MEIR traffic analysis to perform at an ADT LOS F shall not cause further
substantial degradation of conditions on those segments before 2025 without
completing a traffic and transportation evaluation. This evaluation will be used
to determine appropriate project-specific design measures or street/
transportation improvements that will contribute to achieving and maintaining a
LOS equivalent to that anticipated by the General Plan. Further substantial
degradation is defined as an increase in the peak hour vehicle/capacity (v/c)
ratio of 0.15 or greater for roadway segments whose vic ratio is estimated to
be 1.00 or higher in 2025 by the Generai Plan MEIR traffic analysis.
8-4. For development projects that are consistent with plans and policies, a
site access evaluation shall be required to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director. This evaluation shall, at a minimum, focus on the following factors:
a. Disruption of vehicular traffic flow along adjacent major streets, appropriate
design measures for on-site vehicular circulation and access to major
streets (number, location and design of driveway approaches), and
linkages to bicycle/pedestrian circulation systems and transit services.
b. In addition, for development projects that the City determines may
generate a projected 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips (either in the
morning or evening), the evaluation shall determine the project's
contribution to increased peak hour vehicle delay at major street
intersections adjacent or proximate to the project site. The evaluation shall
identify project responsibilities for intersection improvements to reduce
vehicle delay consistent with the LOS anticipated by the 2025 Fresno
General Plan. For projects which affect State Highways, the Public Works
Director may direct the site access evaluation to reference the criteria
presented in Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
Page 2
WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
Prior to approval
of land use
entitlement
Prior to approval
of land use
entitlement
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY
Public Works
Dept.rrraffic
Planning;
Deveiopment &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Public Works
Dept/Traffic
Planning;
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
AIBICIDIEIF
8 - Mitigated
C - Mitigation in Process
o - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable
WHEN
COMPLIANCE II A I B I C I DIE I F
Prior to approval Public Works
of land use Dept./Traffic
entitlement Planning;
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
,
Prior to approval Public Works
or prior to funding Dept./Traffic
of major street Planning;
project.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
,
Ongoing IPublic Works
Dept./Traffic
Planning;
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
MITIGATION MEASURE
B6. New development projects and major street construction projects shall
be designed with consideration and implementation of appropriate features
(considering safety, convenience and cost-effectiveness) to encourage
walking, bicycling, and public transportation as alternative modes to the
automobile.
B-5. Circulation and site design measures shall be considered for
development projects so that local trips may be completed as much as
possible without use of, or with reduced use of, major streets and major street
intersections. Appropriate consideration must also be given to compliance
with plan policies and mitigation measures intended to promote compatibility
between land uses with different traffic generation characteristics.
B-7. Bicycle and pedestrian travel and use of public transportation shall be
facilitated as alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to,
provision of bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation facilities and
improvements to connect residential areas with public facilities, shopping and
employment. Adequate rights-of-way for bikeways, preferably as bicycle
lanes, shall be provided on all new major streets and shall be considered
when designing improvements for existing major streets.
Page 3
B - Mitigated
D Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program .
F - Not Applicable
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. TA13-02 August 28,2013
WHEN
Ongoing I Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
MITIGATION MEASURE
C-1. In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin, the City shall take the following necessary actions to achieve
and maintain compliance with state and federal air quality standards and
programs.
a. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance considerations into the
preparation and review of land use plans and development proposals.
b. Maintain internal consistency within the General Plan between policies and
programs for air quality resource conservation and the policies and
programs of other General Plan elements.
c. City departments preparing environmental review documents shall use
computer models (software approved by local and state air quality and
congestion management agencies) to estimate air pollution impacts of
development entitlements, land use plans and amendments to land use
regulations.
d. Adopted state and SJVAPCD protocols, standards, and thresholds of
significance for greenhouse gas emissions shall be utilized in assessing
and approving proposed development projects.
e. Continue to route information regarding land use plans, development
projects, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD
for that agency's review and comment on potential air quality impacts.
C-2. For development projects potentially meeting SJVAPCD thresholds of I Ongoing
significance and/or thresholds of applicability for the Indirect Source Review
Rule (Rule 9510) in their unmitigated condition, project applicants shall
complete the SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review Application prior to approval
of the development project. Mitigation measures incorporated into the ISR
analysis shall be incorporated into the project as conditions of approval and/or
mitigation measures, as may be appropriate.
Development &
Resource
Management Dept
and
SJVAPCD
B - Mitigated
Page 4
D - Responsibie Agency Contacted
F - Not Applicabie
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. TA1302 August 28,2013
MITIGATION MEASURE
WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY
AIBICIDIEIF
C-3. The City shall implement all of the Reasonably Available Control I Ongoing
Measures (RACM) identified in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2002-119, adopted
by the Fresno City Council on April 9, 2002. These measures are presented in
full detail in Table VC-3 of the MEIR.
C-4. The City shall continue efforts to improve technical performance, I Ongoing
emissions levels and system operations of the Fresno Area Express transit
system, through such measures as:
a. Selecting and maintaining bus engines, transmissions, fuels and air
conditioning equipment for efficiency and low air pollution emissions.
b. Siting new transit centers and other multi-modal transportation transfer
facilities to maximize utilization of mass transit.
c. Continuing efforts to improve transit on-time performance, increase
frequency of service, extend hours of operation, add express bus service
and align routes to capture as much new ridership as possible.
d. Initiating a program to allow employers and institutions (e.g., educational
facilities) to purchase blocks of bus passes at a reduced rate to facilitate
their incentive programs for reducing single-passenger vehicle use.
D-1. The City shall monitor impacts of land use changes and development I Ongoing
project proposals on water supply facilities and the groundwater aquifer.
Page 5
Various city
departments
Fresno Area
Express
Dept of Public
Utilities and
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
WHEN
Ongoing (City- Department of
wide); and prior to Public Utilities and
approval of land Development &
use entitlement as Resource
applicable Management
Dept.
MITIGATION MEASURE
D2. The City shail ensure the funding and construction of facilities to mitigate
the direct impacts of land use changes and development within the 2025
General Plan boundaries. Groundwater weils, pump stations, intentional
recharge facilities, potable and recycled water treatment and distribution
systems shali be expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water
demands. Site specific environmental evaluations shail precede the
construction of these facilities. Results of this evaluation shail be incorporated
into each project to reduce the identified environmental impacts.
0-3. The City shail implement the future water supply plan described in the I Ongoing
City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Update and
shali continue to update this Plan as necessary to ensure the cost-effective
US<;l of water resources and continued availability of good-quality groundwater
and surface water supplies.
Department of
Public Utilities
0-4. The City shail work with the Fresno Metropolitan Fiood Control District to I Ongoing
prevent and reduce the existence of urban stormwater poilutants to the
maximum extent practical and ensure that surface and groundwater quality,
public health, and the environment shali not be adversely affected by urban
runoff, and shali comply with NPDES standards.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
0-5. The City shali preserve undeveioped areas within the 1DO-year floodway I Ongoing
within the city and its general plan area, particularly the San Joaquin
Riverbottom, for uses that will not involve permanent improvements which
would be adverseiy affected by periodic floods. The City shali expand this
protected area in the Riverbottom pursuant to expanded floodplain and/or
floodway maps, regulations, and policies adopted by the Central Vailey Flood
Protection Board and the National Flood Insurance Protection Program.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Page 6
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
WHEN
Resource
Management
Dept.
MITIGATION MEASURE
D-6. The City shall establish special building standards for private structures,
public structures and infrastructure elements in the San Joaquin Riverboltom
that will protect:
a. Allowable.construction in this area from being damaged by the intensity of
flooding in the riverboltom;
b. Water quality in the San Joaquin River watershed from flood damage-
related nuisances and hazards (e.g., the release of raw sewage); and
c. Public health, safety and general welfare from the effects of flood events.
0-7. The City shall advocate that the San Joaquin River not be channelized I Ongoing
and that levees shall not be used in the river corridor for flood control, except
those alterations in river flow that are approved for surface mining and
subsequent reclamation activities for mined sites (e.g., temporary berms and
small side-channel diversions to control water flow through ponds).
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
D-8. The City shall maintain a comprehensive, long-range water resource I Ongoing
management plan that provides for appropriate management and use of all
sources of water available to the planning area, and shall periodically update
this plan to ensure that sufficient and sustainable water supplies of good
quality will be economically available to accommodate existing and planned
urban development. Project-specific and city-wide water conservation
measures shall be directed toward assisting in reaching the goal of balancing
City groundwater operations by 2025.
Department of
Public Utilities
Page 7
B Mitigated
D Responsible Agency Contacted
F Not Applicable
MITIGATION MEASURE
D-9. The City shall continue its current water conservation programs and
implement additional water conservation measures to reduce overall per
capita water use within the City with a goal of reducing the overall per capita
water use in the City to its adopted target consumption rate. The target per
capita consumption rate adopted in 2008 is a citywide average of 243 gallons
per person per day, intended to be reached by 2020 (which includes
anticipated water conservation resulting from the on-going residential water
metering program and additional water conservation by all customers: 5% by
2010, and an additional 5% by 2020.)
D-10. All development projects shall be required to comply with City
Department of Public Utilities conditions intended for the City to reach its
overall per capita water consumption rate target. Project conditions shall
include, but are not limited to, water use efficiency for landscaping, use of
artificial turf and native plant materials, reducing turf areas, and discouraging
the development of artificial lakes, fountains and ponds unless only untreated
surface water or recycled water supplies are used for these decorative and
recreational water features, as appropriate and sanitary.
D-11. When and if the City adopts a formal management plan for recycled
and/or reclaimed water, all development shall comply with its standards and
requirements. Absent a formal management plan for recycled and/or
reclaimed water, new development projects shall install reasonably necessary
infrastructure, facilities and equipment to utilize reclaimed and recycled water
for landscape irrigation, decorative fountains and ponds, and other water-
consuming features, provided that use of reclaimed or recycled water is
determined by the Department of Public Utilities to be feasible, sanitary, and
energy-efficient.
Page 8
WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
Ongoing
Prior to approval
of land use
entitlement
Prior to approval
of development
project
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY
Department of
Public Utilities
Department of
Public Utilities
Department of
Public Utilities
AIBICIDIEIF
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
WHEN COMPLIANCE
D-12. All applicants for development projects shall provide data (meeting City Prior to approval
Department of Public Utilities criteria for such data) on the anticipated annual of development
water demand and daily peak water demand for proposed projects. If a project
development project would increase water demand at a project location (or for
a type of development) beyond the levels allocated in the version of the City's
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in effect at the time the project's
environmental assessment is conducted, the additional water demand will be
required to be offset or mitigated in a manner acceptable to the City
Department of Public Utilities. Allocated water demand rates are set forth in
Table 6-4 of the 2008 UWMP as follows:
FOR GROSS DEVELOPED PER-UNIT FACTORS, in acre-ftlacrelyr, for
PROJECT ACREAGE OF THE projects projected to be completed
FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT during these intervals:
CATEGORIES
01/01/2005 01/01/2010
(Analysis shall include acreage THROUGH THROUGH AFTER
to all street centerlines.) 12/31/2010 1213112024 01/01/2025
Singie family residential 3.8 3.5 3.5
Multi-family residential 6.5 6.2 6.2
Commercial and institutional 2 1.9 1.9
Industrial 2 1.9 1.9
Landscaped open space 3 2.9 2.9
South East Growth Area 3.4 3.2 3.2
NOTE: The abovelanduseclassifications anddemand allocation factors maybe
amended in future updates of the Urban Water Management Plan
Page 9
Department of
Public Utilities
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. TA-13-02 August 28, 2013
MITIGATION MEASURE
WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY
AIBICIDIEIF
D-13. The City will conform to the requirements of Waste Discharge I Ongoing
Requirements Order 5-01-254, including groundwater monitoring and
subsequent Best Practical Treatment and Control (BPTC) assessment and
findings.
E-1. The City shall continue to implement and pursue strengthening of urban I Ongoing
growth management service delivery requirements and annexation policy
agreements, including urging that the county continue to implement similar
measures within the boundaries of the 2025 Fresno General Plan, to promote
contiguous urban development and discourage premature conversion of
agricultural land.
E-2. To minimize the inefficient conversion of agricultural land, the City shall I Ongoing
pursue the appropriate measures to ensure that development within the
planned urban boundary occurs consistent with the General Plan and that
urban development occurs within the city's incorporated boundaries.
E-3. The City shall pursue appropriate measures, including recordation of I Ongoing
right to farm covenants, to ensure that agricultural uses of land may continue
within those areas of transition where planned urban areas interface with
planned agricultural areas.
Page 10
Department of
Public Utilities
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
WHEN
Resource
Management
Dept.
MITIGATION MEASURE
E-4. Development of agricultural iand, or fallow iand adjacent to land
designated for agricultural uses, shall incorporate measures to reduce the
potential for confiicts with the agricultural use. Implementation of the following
measures shall be considered:
a. Including a buffer zone of sufficient width between proposed residences
and the agricultural use.
b. Restricting the intensity of residential uses adjacent to agricultural lands.
c. Informing residents about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals.
d. Where feasible and permitted by law, exploring opportunities for
agricultural operators to cease aerial spraying of chemicals and use of
heavy equipment near proposed residences.
e. Recordation of right to farm covenants to ensure that agricultural uses of
land can continue.
F-1. The City shall ensure the provision for adequate trunk sewer and I Ongoing
collector main capacities to serve existing and planned urban and economic
development, including existing developed uses not presentiy connected to
the public sewer system, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan. Where
appropriate, the City will coordinate with the City of Clovis and other agencies
to ensure that planning and construction of facilities address regional needs in
a comprehensive manner.
Dept. of Public
Utilities and
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
F-2. The City shall continue the development and use of citywide sewer flow I Ongoing
monitoring and computerized flow modeling to ensure the availability of sewer
collection system capacity to serve planned urban development.
Dept. of Public
Utilities
F-2-a. The City shall provide for containment and management of leathers I Ongoing
and sludge adequate to prevent groundwater degradation.
Dept. of Public
Utilities
Page 11
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. TA1302 August 28, 2013
WHEN COMPLIANCE
F-3. The City shall ensure the provision of adequate sewage treatment and
disposal by using the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
as the primary facility when economically feasible for all existing and new
development within the General Plan area. Smaller, subreqional wastewater
treatment facilities may also be constructed as part of the regional wastewater
treatment system, when appropriate. This shall include provision of tertiary
treatment facilities to produce recycled water for landscape irrigation and other
non-potable uses. Site specific environmental evaluation and development of
Waste Discharge Requirements by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
shall precede the construction of these facilities. Mitigation measures
identified in these evaluations shall be incorporated into each project to reduce
the identified environmental impacts.
F-4. The City shall ensure that adequate trunk sewer capacity exists or can be
provided to serve proposed development prior to the approval of rezoning,
special permits, tract maps and parcel maps, so that the capacities of existing
facilities are not exceeded.
F-5. The City shall provide adequate solid waste facilities and services for the
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse for existing and planned
development within the City's jurisdiction. Site specific environmentai
evaluation shall precede the construction of these facilities. Results of this
evaluation shall be incorporated into each project to reduce the identified
environmental impacts.
Page 12
Ongoing
Ongoing/prior to
approval of land
use entitlement
Ongoing/prior to
construction
Dept. of Public
Utilities
Dept. of Public
Utilities and
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Dept. of Public
Utilities
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
WHEN COMPLIANCE
G-1. Site specific environmentai evaluation shall precede the construction of
new police and fire protection facilities. Results of this evaluation shall be
incorporated into each project to reduce the identified environmental impacts.
H-1. Site specific environmental evaluation shall precede the construction of
new public parks. Results of this evaluation shall be incorporated into the park
design to reduce the environmental impacts.
1-1. Projects that could adversely affect rare, threatened or endangered
wildlife and vegetative species (or may have impacts on wildlife, fish and
vegetation restoration programs) may be approved only with the consent of
the California Department of Fish and Game (and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, as appropriate) that adequate mitigation measures are incorporated
into the project's approval.
1-2. Where feasible, development shall avoid disturbance in wetland areas,
including vernal pools and riparian communities along rivers and streams.
Avoidance of these areas shall including siting structures at least 100 feet from
the outermost edge of the wetland. If complete avoidance is not possible, the
disturbance to the wetland shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible,
with restoration of the disturbed area provided. New vegetation shall consist
of native species similar to those removed.
Page 13
Ongoing/prior to
construction
Ongoing/prior to
construction
Ongoing/prior to
approval of land
use entitlement
Ongoing/prior to
approval of land
use entitlement
Fire Dept/Police
Dept/
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Parks and
Recreation Dept.
&
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
B - Mitigated
o - Responsible Agency Contacted
F - Not Applicable
WHEN COMPLIANCE
1-3. Where wetlands or other sensitive habitats cannot be avoided,
replacement habitat at a nearby off-site location shall be provided. The
replacement habitat shall be substantially equivalent in nature to the habitat
lost and shall be provided at a ratio suitable to assure that, at a minimum,
there is no net less of habitat acreage or value. Typically, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game require a ratio of
three replacement acres for everyone acre of high quality riparian or wetland
habitat lost.
1-4. Existing and mature riparian vegetation shall be preserved to the extent
feasible, except when trees are diseased or otherwise constitute a hazard to
persons or property. During construction, all activities and storage of
equipment shall occur outside of the drip lines of any trees to be preserved.
1-5. Within the identified riparian corridors, environmentally sensitive habitat
areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values
and only uses consistent with these values shall be allowed (e.g., nature
education and research, fishing and habitat enhancement and protection).
1-6. All areas within identified riparian corridors shall be maintained in a
natural state or limited to recreation and open space uses. Recreation shall
be limited to passive forms of recreation, with any facilities that are
constructed required to be non-intrusive to wildlife or sensitive species.
Page 14
Ongoing/prior to
approval of land
use entitlement
and during
construction
Ongoing/prior to
approval of iand
use entitlement
and during
construction
Ongoing/prior to
approval of land
use entitlement
and during
construction
Ongoing/prior to
approval of land
use entitlement
and during
construction
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
A - incorporated into Project
B - Mitigated
o-Responsible Agency Contacted
F - Not Applicable
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. TA-13-02 August 28, 2013
MITIGATION MEASURE
J-1. If the site of a proposed deveiopment or public works project is found to
contain unique archaeologicai or paieontological resources, and It can be
demonstrated that the project will cause damage to these resources,
reasonable efforts shall be made to permit any or all of the resource to be
scientifically removed, or it shall be preserved in situ (left in an undisturbed
state). In situ preservation may include the following options, or equivalent
measures:
a. Amending construction plans to avoid the resources.
b. Setting aside sites containing these resources by deeding them into
permanent conservation easements.
c. Capping or covering these resources with a protective layer of soil before
building on the sites.
d. Incorporating parks, green space or other open space into the project to
leave these resources undisturbed and to provide a protective cover over
them.
e. Avoiding public disclosure of the location of these resources until or unless
the site is adequately protected from vandalism or theft.
WHEN
Ongoing/prior to Development &
approvai of land Resource
use entitlement Management
Dept.
J-2. An archaeological assessment shall be conducted for the project if
prehistoric human relics are found that were not previously assessed during
the environmental assessment for the project. The site shall be formally
recorded, and archaeologist recommendations shall be made to the City on
further site investigation or site avoidance/ preservation measures.
J-3. If there are suspected human remains, the Fresno County Coroner shall
be contacted immediately. If the remains or other archaeological materials are
possibly of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission
shall be contacted immediately, and the California Archaeological Inventory's
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center shall be contacted to obtain a
referral list of recognized archaeologists.
Page 15
Ongoing/prior to
submittal of land
use entitlement
application
Ongoing
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.! Historic
Preservation
Commission staff
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
WHEN COMPLIANCE
J-4. Where maintenance, repair stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration,
preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be
conducted consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995),
the project's impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered
mitigated below a level of significance and thus not significant.
K-1. The City shall adopt the land use noise compatibility standards
presented in Figure VK-2 for general planning purposes.
K-2. Any required acoustical analysis shall be performed as required by
Policy H-1-d of the 2025 Fresno General Plan for development projects
proposing residential or other noise sensitive uses as defined by Policy H-1-a,
to provide compliance with the performance standards identified by Policies H-
1-a and H-1-k. (Note: all are policies of the 2025 Fresno General Plan.)
The following measures can be used to mitigate noise impacts; however,
impacts may not be fully mitigated within the 70 dBA noise contour areas
depicted on Figure VK-4.
Site Planning. See Chapter V for more details.
Barriers. See Chapter V for more details.
Building Designs. See Chapter V for more details.
Page 16
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing/upon
submittal of land
use entitlement
application
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.! Historic
Preservation Staff
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
B - Mitigated
o-Responsible Agency Contacted
F - Not Applicable
WHEN COMPLIANCE
K-3. The City shall continue to enforce the California Administrative Code,
Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards. Title 24 requires that an acoustical
analysis be performed for all new multi-family construction in areas where the
exterior sound levels exceed 60 ONEL. The analysis shall ensure that the
building design limits the interior noise environment to 45 CNEL or below.
L-1. Any construction that occurs as a result of a project shall conform to
current Uniform Building Code regulations which address seismic safety of
new structures and slope requirements. As appropriate, the City shall require
a preliminary soils report prior to subdivision map review to ascertain site
specific subsurface information necessary to estimate foundation conditions.
This report shall reference and make use of the most recent regional geologic
maps available from the California Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology.
N-1. The City shall cooperate with appropriate energy providers to ensure the
provision of adequate energy generated and distribution facilities, including
environmental review as required.
Q-1. The City shall establish and implement design guidelines applicable to all
commercial and manufacturing zone districts. These design guidelines will
require consideration of the appearance of non-residential buildings that are
visible to pedestrians and vehicle drivers using major streets or are visible
from proximate properties zoned or planned for residential use.
Page 17
Ongoing/prior to
building permit
issuance
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept.
B - Mitigated
F - Not Applicable
EXHIBIT0
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) No. TA-13-02
August 28, 2013
This monitoring checklist for the above noted environmental assessment is being prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as required under Assembly Bill 3180. It is intended to
establish a project-specific reporting/monitoring program for Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02. Prior to approval of
the proposed text amendment, verification of implementation (incorporation) of these mitigation measures into the text
amendment is required, in addition to verification of implementation of applicable measures specified for this project per the
Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) Mitigation Monitoring Checklist for this project (pursuant to MEIR No. 10130
certified for the 2025 Fresno General Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for EA No. A-09-02, for the Air
Quality Update to the 2025 General Plan).
AIR QUALITY: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has not attained National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 and
PM2.5, and agricultural activities may entrain fugitive dust, which contains these criterion pollutants as well as larger particles
which could affect nearby property, when ambient moisture levels are low and wind speed exceeds 12 miles per hour and is
sufficient to entrain dust from surfaces.
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED VERIFIED BY
Augment the text amendment's special Cityof Fresno Prior to adoption of the
City of Fresno (DARM,
standards of practice and regulation to Development and proposed text amendment Planning Commission,
prohibit mechanized cultivation activities Resource Management
and Fresno City Council)
that could generate fugitive dust when Department (DARM)
moisture levels are too low to adhere
dust particles to surfaces and when wind
speed is 12mph or greater and capable
of entraining dust.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for EA No. TA-13-02
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Cultivation of land in some portions of Fresno may affect biological resources
August 28,2013
Augment the special standards of City of Fresno Prior to adoption of the
practice and regulation portion of the text Development and proposed text amendment Planning Commission,
amendment to incorporate a reference to Resource Management
MEIR mitigation measures Nos. J-1 Department (DARM)
through J-4 (as identified in the attached
Exhibit C, MEIR Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Checklist, dated August 28,
2013).
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Cultivation of land may reveal and affect human remains, artifacts, fossils, and other cultural
resources.
Augment the special standards of City of Fresno Prior to adoption of the City of Fresno (DARM,
practice and regulation portion of the Development and
proposed text amendment Planning Commission, and
proposed text amendment to incorporate Resource Management
Fresno City Council)
the content of MEIR mitigation measures Department (DARM)
Nos. J-1 through J-4 (as identified in the
MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Checklist, dated August 28, 2013).
- 2-
Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for EA No. TA-13-02 August 28,2013
HAZARDS: Cultivation practices may involve excavations and overhead locations which could cause unsafe contact with
buried or aerial utility lines.
Augment the text amendment's special City of Fresno Prior to adoption of the City of Fresno (DARM,
standards of practice and regulation to
Development and proposed text amendment Planning Commission, and
require that, prior to tilling or excavating,
Resource Management
Fresno City Council)
persons intending to cultivate property
Department (DARM)
the national "Call Before You Dig"
number (811) and contact Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District and
Fresno Irrigation District (which do not
register their underground facilities with
the Underground Service Alert
program))
Augment the text amendment's special
City of Fresno Prior to adoption of the City of Fresno (DARM,
Development and proposed text amendment Planning Commission,
require that parties cultivating tree or
Resource Management
trellis crops conform to restrictions
Department (DARM)
pertaining to overhead utility lines.
City of Fresno Prior to adoption of the City of Fresno (DARM,
Development and proposed text amendment Planning Commission,
prohibit aerial pesticide spraying, with
Resource Management
an exemption for areawide spraying
Department (DARM)
ordered by the State of California or the
Agricultural Commissioner.
- 3-
Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for EA No. TA-13-02 August 28, 2013
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Some vacant land may not be safe or suitable for cultivation due to the presence of hazardous
material residues.
require that sites proposed for
cultivation not be listed on the
hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5, or, if they are on that list, to
require that the appropriate regulatory
agency provide a clearance letter
affirming that persons involved in
cultivation activity and persons
consuming the produce grown on the
site would not be adversely impacted by
any hazardous material residues on the
premises
City of Fresno
Development and
Resource Management
Department (DARM)
- 4-
Prior to adoption of the
proposed text amendment
Planning Commission,
BILL NO. _
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 12-105-C.19.3 TO
THE FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING
SECTIONS 12-204.1-A, 12-204.3, 12-204.6, 12-204.l l.:
12-204.13, 12-205.1, 12-205.3, 12-206.1, 12-206.3, 12-207.1,
12-207.3, 12-208-12, 12-209.1, 12-209.3, 12-210.1, 12-210.3,
12-211.1, 12-211.3, 12-212.3, 12-212.4, 12-213.2, 12-213.4,
12-214.3, 12-214.4, 12-254.1 AND SUBSECTIONS
12-306-N-10.C AND 12-306-N-I1 OF THE FRESNO
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ADDITITION OF
AGRICULTURE AND COMMUNITY GARDEN USES TO THE
OPEN SPACE, EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL, AND SINGLE-
AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
,
AND REGULATION FOR THOSE USES
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, by Resolution No. 2002-379, the City Council
adopted the 2025 Fresno General Plan and on that date, by Resolution No. 2002-378, certified
Master Environmental Impact Report ("MEIR") No. 10130 (State Clearinghouse No.
2001071097) which evaluated the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the
General Plan's goals, objectives, and policies; and,
WHEREAS, Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 has been filed with the City of
Fresno by Jeffrey Roberts on behalf of Granville Homes, Incorporated in order to add agricultural
uses and community gardens as uses classified in the single family zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Development and Resource Management Department broadened the
application to include open space and all single and multiple family zone districts, and added
Date Adopted:
Date Approved: ~
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
Ordinance for Text Amendment No. TA-13-02
Page 1 of 59
Ordinance No.
City of Fresno approval of the text amendment application as evidenced in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 13230; and,
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fresno, on the 10tll day of October, 2013, held a
public hearing and received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, considered the
information in the staff report, and solicited testimony from the public on this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
I. The Council finds in accordance with its own independent judgment that there is
no substantial evidence in the record that, with the project-specific mitigation
imposed, Text Amendment Application No. TA-I3-02 would have additional
significant effects on the environment that were not identified in Master
Environmental Impact Report No 10130 certified for the 2025 Fresno General
Plan (State Clearinghouse No.2001071097), Mitigated Negative Declaration
("MND") No. A-09-02 adopted for the Air Quality Update to the 2025 Fresno
General Plan (SCH No. 2009051016), or Environmental Assessment
No. TA-I3-02, and that all applicable mitigation measures of MEIR No. 10130
and MND No. A-09-02 have been applied to the project. In addition, pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21157.6(b)(1), Council finds that no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which MEIR No.
10130 was certified and MND No. A-09-02 was adopted; and that no new
DateAdopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval: _
Ordinance forTextAmendment No. TA-13-02
Page 3 of 59
Ordinance No.
special standards of practice and regulation to incorporate mitigation measures into the text
amendment to protect resources and adjacent properties from potential adverse impacts, and
initiated this augmented version of the text amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission, at its hearing of
JunelOth, 2013, recommended approval of the text amendment with the addition of a policy
requiring that agricultural and community gardening activities in designated areas around airports
conform to the Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan approved for that airport; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 12, of the Fresno Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Fresno held a public hearing on the 21st day of
August, 2013, to consider Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 and a proposed finding of
Categorical Exemption for this project, and referred the matter back to staff prior to holding a
hearing on the matter; and
WHEREAS, a full Initial Study prepared for Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02
for the proposed text amendment resulted in a Notice of Intent for a finding of Mitigated
Negative Declaration, filed with the Fresno County Clerk on August 28,2013; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 402, Article 4, Chapter 12, of the
Fresno Municipal Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Fresno held a hearing on the
18
tl1
day of September, 2013, to consider Text Amendment Application No. TA-13-02 and
related Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02, during which the Commission solicited
testimony, considered the environmental assessment, and recommended to the Council of the
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
Page 2 of 59
Ordinance No.
information has become available which was not known, and could not have been
known, at the time that the MEIR was certified as complete has become available.
Accordingly, the Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
Environmental Assessment No. TA-13-02, dated August 28,2013.
2. The Council finds that the adoption of the proposed text amendment, as
recommended by the Planning Commission, is in the best interest of the City of
Fresno.
3. The Council of the City of Fresno hereby approves Text Amendment Application
to amend the Fresno Municipal Code as set forth below:
SECTION I. Section 12-1OS-C.19.3 of the Fresno Municipal Code is added to read:
12-105-C.19.@, COMMUNITY GARDEN shall mean any piece of land. public
or private. managed by a responsible party. where plants are
cultivated by a group of individuals for personal consumption.
for sale. for donation. for beautification of the community
and/or for educational purposes. The special standards of
practice and regulation in subsection 12-306-N-11 shall apply
to the establishment and operation of a community garden.]
SECTION 2. Section 12-204.1-A ofthe Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read:
12-204.1.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
USES PERMITTED.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "0" District:
Page 4 of 59
Ordinance No.
A. [Subject to the provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11. alAgricultural tISeS[crops, greenhouses, fruit
trees, nut trees, vines, and plant nurseries (for producing
trees. vines and horticultural stock); and community gardens
where there is no underlying conditional use permit,] provided
that no dwellings, either temporary or permanent, be permitted
in relation thereto,
SECTION 3. Section 12-204.3 ofthe Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read:
12-204.3. USES PERMITIED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
The following uses shall be permitted in the "0" District,
subject to a conditional use permit pursuant to Sections 12-405 and
12-406:
A. Caretaker's dwelling and necessary accessory
bUildings.
B. Manufacture of concrete products, including hot mix
plants, batching plants, or the use of asphalt or petroleum
products,
C. Microwave relay structures.
D. Recreation areas, parks, and playgrounds,
DateAdopted: Ordinance for Text Amendment No. TA-13-02
DateApproved:
Effective Date: Page 5 of 59
City Attorney Approval: Ordinance No.
E. Removal of natural resources other than as
provided for in Section 12-204.3-F, subject to the applicable
regulations of Article 5.5 of Chapter 12 of this Code.
F. Surface mining operations subject to the provisions
of Article 5.5 of Chapter 12 of this Code.
G. Temporary logging camps.
H. Temporary sawmills and planing mills.
[I. Community gardens where the underlying special
permit is a conditional use permit. subject to the provisions of
subsection 12-306-N-11.]
12-204.6. OTHER CONDITIONS TO USE
Land may be placed in the "0" District only under the following
conditions:
A. PUBLIC [AND QUASI-PUBLIC] USES
1. Publio [EJl3arks, playgrounds, 'NilEllifo
I3reserves,[outdoor educational facilities and public and
community gardens.]
2. Flood control channels, creeks, rivers.
3. Freeways, parkways and park drives.
4. Publioly owneEl forest lanEls [Natural resource
conservation/utilization areas and preserves.]
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
CityAttorneyApproval: _
Page6 of 59
Ordinance No.
B. PRIVATElY OVVNEO LAND IN DANGEROUS
AREAS
1. Areas too steep to build upon or where such
building may cause a public hazard due to excessive
erosion or flooding.
2. Areas subject to flooding or inundation from
storm water.
3. Areas beyond fire servicing, and where
development might endanger life, property or the
watershed.
SECTION 5. Section 12-204.11 of the FresnoMunicipal Codeis amended to read:
12-204.11.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
CityAttorney Approval: _
USES PERMITTED.
C. Adult day care facilities or a maximum of six (6)
adults when located in a single family dwelling.
D. [Subject to the provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11. alAgricultural crops such as the raising of tree,
vine, field, forage and other plant life crops of all kinds,
[Oexcept mushroom growing[); and community gardens where
there is no underlying conditional use permit].
Page 7 of 59
Ordinance No.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
E. Bovine (cow) and equine (horses) anirnals, where
the lot area is one (1) acre or more, shall not exceed four (4)
adult animals in any combination of the foregoing animals and
their immature offspring. No pen, stable, barn or corral shall be
rnaintained within one hundred (100) feet of any property line
or within forty (40) feet of any building used for human
habitation unless occupied by the owner or keeper of the
animals. Pasturing of these anirnals is permitted within the
above mentioned setbacks.
G. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower
and vegetable gardens, private.
H. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6)
persons when located in a single family dwelling.
I. Home occupations as defined in Subsection
12-105-H-7.
J. Household pets as defined in Subsection
12-105-H-12.
K. Petroleum products storage, for use by the
occupants of the premises but not for resale or distribution],
subject to provisions of subsection 12-306-N-111.
Ordinance for TextAmendment No. TA-13-02
Page 8 of 59
Ordinance No.
L. Poultry raising (limited to hens only). rabbits or
similar small furbearing animals. not to exceed twenty-four
(24) of any kind or combination thereof. for domestic purposes
only provided that no pen. coop. or hutch be located within one
hundred (100) feet of any property line or within forty (40) feet
of any residence. dwelling or building used for human
habitation.
M. Roadside stands. temporary. for the sale of
agricultural products produced upon the premises], subject to
provisions of subsection 12-306-N-18J.
PERMIT
The following uses shall be permitted in the "AE-20 District.
12-406:
A. Adult day care facilities for seven (7) to twelve (12)
adults when located in a single family dwelling. subject to
B. Airports, heliports and crop dusting strips. private.
C. Churches.
Date Adopted: Ordinance for Text Amendment No.TA-13-02
DateApproved:
CityAttorney Approval: Ordinance No.
G. Family day care homes, large, subject to
compliance with subsection 12-306-N-42.
H. Golf course, subject to compliance with Subsection
12-306-N-47.
I. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more
persons when located in a single family dwelling, subject to
J. Guest ranches.
K. Kennels: boarding, training, or breeding.
N. Surface mining operations, subject to the provisions
otArticie 5.5 of Chapter 12 of this Code.
ro. Community gardens where the underlying special
permit is a conditional use permit, subject to the provisions of
subsection 12-306-N-11.1
SECTION 7. Section 12-205.1 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read:
12-205.1.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
USES PERMITTED.
Page 10 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
C. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of six (6)
12 306-N-11. alAgricultural crops such as the raising of tree,
vine, field, forage and other plant life crops of all kinds,
Wexcept mushroom growing[); and community gardens where
there is no underlying conditional use permit].
E. Bovine (cow) and equine (horses) animals, where
maintained within one hundred (100) feet of any property line
animals. Pasturing of these animals is permitted within the
Page 11 of 59
Ordinance No.
12-105-H-7.
12-105-H-12.
K. Petroleum products storage. for use by the
occupants of the premises but not for resale or dlstributionl,
subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11J.
L. Poultry raising (limited to hens only). rabbits or
similar small furbearing animals, not to exceed twenty-four
(24) of any kind or combination thereof. for domestic purposes
only provided that no pen, coop, or hutch be located within one
of any residence, dwelling or building used for human
habitation.
M. Roadside stands, temporary. for the sale of
provisions of subsection 12-306-N-181.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
EffectiveDate:
City AttorneyApproval: _
Ordinance for Text AmendmentNo. TA-13-02
Page 12 of 59
Ordinance No.
PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "AE-5" District,
12-406:
A. Aduit day care facilities for seven (7) to twelve (12)
adults when located in a single family dwelling, subject to
C. Churches.
G. Family day care homes, large, subject to
compliance with Subsection 12-306-N-42.
H. Golf course, subject to compliance with Subsection
12-306-N-47.
J. Guest ranches.
K. Kennels; boarding, training, or breeding.
DateApproved:
Effective Date: Page 13of 59
[N. Community gardens where the underlying special
subsection 12-306-N-11.l
12-206.1.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
USES PERMITIED.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-A" District:
A. One single family dwelling unit per lot, except for a
Second Dwelling in accordance with Subsection 12-306-N-38.
B. Accessory Buildings.
1. Garages.
2. Servants' quarters on parcels of land having a
minimum lot area of 36,000 square feet or more.
12-306-N-11. alAgricultural crops, greenhouses, fruit trees, nut
trees, vines, [and lnurseries lOfor producing trees, vines and
e#lef horticultural stockD: and community gardens where there
is no underlying conditional use permitl .
Page 14of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
E. Bovine (cow) and equine (horses) animals, where
maintained within one hundred (100) feet of any property line
animals. Pasturing of these animals is permitted within the
12-105-H-7.
12-105-H-12.
K. Petroleum products storage, for use by the
occupants of the premises but not for resale or distrlbution],
subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-111.
Page 15 of 59
Ordinance No.
L. Poultry raising (limited to hens only), rabbits or
similar small furbearing animals, not to exceed twenty-four
(24) of any kind or combination thereof, for domestic purposes
only provided that no pen, coop, or hutch be located within one
of any residence, dwelling or building used for human
habitation.
M. Roadside stands, temporary, for the sale of
agricultural products produced upon the premises[, subject to
provisions of subsection 12-306-N-181.
O. Tract office, model homes and construction
material storage yards of a temporary nature, within the tract
being developed.
12-206.3 USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-A" District,
12-406:
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 16of 59
Ordinance No.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
EffectiveDate:
B. Churches.
D. Family day care homes, large, subject to
E. Golf course and country club, subject to compliance
with Subsection 12-306-N-47.
F. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more
G. Kennels; boarding, training, or breeding.
H. Microwave relay structures.
J. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary,
secondary or college level.
K. Subdivision signs-Off-site, if proposed as
specified in Subsection 12-207.5-K-4.
L. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of
Page 17 of 59
Ordinance No.
1M. Community gardens where the underlying special
subsection 12-306-N-11.J
12-207.1. USES PERMITTED.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-A" District:
A. One single family dwelling unit per lot, except for a
adults when located in a single family dwelling..
E. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower
F. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6)
G. Home occupations as defined in Subsection
12-105-H-7.
H. Household pets as defined in Subsection
12-105-H-12.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 18of 59
Ordinance No.
J. Tract offices, model homes and construction
being developed.
[K. Subject to the provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11, agricultural crops, fruit trees, nut trees, vines.
and plant nurseries (for producing trees, vines and horticultural
stock); and community gardens where there is no underlying
conditional use permit.]
SECTION 12. Section 12-207.3 of the FresnoMunicipal Code is amended to read:
12-207.3 USES PERMITIED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-A" District,
12-406:
B. Churches.
DateApproved:
City Attorney Approval: Ordinance No.
F. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject
to compliance with Subsection 12-306-N-47.
G. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more
K. Subdivision signs-Oft-site, if proposed as
[M. Community gardens where the underlying special
PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-E" and
"R-1-EH" Districts, subject to a conditional use permit pursuant to
Sections 12-405 and 12-406:
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 20of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
B. Churches.
C. Electrical distribution substation.
L. Unit Planned Developments, subject to the
provisions of Section 12-304-B-12.
Ordinance for Text Amendment No.TA-13-02
Page 21 of 59
Ordinance No.
M. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of
[N. Community gardens where the underiying special
12-209.1.
DateAdopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
USES PERMITIED.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-B" District:
1. In a Planned Development as permitted by
Section 12-209.3-G; and
2. A Second Dwelling in accordance with
and vegetable gardens, private;
Page 22of 59
Ordinance No.
12-105-H-7.
12-105-H-12.
being developed.
fK. Subject to the provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11. agricultural crops. fruit trees, nut trees. vines,
and plant nurseries (for producing trees. vines and horticultural
stock): and community gardens where there is no underlying
SECTION 15. Section 12-209.3 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amendedto read:
PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-B" District,
12-406:
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
Page23 of 59
Ordinance No.
B. Churches.
C. Family day care homes, large, subject to
D. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject
E. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more
F. Libraries, public.
G. Planned developments, subject to the provisions of
H. Schools, parks and playgrounds, public.
I. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary,
J. Subdivision signs-Off-site, if proposed as
K. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of
fl. Community gardens where the underlying special
SECTION 16. Section 12-210.1 of the Fresno Municipal Codeis amendedto read:
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 24of 59
Ordinance No.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-C" District:
A. One single family dwelling unit per lot. except:
Section 12-210.3-H; and
D. Family day care homes. small.
E. Greenhouses. horticultural collections and flower
12-105-H-7.
12-105-H-12.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page25of 59
Ordinance No.
being developed.
[K. Subject to the provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11, agricultural crops. fruit trees. nut trees. vines.
and plant nurseries (for producing trees, vines and horticultural
stock): and community gardens where there is no underlying
12-210.3. USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
The followinq uses shall be permitted in the "R-1-C" District,
12-406:
B. Churches.
DateAdopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
Page 26 of 59
Ordinance No.
E. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject
H. Planned developments, subject to the provisions of
Date Adopted: Ordinance for Text Amendment No. TA-13-02
Date Approved:
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Section 12-211.3-H; and
12-105-H-7.
12-105-H-12.
J. Tract offices, model homes and construction material
storage yards of a temporary nature, within the tract being
developed.
[K. Subject to the provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11,
agricultural crops, fruit trees. nut trees. vines, and plant
Page 28 of 59
Ordinance No.
nurseries (for producing trees. vines and horticultural stock):
and community gardens where there is no underlying
SECTION 19. Section 12-211.3 ofthe FresnoMunicipal Codeis amended to read:
PERMIT.
The following uses shall be permitted in the "R-1" District,
12-406:
B. Churches.
E. Farmers Market, subject to the conditions listed in
Subsection 12-304-8-25.
DateAdopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
Page 29 of 59
Ordinance No.
I. Planned developments, subject to the provisions of
J. Schools, parks and playgrounds, public.
K. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary,
L. Subdivision signs-Off-site, if proposed as
[N. Community Gardens where the underlying special
permit is a conditional use permit. subjecHotheprovisions of
12-212.3.
USES PERMITIED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
12-406:
DateAdopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
Page 30 of 59
Ordinance No.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
EffectiveDate:
B. Churches.
E. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject
persons, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-43.
H. Multiple family projects when the subject site
contains two (2) or more net acres inarea.
Page31 of 59
Ordinance No.
12-212.4. USES EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
The following uses are expressly prohibited in the "R-2"
District. The listing of these prohibited uses shall not, however, be
used as a basis to enlarge upon the scope of permitted uses specified
in Sections 12-212.1 and 12-212.3 above. The listing herein is for
purposes of clarity only:
B. Agricultural uses[ not specifically listed as
permitted].
C. Commerciai uses, including commercial uses such
as hotels, apartment hotels, motor courts, motels or other
bUildings wherein housing facilities are furnished to transient
boarders or roomers.
D. Industrial uses.
PERMIT.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 32of 59
Ordinance No.
12-406:
A. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of twenty-
four (24) adults, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-42.
C. Buildings over forty (40) feet in height. (Refer to
Section 12-213.5-0, below.)
D. Ciubs and lodges, private, excepting those the
principal activity of which is a service customarily carried on as
a business.
F. Family day care homes, large, subject to
G. Fraternity and Sorority.
H. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject
J. Multiple family projects when the subject site
contains two (2) or more net acres in area.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Ordinance for Text Amendment No. TA-13-Q2
Page 33of 59
Ordinance No.
K. Schools, private or parochial, of an elementary,
L. Subdivision signs-Off-site, if proposed as
[N. Community gardens where the underlying special
12-213.4. USES EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
B. Agricultural uses[ not specifically listed as
permitted].
C. Commercial uses, including commercial residential
uses such as hotels, apartment hotels, motor courts, motels or
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 34of 59
Ordinance No.
other buildings wherein housing facilities are furnished to
transient boarders or roomers.
D. Industrial uses.
E. Offices.
PERMIT.
12-406:
A. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of twenty-
four (24) adults, subject to Subsection 12-306-N-42.
C. Buildings over sixty (60) feet in height. (Refer to
Section 12-214.5-P. below)
D. Electric distribution substation.
E. Family day care homes, large, subject to
F. Fraternity and Sorority.
G. Golf course, country club and driving range, subject
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 35of 59
Ordinance No.
H. Group housing facility for seven (7) or more
I. Multiple family dwellings with a density of thirty (30)
or more units per acre, or containing two (2) or more net acres
in area.
J. Subdivision signs-OfF-site, if proposed as
K. Water pump stations, subject to the provisions of
Subsection12-306-N-46.
!L. Communitv gardens where the underlying special
subsection 12-306-N-11.J
12-214.4.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
USES EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
B. Agricultural uses! not specifically listed as
permitted].
Page 36of 59
Ordinance No.
C. Commercial uses, excepting:
1. The commercial-residential uses listed as
permitted in Section 12-214.1; and
2. Radio or television antennas and transmitters,
subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit
pursuant to Sections 12-405 and 12-406.
D. Hotels and motels.
E. Industrial uses.
F. Offices.
12-245.1. USES PERMITIED.
Notwithstanding the underlying zone district designation, the
following uses shall be permitted on any property with the "ANX"
transitional overlay district designation:
A. Existing Uses. Any use existing at the time the
property was annexed to the city so long as the use had been
lawfully allowed by the county at the time immediately
preceding the annexation[, subject to provisions of subsection
12-306-N-11].
B. One single family dwelling unit per lot, except for a
C. Accessory Buildings.
DateApproved:
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
1. Garages.
2. Servants' quarters on parcels of land havinq a
minimum lot area of 36,000 square feet or more.
3. Barns, stables, corrals, coops and/or animal
or fowl pen.
D. Adult day care facilities for a maximum of six (6)
E. Agricultural crops, greenhouses, fruit trees, nut
trees, vines, nurseries for producing trees, vines and other
horticultural stockL and community gardens, subject to
provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11l.
F. Where the lot area is at least one acre in size, a
property owner may have adult bovine (cows) or equine
(horses) animals, in any combination thereof, and their
immature offspring, per acre. In no event shall any property
regardless of size have more than 10 adult bovine or equine,
or combination thereof. For every adult bovine or equine
allowed on a property, a property owner may substitute two
adult ovine (sheep) or adult caprine (goats) (including any
immature offspring). Other similar animal types may be
allowed upon a determination by the Director that they will not
detrimentally affect the public health, safety and/or welfare.
Page 38 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
G. Family day care homes, small.
H. Greenhouses, horticultural collections and flower
I. Group housing facility for a maximum of six (6)
J. Home occupations as defined in Subsection
12-105-H-7.
K. Household pets as defined in Subsection
12-105-H-12.
L. Petroleum products storage, for use by the occupants
of the premises but not for resale or distributionL subject to the
provisions of subsection 12-306-N-11J.
M. Poultry raising (limited to hens only), rabbits or
similar small featherbearing or furbearing animals, not to
exceed twenty-four (24) of any kind or combination thereof, for
domestic purposes only.
N. Roadside stands, temporary, for the sale of
the provisions of subsection 12-306-N.18J.
O. Signs, subject to provisions of Section 12-206.5-K.
P. Where any of the foregoing animals noted in this
section are permitted on site, a stormwater runoff permit may
Page 39 of 59
Ordinance No.
be required in accordance with the requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SECTION 27. Subsection 12-306-N-IO.c of the Fresno Municipal Code, pertaining to Security
Wire Permits, is amended to read:
12-306-N-10.c. In the 0, AE-20, AE-5, R-1-AH, and R-1-EH zone districts,
barbed wire for agricultural purposes will be permitted with a
barbed wire permit. [ In the R-A, R-1-A, R-1-E, R-1-C, R-1-B,
and R-1 zone districts, barbed wire for agricultural purposes
on parcels over five acres in size may be permitted with a
barbed wire permit. provided all abutting property owners
agree in writing. lin such districts, the highest strand of barbed
wire shall not be more than five feet above the highest
adjacent ground level[ and fencing incorporating barbed wire
for agricultural purposes shall conform to provisions of
subsection 12-306-N-11J.
SECTION 28. Subsection 12-306-N-Il of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read:
12-306-N-11.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Groenhouso.[Improvement and use of property classified in
the open space, agricultural. and residential zone districts for
commercial agriculture, plant nurseries. and community
gardens:
Page 40 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
a. Appropriate grading is required for site clearance
and leveling prior to commencement of community gardening,
plant nursery, or agricultural activity.
(1) Irrigation tailwater and stormwater runoff shall
be managed on-site by means of grading,
vegetated swales, and on-site detention
facilities so as to prevent drainage to abutting
property and to prevent silt and contaminants
from entering the municipal stormwater
management system, irrigation canals, and
natural watercourses.
(2) For sites over one acre in size, a grading
permit shall be obtained to show tailwater and
stormwater management features,
(3) On-site water detention facilities shall conform
to City of Fresno standards for construction
and management to prevent breeding of
mosguitoes.
(4) Irrigated cropland shall be managed in
compliance with California Water Code
Section 13260, pertaining to the Irrigated
Page 41 of 59
Ordinance No,
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
CityAttorney Approvai: _
Lands Program, pursuant to regulations of the
California Water Boards.
b. Any Agricultural Land Conservation ("Williamson
Act") Contract that was in force prior to (relestablishment of
agricultural uses on land classified for single-family residential
uses shall be permitted to continue in effect under the terms of
Fresno City Council Resolution No. 2006-130 and any
successor Resolution or Ordinance enacted by the City.
However, no new application for an Agricultural Land
Conservation Contracts shall be approved for land classified
(zoned) for single-family residential uses, in recognition of the
fact that agricultural cultivation of land so classified is
incidental to urban use (e.g., ancillary open space associated
with a housing project or eleemosynary institution), or is an
interim and transitional use prior to planned urbanization.
c. Plantings of trees and vines, buildings, and water
wells shall not be installed on portions of a property planned
for right-of-way for major streets.
d. When the underlying zone district or an overlay
zone district allows use of private storage tanks for fuel, such
tanks shall be installed and maintained pursuant to the
appropriate permits and reguired approvals from Fresno
Page42 of 59
Ordinance No.
County Environmental Health and the Fresno Fire Department.
All such tanks shall be located at least 20 feet from property
lines and are subject to additional setback requirements at the
discretion of regulatory agencies.
e. Use of water for irrigation of crops, plant nurseries
and community gardens.
(1) When feasible and permissible. surface water
supplies and/or recycled water shall be used
for irrigation.
(2) When irrigation district surface water supplies
allocated to a property have been assigned to
the City of Fresno as part of the annexation
process. the City Water Division must
approve in writing any subsequent re-
direction of those irrigation district surface
water allocation to growing crops on the
property. When growing activity ceases, the
surface water allocation shall revert to the City
of Fresno.
(3) Subsection 12-306-0 shall apply to
construction of any new non-potable water
delivery facilities. Appropriate easement
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 43 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
CityAttorney Approval:
covenants shall be recorded for conveyance
of non-potable water.
(4) Installation of irrigation pipelines shall be
minimized to the extent possible in portions of
a property planned for right-of-way of major
streets. Where it is unavoidable to avoid
planned right-of-way, such pipelines shall be
constructed of appropriate material to allow
subseguent street construction without
replacement of the pipeline,
(5) At the conclusion of agricultural/nurserv/
community gardening activities. irrigation
pipelines shall be removed unless the City
approves their retention for non-potable water
conveyance. Irrigation easements no longer
needed for conveyance of water supplies
shall be vacated. Surface water rights shall
accrue to the City of Fresno when the
irrigation water is no longer being delivered
for agricultural activity.
(6) Any premises having both a potable water
utility connection and a separate source of
Page 44 of 59
Ordinance No.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
water for agricultural irrigation must have an
approved backflow prevention device
(meeting to City Water Division standards) on
the potable water connection. The backflow
device shall be installed with required City
permits and is subject to periodic testing.
(7) Installation of any water line used to deliver a
potable water supply for irrigation of an
agricultural. plant nursery. or community
gardening site reguires approved plumbing
permits from the City. Any hose bibb or
sprinkler connection to a potable water utility
system shall be eguipped with backflow
protection approved by the City. such as a
vacuum breaker fitting.
(8) Any agricultural. nursery. or community
garden use of water from a potable water
utility system shall be metered.
(9) Efficient Water Management Practices
identified in Fresno Irrigation District's
adopted Agricultural Water Management Plan
shall be implemented as feasible.
Page 45 of 59
Ordinance No.
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
(10) When 20 or more contiguous acres are
involved in agricultural or horticultural activity,
a private water well may be developed,
reconstructed, or rehabilitated on the
premises to supply irrigation water, subject to
all of the following:
(j) Submittal of an irrigation water use
plan for Water Division approval.
(ii) City Water Division's written approval
of an irrigation water well application
pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code
Sections 6-402 and 6-505, including
siting of the proposed well and
portions of the well casing with
perforations or screening.
(iii) Approval of the appropriate level of
environmental review for the irrigation
well development project.
(iv) Execution of an agreement with the
Water Division to do the following:
maintain well production metering and
records of well production: to pay the
Page 46 of 59
Ordinance No.
Date Adopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
applicable Recharge Fee or provide
alternative groundwater extraction
mitigation acceptable to Water
Division; and to limit the well's
groundwater extraction to a
sustainable yield as shall be
determined after well development
based on the Water Division's review
of pump tests.
(11\ Wells used for agricultural irrigation must be
improved pursuant to State of California
Department of Water Resources standards
and Water Division reguirements based on
water well application review. Irrigation wells
shall additionally be eguipped with a meter
accessible for periodic readings by the City for
the purpose of assessing the City's Private
Well Irrigation Fee.
(12\ Water from an irrigation well must be used
solely on the premises where the well is
located,
Page 47 of 59
Ordinance No.
(13) Water from a private off-site well shall not be
used for irrigating agricultural or horticultural
activity.
(14) The practices of "chemigation" and
"fertigation," and any other means of
distributing agrichemicals via irrigation water,
shall only be permitted if there is no risk of
such chemicals flowing back into a well.
(15) At the conclusion of agricultural/nurserv/
community gardening activities, any
associated well shall be destroyed in
accordance with the provisions of California
Department of Water Resources Water Well
Standards and the standards of the City
Water Division. Alternatively, and only if
approved by the Water Division, a well no
longer needed for irrigation may be retained
and secured for subseguent public pump
station use if the well has been appropriately
constructed,
f. Fencing shall be located on the property (not on street
rights-of-way), For parcels comprising over five acres,
DateAdopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
Page 48 of 59
Ordinance No,
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
perimeter fencing for agricultural, plant nursery, and
community gardening uses shall be set back from property
lines as necessary to allow at least six (6) feet for safe
pedestrian access along any roadway, For parcels comprising
less than five acres, fencing for these uses shall conform to
the regulations of the underlying zone district with regard to
setbacks from rights-of-way and heights, Fences shall be
constructed of approved materials, with use of security wire
regulated pursuant to subsection 12-306-N-10,
g, Establishment of Community Gardens, A new
community garden proposed for property having no prior
special permit. and located in a zone district where no site plan
review application is necessary for development of permitted
uses, reguires an approved plot plan and operational
statement with details as set forth in subsections (1) through
(6) below, For properties where there is an underlying
approved site plan review, establishment of a community
garden reguires an approved application for a revised exhibit
to that site plan review, with plot plan and operational
statement containing details as set forth in subsections (1)
through (6) below, For property subject to an existing
conditional use permit. establishment of a community garden
Ordinance for Text Amendment No, TA-13-02
Page 49 of 59
Ordinance No,
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
CityAttomey Approval: _
requires an approved, a revised exhibit application, with plot
plan and operational statement containing details as set forth
in subsections (1) through (6) below:
(1) Establishment of a community garden
reguires a designated responsible party,
which may be an individual, a partnership, a
corporate entity, or a tax-exempt organization;
(2) If the responsible party is not the owner of the
proposed community garden site, the
responsible party shall obtain written
permission from the owner of the proposed
site (or the authorized agent of the owner)
prior to applying to establish the community
garden. A copy of this written permission,
and any agreement between the property
owner and the responsible party, shall
accompany the special permit application
materials submitted to the City; and,
(3) The application shall include a dimensioned
drawing of the property showing the intended
community garden and other improvements
Page 50 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DaleApproved:
Effective Dale:
(including setbacks from property lines and
buildings. landscaping that will remain and
landscaping that is proposed to be removed
for the garden. underlying easements.
fencing. pedestrian accessibility. parking.
trash enclosures and any storage structures
proposed to be associated with the garden);
(4) The application shall include an operational
statement with the following details at a
minimum: responsible managing entity and
24-hour contact information for that entity;
hours of gardening operations/access by
users; the intended number of gardeners
sharing the site; a water supply plan; a waste
disposal plan; and any proposed special
event activity associated with the garden;
and.
(5) Security wire shall not be permitted for
fencing on. or surrounding. community
gardens located in any residential zone
district.
Page 51 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
(6) Community gardens may only be established
in areas designated for on-site stormwater
retention if cultivation will not impair drainage
characteristics of the basin. From September
15 through April 15. no plastic. shade cloth.
netting, wire mesh, twine, or stakes shall be
permitted in gardens occupying stormwater
retention areas. and vegetative debris shall
be removed. in order to prevent clogging
drainage facilities.
h. All pesticides. fertilizers. and hazardous materials
used and stored at the premises shall be subject to use,
storage, handling. disposal. disclosure and inventory
reguirements administered by the Fresno County Agricultural
Commissioner, Fresno County Environmental Health.
California Environmental Protection Agency Division of Toxic
Substance Control, and Fresno Fire Department. No
application of pesticides shall be allowed by means of aircraft
(unless such spraying is ordered by the State of California or
the Agricultural Commissioner for the entire municipal area to
address a serious pest outbreak). All pesticides. fertilizers.
and hazardous materials shall be stored in securely locked
Page 52 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
Date Approved:
EffectiveDate:
structures having an impervious floor. All such storage
structures shall be located at least twenty (2Q) feet from
property lines and are subject to additional setback
reguirements at the discretion of regulatorv agencies.
i. Properties proposed for cultivation shall not be on
the list of hazardous materials sits compiled pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65962.5; or. if a property
does appear on that list. prior to it being cultivated the
California Environmental Protection Agency Department of
Toxic Substances Control or Fresno County Certified Unified
Permit Agency shall provide written clearance that hazardous
material residues will not harm persons cultivating the site or
consuming any produce grown on the site.
j. Cultivation and soil amendment activities shall
conform to applicable regulations of the San Joaguin Valley Air
Pollution Control District. including controls for particulate
matter. fugitive dust. bulk material handling. and odors. No
mechanized cultivation activities which generate dust
(including. but not limited to. tillage. harvest.and ground
sweeping) shall be done when ambient moisture levels are low
and wind speed exceeds 12 miles per hour.
Page53 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
k. No on-site burning of waste material shall be
allowed. Waste material and litter associated with agricultural
operations shall be properly disposed of in a timely manner,
and shall not be permitted to blow onto adjacent properties.
I. When permitted by the underlying zone district,
plant products grown on the premises may be sold on the
premises by means of an on-site stand subject to provisions of
subsection 12-306-N-18.
m. Beehives may be temporarily placed on agricultural
and horticultural sites twenty (20) acres or more in size for
pollination purposes, when a source of water is provided within
twenty (20) feet of all hives and the hives are located at least
forty (40) feet from property lines. Beehives shall be properly
maintained according to apiary standards administered by the
Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. Aggressive or
"Africanized" beehives shall be immediately addressed when
reported to the property owner, agricultural operator at the
property, or a regulatory agency.
n. Except where the setback requirements of this
subsection are more restrictive, setback and lot coverage
requirements of the underlying zone district shall apply.] A
[illTeenhouse[s and agricultural or horticultural storage
Page 54 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
facilities] shall be classified as a building[] in determining lot
coverage. The property development standards of the[
underlying zone] district shall apply if such [with regard to
building heights. If a proposed agricultural or horticultural]
structure exceeds the permitted feRGe height for the district ef
if such structure exceeEls one hunElroEl (1QQ) square feet in
aroa(, the Director shall have discretion to modify the building
height standards of the district to accommodate the structure.
o. Sonic hail disruptors ("hail cannons") and
noisemaking devices for repelling birds and other crop pests
shall not be permitted.
p. Soil amendments and waste material that attracts
nuisance flies or supports growth of such flies shall not be
permitted.
g. Any agricultural operation or community garden
located in an area regulated under an Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan or airport specific plan shall be operated in
conformance with the applicable Wildlife Hazard Mitigation
Plan for that airport.
r. Street trees and trees established to satisfy
shading criteria of applicable special permits and subdivision
maps shall not be removed to accommodate agricultural or
Page 55 of 59
Ordinance No.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
CityAttorneyApproval: _
community gardening activity. Other tree removal shall be
subject to reguirements of subsection 12-306-N-24.a.
s. Prior to tillage or excavation for cultivation, parties
undertaking the activity shall confirm that there are no Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control or Fresno Irrigation District
underground facilities and shall call the Underground Service
Alert program (the "811 - Call Before You Dig") line. Parties
intending to cultivate trees or trellis crops shall conform to
utility company policies and regulations with regard to
separations from overhead lines.
t. In order to protect cultural resources, sites
proposed and used for cultivation are subject to the following
reguirements:
(1) If suspected human remains are found, the
Fresno County Coroner shall be contacted
immediately. If it is determined that the
remains or other archaeological materials are
possibly of Native American origin, the Native
American Heritage Commission shall be
contacted immediately, and the California
Archaeological Inventory's Southern San
Joaquin Valley Information Center shall be
Page 56of 59
Ordinance No.
contacted to obtain a referral list of
recognized archaeologists.
(2) An archaeological assessment shall be
conducted for the site if prehistoric human
relics are found that were not previously
assessed during any prior environmental
assessment which may have been conducted
for the property. The site shall be formally
recorded, and the archaeologist shall make
recommendations to the City on further site
investigation or site avoidance/preservation
measures.
(3) If the site of proposed cultivation is found to
contain unigue archaeological or
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
paleontological resources, and it can be
demonstrated that the project will cause
damage to these resources, reasonable
efforts shall be made to permit any or all of
the resource to be scientifically removed. or it
shall be preserved in situ (left in an
undisturbed state). Preservation may include
the following options. or eguivalent measures
Ordinance for Text Amendment No. TA-13-Q2
Page 57of 59
Ordinance No.
approved by the city's Historic Resource
Project Manager.
Ii) Amending construction/cultivation plans
to avoid the resources.
(ii) Setting aside sites containing these
resources by deeding them into
permanent conservation easements.
(iii) Capping or covering these resources
with a protective layer of soil adequate
to protect the resources from cultivation.
(iv) Incorporating parks, green space or
other open space into the project to
leave the resources undisturbed and to
maintain a protective earth cover over
(v) Avoiding public disclosure of the
location of these resources until or
unless the site is adequately protected
from vandalism or theft,
(4) On a property being cultivated, any
maintenance,
rehabilitation,
repair
restoration.
stabilization,
preservation,
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Ordinance for Text Amendment No, TA-13-02
Page 58 of 59
Ordinance No.
conservation or reconstruction of an identified
historical resource shall be done consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring and Reconstructing Historic
BUildings. available from the City of Fresno
Historic Preservation Project Manager.
v. In order to protect biological resources, parties
proposing to cultivate land should first determine if the site is a
sensitive habitat area and/or if it contains sensitive species.
City of Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact
Report Mitigation measures pertaining to sensitive species and
habitats shall pertain as appropriate to cultivation activities].
SECTION 29. This ordinance shall become effective and in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m.
on the thirty-first day after its passage.
DateAdopted:
DateApproved:
Effective Date:
Page 59of 59
Ordinance No.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
CITY OF FRESNO
)
) ss.
)
I, YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, California, at a regular meeting held
on the io"day of October, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor Approval: , 2013
Mayor Approval/No Return: , 2013
Mayor Veto: , 2013
Council Override Vote: , 2013
YVONNESPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
Deputy
By =-- _
APPROVEDAS TO FORM:
CITY ATIORNEY'S OFFICE
Talia Kolluri-Barbick
By _-:=-.,-- _
Date: _

Draft Urban Gardens Ordinance - City of Fresno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Urban Gardens Ordinance - City of Fresno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

October 10, 2013

AGENDA ITEM NO. '5 :OOprv

COMMUNITY GARDENING IN FRESNO

gardeners respond that "staying at home

A youth group volunteers at the AI Radko garden.

'perfluorocarbons (PFCs), used in aluminum and semiconductor manufacturing, have an

removing it from the atmosphere).

You might also like