Clovis Unified School District Responses to Comments Received
FOWLER-MCKINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

January 2, 2019

This document presents the Clovis Unified School District’s responses to the comments received on the Fowler-McKinley Elementary School Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration during the 30-day public review period from October 29, 2018 to November 28, 2018. The response to each letter is presented below. Each of the comment letters received is attached for reference.

Letter dated November 13, 2018, from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Brian Clements, Program Manager

This letter indicated that the SJVAPCD previously commented on this project during the Request for Preliminary Comment period and has no additional comments at this time. The comments in the previous letter datedMarch26, 2018, indicated (1) the project wouldnot exceed SJVAPCDair pollutant significance thresholds and would have a less than significant effect on air quality, (2) the project would be subject to Rule 9510, with the submittal of an Air Impact Assessment application to be provided with the final discretionary approval; (3) the project would be subject Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) in the event a building is demolished or removed; (4) the project will be subject to Regulation VIII and must submit a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities; (5) the project may be subject to various other SJVAPCD rules and regulations; and (6) the SJVAPCD recommends that a screening analysis be conducted to determine if the project would have a significant health impact.

In response to the above, the District will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. It is noted that local public school districts are instrumentalities of the state and that final discretionary approval for a school project occurs when the project is approved by the California Department of Education and plans are approved by the Division of the State Architect. This can occur substantially after the point when the project is approved by the District’s Board, especially in cases such as this, where construction of the project is not expected to occur for approximately five years. Finally, an Air Quality Assessment was prepared in conjunction with the Initial Study, which determined the exposure to toxic air contaminants, including diesel exhaust emissions, would be less than significant.

Letter dated November 15, 2018, from the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, Monique Wilber, Conservation Program Support Supervisor

The school site is in an area that has been long planned for urban development and is transitioning to urban use in accordance with the general plan of the City of Fresno. The loss of 22 acres of farmland due to construction of the school represents approximately 0.14% of the 15,903 acres of Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program farmland designated for urban development in the Fresno General Plan. The proposed project site abuts an approved single-family subdivision on two sides and planned industrial and commercial land on the other two sides. As such, it is not viable for long term agricultural use. If the proposed school is not built, the site would be subdivided into residential lots. For these reasons, the impactoftheprojectonagricultural resources is considered less thansignificant. Nomitigation isrequired for impacts that are less than significant.

The Fresno General Plan EIR considered the cumulative loss of farmland and it was acknowledged as significant and unavoidable. The loss of farmland is a result of City approvals of private development proposals in accordance with its adopted general plan. There would be no need for schools without the City’s plan and the development resulting from the plan. The burden for mitigation, therefore, should be

-1-

Responses to Comments Received on Fowler-McKinley Elementary School Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (continued)

the responsibility of the City and developers, yet there is no policy or requirement for farmland mitigation of the type suggested in the Department of Conservation’s letter (conservation easements or agricultural mitigation fees) for any development in the City’s planning area. A school district is a public agency providing an essential public service, with no funds dedicated for the purpose of farmland mitigation. When for-profit developers in the City who are causing the need for the schools are not required to provide mitigation, it is fundamentally inequitable to require a school district to do so. If the type of mitigation recommended by the Department is to be established, it should be established on a comprehensive basis and applicable to all development.

Letter dated November 20, 2018, from the California Department of Transportation, District 6, Jamaica Gentry, Transportation Planner

The project is not anticipated to be constructed for approximately five years; hence, there is no preliminary site plan and many details of the project have not been finalized.

Since this project area is in the City sphere of influence and would be annexed prior to construction, the City of Fresno is the agency responsible for approving the planning and design of street improvements. The District will work with the City and Caltrans to provide for appropriate intersection control within the project area.

The District acknowledges the importance of safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and will incorporate appropriate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and amenities into the final design of the project.

-2-