Exhibit G – Draft Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments — Fresno City Council, January 11, 2024 (part 1 of 9)

Exhibit G
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments
September 2023

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
September 2023

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. SNN2102
This page intentionally left blank
i

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\0 Cover-TOC.docx (09/01/23)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Response to Comments Document.......................................................... 1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process......................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Document Organization.................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Organization of Comment Letters and Responses............................................................ 2-1

2.2 List of Agencies Commenting on the Recirculated Draft EIR ............................................ 2-1

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES........................................................................... 3-1

4.0 RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS ...................................................... 4-1

4.1 Section 4.2, Air Quality...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................ 4-1

4.3 Section 4.11, Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................... 4-2

4.4 Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment............................................................................. 4-3 TABLE
Table 2.A: List of Comments Received ................................................................................................ 2-1 Table 3.A: Project Operation Emissions with Additional Stationary-Source Emissions (Tons per Year)................................................................................................................................... 3-64

APPENDIX
A: COMMENT LETTER B3 ATTACHMENTS
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\0 Cover-TOC.docx (09/01/23)

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAQA ambient air quality analysis
AB Assembly Bill
ABM Activity-Based Model
AIA Air Impact Assessment
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model
CalEnviroScreen California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CARB California Air Resources Board
CBECC California Building Energy Code Compliance Software CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERP Community Emission Reduction Program
CEUS California Commercial End Use Survey
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
City City of Fresno
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\0 Cover-TOC.docx (09/01/23) iv CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
dBA A-weighted decibels
DPM diesel particulate matter
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
eTRIP Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan
EV electric vehicle
FAR floor area ratio
FFD Fresno Fire Department
FID Fresno Irrigation District
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Fresno COG Fresno Council of Governments
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTA Manual Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepower-hour
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HHD heavy-duty
HRA health risk assessment
v

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\0 Cover-TOC.docx (09/01/23) HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
ISR Indirect Source Review
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
lbs/MWhr pounds per megawatt-hour
Ldn day-night average level
Leq equivalent continuous noise level
LGO Local Government Operations Protocol
LOS level(s) of service
MEI maximally exposed individual
mph miles per hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NOA Notice of Agreement
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSH Act Occupational Safety and Health Act
PCE passenger car equivalent
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PRC Public Resources Code
RASS Residential Appliance Saturation Survey
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
vi \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\0 Cover-TOC.docx (09/01/23) Recirculated Draft
EIR
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
ROG reactive organic gas
RTC Response to Comments
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SALEM SALEM Engineering Group, Inc.

SB Senate Bill
SBA Small Business Assistance
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMP Soil Management Plan
SOX sulfur oxides
TAC toxic air contaminant
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSMI Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact
USC United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VERA Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
1-1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\1.0 Introduc�on.docx (09/01/23)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
This document has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Recirculated Dra� Environmental Impact Report (Recirculated Dra� EIR) prepared for the proposed 2740 West Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project (Development Permit Applica�on No. P21-02699 and Tenta�ve Parcel Map Applica�on No. P21 05930) (herein referred to as the proposed project) for the City of Fresno (City).

The Recirculated Dra� EIR iden�fies the likely environmental consequences associated with development of the proposed project and recommends mi�ga�on measures to reduce poten�ally significant impacts. This Response to Comments (RTC) Document provides responses to comments on the Recirculated Dra� EIR and makes revisions to the Recirculated Dra� EIR, as necessary, resul�ng from those comments or to clarify material in the Recirculated Dra� EIR. This document, together with the Recirculated Dra� EIR, cons�tutes the Final EIR for the proposed project.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdic�on over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Dra� EIR.

On September 9, 2022, the City circulated a No�ce of Prepara�on (NOP) no�fying responsible agencies and interested par�es that an EIR would be prepared for the proposed project and indicated the environmental topics an�cipated to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, interested par�es, and organiza�ons likely to be interested in the poten�al impacts of the proposed project. A scoping session was held virtually on September 22, 2022, to solicit feedback regarding the scope and content of the EIR. Comments received by the City on the NOP were considered during prepara�on of the Dra� EIR.

The Dra� EIR was made available for public review on February 24, 2023, and was distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies. The Dra� EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the City’s website at: htps://www.fresno.gov/darm/planningdevelopment/plans-projects-under-review. The No�ce of Availability (NOA) for the Dra� EIR was submited to the State Clearinghouse, provided to all individuals and organiza�ons who made a writen request for no�ce, and filed with the Fresno County Clerk. In addi�on, the City issued a Recirculated EIR on April 4, 2023, that included Chapters 6.0 and 7.0, which were previously omited from the Dra� EIR. No other changes were made to the Dra� EIR.

The CEQA-mandated 45-day public comment period ended on May 19, 2023. The City accepted and responded to all comments received between February 24, 2023, and May 19, 2023. Copies of all writen comments received during the comment period are included in Chapter 3.0, Comments and Responses, of this document.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESN O, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
1 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\1.0 Introduc�on.docx (09/01/23) -2

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This RTC Document consists of the following chapters:
• Chapter 1.0: Introduc�on. This chapter discusses the purpose and organiza�on of this RTC Document and the Final EIR, and summarizes the environmental review process for the project. • Chapter 2.0: List of Commenters. This chapter contains a list of agencies and individuals who submited writen comments during the public review period and comments made at the public hearing on the Recirculated Dra� EIR.
• Chapter 3.0: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproduc�ons of all comment leters received on the Recirculated Dra� EIR. A writen response for each CEQA-related comment received during the public review period is provided. Each response is keyed to the corresponding comment.
• Chapter 4.0: Recirculated Dra� EIR Text Revisions. Correc�ons to the Recirculated Dra� EIR that are necessary in light of the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Recirculated Dra� EIR, are contained in this chapter. Double underlined text represents language that has been added to the Recirculated Dra� EIR; text with strikeout has been deleted from the Recirculated Dra� EIR.
2-1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\2.0 List of Commenters.docx (09/01/23)

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS
This chapter presents a list of comment leters received during the public review period and describes the organiza�on of the leters and comments provided in Chapter 3.0, Comments and Responses, of this document.

2.1 ORGANIZATION OF COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
Chapter 3.0 includes a reproduc�on of each comment leter received on the Recirculated Dra� EIR.

The writen comments are grouped by the affilia�on of the commenter, as follows: local agencies (A) and organiza�ons and interested par�es (B).

The comment leters are numbered consecu�vely following the A and B designa�ons and follow the format below:

Local Agencies A#-#
Organiza�ons and Interested Par�es B#-#
The leters are numbered, and comments within each leter are numbered consecu�vely a�er the hyphen. For example, Leter A1 represents the first local agency leter, and Comment A1-1 represents the first enumerated comment within that leter.

2.2 LIST OF AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR Table 2.A provides a list of the State agencies, local agencies, and organiza�ons and interested par�es that commented on the Recirculated Dra� EIR prior to the close of the public comment period. The comments received have been organized by date received and in a manner that facilitates finding a par�cular comment or set of comments. Each comment leter received is indexed with a number below.

Table 2.A: List of Comments Received
Local Agencies
A1 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Gary Chapman March 20, 2023 A2 Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission, staff April 10, 2023 A3 Fresno Irriga�on District, Laurence Kimura May 17, 2023 A4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollu�on Control District, Mark Montelongo May 18, 2023 A5 City of Fresno Department of Public U�li�es, Dejan Pavic December 14, 2022, and March 29, 2023
Organiza�ons and Interested Par�es
B1 Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, Gary Ho May 15, 2023
B2 Advocates for the Environment, Dean Wallraf May 17, 2023 B3 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Kevin Carmichael May 19, 2023 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\2.0 List of Commenters.docx (09/01/23) -2 This page inten�onally le� blank
3-1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23)

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Written responses to each comment letter received on the Recirculated Draft EIR are provided in this chapter. All letters received during the public review period on the Recirculated Draft EIR are provided in their entirety. Each letter is immediately followed by responses keyed to the specific comments.

The letters are grouped by the affiliation of the commenting entity as follows: local agencies (A) and organizations and interested parties (B).

Please note that to the extent text within individual letters has not been numbered, it indicates that the text does not raise substantive environmental issues or relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Recirculated Draft EIR; therefore, no comment is enumerated, nor is a response required per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132. In addition, when general support or opposition is given for the project, that comment is noted but no further analysis is provided in the response, as the commenter is not questioning the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Recirculated Draft EIR. However, comments related to the merits of the proposed project will be considered by decision-makers taking action on the project.

Where comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR concern issues requiring technical expertise, the responses to comments, like the analysis in the Recirculated Draft EIR, rely on the knowledge and professional analysis of qualified experts.

Where revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR text are called for, the page is set forth followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with double underlined text, and deleted text is shown in strikeout. Text revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR are summarized in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Capturing Stormwater since 1956
k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\deir 2740 w nielsen(dpa 21-02699)(as-zz)(gc)availability.docx 5469 E. Olive Avenue • Fresno, CA 93727 • (559) 456-3292 • FAX (559) 456-3194 www.fresnofloodcontrol.org
File 170.251
210.412 “2021-02699”
310. “AS”, “ZZ”
550.30
March 20, 2023
Mr. Steven Martinez, Planner
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Mr. Martinez,
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Comments for Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project
Drainage Areas “AS” and “ZZ”
The District has reviewed the subject Notice of Availability (NOA) and finds that the District comments provided in the Notice of Requirements for DPA 2021-02699 dated November 17, 2021 are still applicable to this NOA. A copy of the Notice of Requirements for DPA 2021- 02699 has been attached for your reference.

In addition, the District has the following comment:
• In Section 4.11 Utilities and Service Systems, Section 4.11.1.5 states that the project site is in FMFCD Drainage Area “AS”. The project site is actually in two FMFCD Drainage Areas “AS” and “ZZ”. The District requests that the NOA be revised to state the FMFCD Drainage Areas correctly.

The District will need to review and approve the final improvement plans for all development (i.e. grading, street improvement and storm drain) within the proposed project to insure consistency with the approved Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Comment
LeƩ er
A1
A1-1
A1-3
A1-2
Mr. Steven Martinez, Planner
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Comments for Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project
Drainage Areas “AS” and “ZZ”
March 20, 2023

Page 2 ends

k:\letters\environmental impact report letters\deir 2740 w nielsen(dpa 21-02699)(as-zz)(gc)availability.docx The drainage fee included on the attached Notice of Requirements was calculated in November of 2021. The District’s drainage fee schedule was revised on March 8, 2023 and due to this revision, the current drainage fee for the proposed site is $700,335.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep our office informed on the development of this project. If you should have any questions or comments, please contact the District at (559) 456-3292.

Sincerely,
Gary Chapman
Engineering Technician III
GC/lrl/jt
Attachment
Comment
LeƩ er
A1
Cont.

A1-4
A1-5
PROJECT NO:

APN:

ADDRESS:

SENT:
2021-02699
2740 W. NIELSEN AVE.
458-020-72, 458-020-71 November 17, 2021

PUBLIC AGENCY

STEVEN MARTINEZ

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING

CITY OF FRESNO
2600 FRESNO STREET, THIRD FLOOR
FRESNO, CA 93721

DEVELOPER

DANIEL ZOLDAK, LARS ANDERSEN &

ASSOCIATES
4694 W. JACQUELYN AVE.

FRESNO, CA 93722
Drainage Area(s) Preliminary Fee(s)
AS $360,882.00
ZZ $191,951.00
Development Review
Service Charge(s) Fee(s)
NOR Review $1,675.00 To be paid prior to release of District comments to Public Agency and Developer.

Grading Plan Review $8,519.00 Amount to be submitted with first grading plan submittal.

Total Drainage Fee: $552,833.00 Total Service Charge: $10,194.00 The proposed development will generate storm runoff which produces potentially significant environmental impacts and which must be properly discharged and mitigated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The District in cooperation with the City and County has developed and adopted the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Compliance with and implementation of this Master Plan by this development project will satisfy the drainage related CEQA/NEPA impact of the project mitigation requirements.

Pursuant to the District’s Development Review Fee Policy, the subject project shall pay review fees for issuance of this Notice of Requirements (NOR) and any plan submittals requiring the District’s reviews. The NOR fee shall be paid to the District by Developer before the Notice of Requirement will be submitted to the City. The Grading Plan fee shall be paid upon first submittal. The Storm Drain Plan fee shall be paid prior to return/pick up of first submittal.

The proposed development shall pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit at the rates in effect at the time of such issuance. The fee indicated above is valid through 2/28/22 based on the site plan submitted to the District on 10/28/21 Contact FMFCD for a revised fee in cases where changes are made in the proposed site plan which materially alter the proposed impervious area.

Considerations which may affect the fee obligation(s) or the timing or form of fee payment:
a.) Fees related to undeveloped or phased portions of the project may be deferrable. b.)
Fees may be calculated based on the actual percentage of runoff if different than that typical for the zone district under which the development is being undertaken and if permanent provisions are made to assure that the site remains in that configuration.
c.) Master Plan storm drainage facilities may be constructed, or required to be constructed in lieu of paying fees. d.) The actual cost incurred in constructing Master Plan drainage system facilities is credited against the drainage fee obligation.
e.) When the actual costs incurred in constructing Master Plan facilities exceeds the drainage fee obligation, reimbursement will be made for the excess costs from future fees collected by the District from other development. f.)
Any request for a drainage fee refund requires the entitlement cancellation and a written request addressed to the General Manager of the District within 60 days from payment of the fee. A non refundable $300 Administration fee or 5% of the refund whichever is less will be retained without fee credit. 5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194

FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS
File No. 210.412

Page 1 of 4 ends

Comment
LeƩ er
A1
AƩ ach.

Approval of this development shall be conditioned upon compliance with these District Requirements.

1. a. Drainage from the site shall
X b. Grading and drainage patterns shall be as identified on Exhibit No. 1 c. The grading and drainage patterns shown on the site plan conform to the adopted Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.

2. The proposed development shall construct and/or dedicate Storm Drainage and Private On-Site facilities located within the development or necessitated by any off-site improvements required by the approving agency:

X Developer shall construct facilities as shown on Exhibit No. 1 as PRIVATE ON-SITE SYSTEM TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY DEVELOPER.

None required.

3. The following final improvement plans and information shall be submitted to the District for review prior to final development approval:

X Grading Plan
Street Plan
Storm Drain Plan
Water & Sewer Plan
Final Map
Drainage Report (to be submitted with tentative map)
Other
None Required

4. Availability of drainage facilities:
a. Permanent drainage service is available provided the developer can verify to the satisfaction of the City that runoff can be safely conveyed to the Master Plan inlet(s). b. The construction of facilities required by Paragraph No. 2 hereof will provide permanent drainage service. c. Permanent drainage service will not be available. The District recommends temporary facilities until permanent service is available.

X d. See Exhibit No. 2.

5. The proposed development:

Appears to be located within a 100 year flood prone area as designated on the latest Flood Insurance Rate Maps available to the District, necessitating appropriate floodplain management action. (See attached Floodplain Policy.)
X Does not appear to be located within a flood prone area.

6. The subject site contains a portion of a canal or pipeline that is used to manage recharge, storm water, and/or flood flows. The existing capacity must be preserved as part of site development. Additionally, site development may not interfere with the ability to operate and maintain the canal or pipeline. 5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194

FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS

Page 2 of 4 ends

Comment
LeƩ er
A1
AƩ ach.

7. The Federal Clean Water Act and the State General Permits for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Industrial Activities (State General Permits) require developers of construction projects disturbing one or more acres, and discharges associated with industrial activity not otherwise exempt from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, to implement controls to reduce pollutants, prohibit the discharge of waters other than storm water to the municipal storm drain system, and meet water quality standards. These requirements apply both to pollutants generated during construction, and to those which may be generated by operations at the development after construction.
a. State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, effective July 1, 2010, as amended. A State General Construction Permit is required for all clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground that result in soil disturbance of at least one acre (or less than one acre) if part of a larger common plan of development or sale). Permittees are required to: submit a Notice of Intent and Permit Registration Documents to be covered and must pay a permit fee to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan, eliminate non-storm water discharges, conduct routine site inspections, train employees in permit compliance, and complete an annual certification of compliance.
b. State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, April, 2014 (available at the District Office). A State General Industrial Permit is required for specific types of industries described in the NPDES regulations or by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. The following categories of industries are generally required to secure an industrial permit: manufacturing; trucking; recycling; and waste and hazardous waste management. Specific exemptions exist for manufacturing activities which occur entirely indoors. Permittees are required to: submit a Notice of Intent to be covered and must pay a permit fee to the State Water Resources Control Board, develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan, eliminate non-storm water discharges, conduct routine site inspections, train employees in permit compliance, sample storm water runoff and test it for pollutant indicators, and annually submit a report to the State Board. c. The proposed development is encouraged to select and implement storm water quality controls recommended in the Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Construction and Post-Construction Guidelines (available at the District Office) to meet the requirements of the State General Permits, eliminate the potential for non-storm water to enter the municipal storm drain system, and where possible minimize contact with materials which may contaminate storm water runoff.

8. A requirement of the District may be appealed by filing a written notice of appeal with the Secretary of the District within ten days of the date of this Notice of Requirements.

9. The District reserves the right to modify, reduce or add to these requirements, or revise fees, as necessary to accommodate changes made in the proposed development by the developer or requirements made by other agencies.

10. X See Exhibit No. 2 for additional comments, recommendations and requirements.

Brent Sunamoto Gary W. Chapman
District Engineer, RCE Engineering Tech III
Digitally signed by Brent Sunamoto Date: 11/17/2021 1:58:18 PM Digitally signed by Gary W. Chapman Date: 11/16/2021 4:56:30 PM 5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194

FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS

Page 3 of 4 ends

Comment
LeƩ er
A1
AƩ ach.

CC:

DI NIELSEN MARKS LLC
4790 N. CORNELIA
FRESNO, CA 93722

JAKE KURTH, SCANNELL PROPERTIES
294 GROVE LANE EAST, SUITE 140
WAYZATA, MN 55391
5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194

FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS

Page 4 of 4 ends

Comment
LeƩ er
A1
AƩ ach.
"
ð
"
ð
"
ð
"
ð
^+
"
ð
FR DPA
2021-02699
24 §
!
''AS'' ''ZZ''
''UU3''
18 "
ð
"
ð
Houghton No. 78
Cole - S. Br. No. 40
Teilman No. 79

NIELSEN AVE

MARKS AVE

HUGHES AVE

RAY JOHNSON DR
42 36
24 30
18 24
36 36
24 30
18 FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
EXHIBIT NO. 1
FR DPA 2021-02699
Prepared by: keithr
Date: 11/16/2021
Path: K:\Autocad\DWGS\0EXHIBIT\CITYDPA\2021-02699.mxd
O
1 " = 400 '
DRAINAGE AREAS "AS" & "ZZ"
LEGEND
NOTE: THIS MAP IS SCHEMATIC.

DISTANCES, AMOUNT OF CREDITABLE

FACILITIES, AND LOCATION OF INLET
BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Existing Master Plan Facilities
Inlet Boundary
Drainage Area Boundary
Direction Of Drainage
^+ Existing Temporary Inlet
Existing FID Facilities
Existing Private Facilities ð
§
Private On-Site System To Be Constructed By Developer
Comment
LeƩ er
A1
AƩ ach.

DPA2021-02699 is located in two drainage areas, Drainage Area “AS” and Drainage Area “ZZ”.

Development of the site shall maintain the Master Plan area to each drainage area as shown on Exhibit No. 1.

The minimum finish floor elevation of the development shall be one foot higher than the controlling flood safety overflow point. The controlling flood safety overflow point for the portion of the project located in Drainage Area "ZZ" is the bridge on Hughes Avenue over the Houghton Canal. The controlling flood safety overflow point for the portion of the project located in Drainage Area "AS" is the breakover to the Houghton Canal on the west side of Marks Avenue between Nielsen Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad. The elevations at the mentioned breakover locations will need to be provided on the grading plans for review and verification of proposed building finish floor elevations for the development.

The construction of the "Private On-Site System" shown on Exhibit No. 1 will provide permanent drainage service to the portion of the project located in Drainage Area "ZZ". Permanent drainage service will not be available for the portion of the project located in Drainage Area "AS". The District recommends temporary facilities until permanent service is available.

In an effort to improve storm runoff quality, outdoor storage areas shall be constructed and maintained such that material that may generate contaminants will be prevented from contact with rainfall and runoff and thereby prevent the conveyance of contaminants in runoff into the storm drain system.

The District encourages, but does not require that roof drains from non-residential development be constructed such that they are directed onto and through a landscaped grassy swale area to filter out pollutants from roof runoff.

Runoff from areas where industrial activities, product, or merchandise come into contact with and may contaminate storm water must be treated before discharging it off-site or into a storm drain.

Roofs covering such areas are recommended. Cleaning of such areas by sweeping instead of washing is to be required unless such wash water can be directed to the sanitary sewer system.

Storm drains receiving untreated runoff from such areas shall not be connected to the District’s system. Loading docks, depressed areas, and areas servicing or fueling vehicles are specifically subject to these requirements. The District’s policy governing said industrial site NPDES program requirements is available on the District’s website at: www.fresnofloodcontrol.org or contact the District’s Environmental Department for further information regarding these policies related to industrial site requirements.

Development No. FR DPA No. 2021-02699

OTHER REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT NO. 2
Comment
LeƩ er
A1
AƩ ach.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -10 LETTER A1
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Gary Chapman, Engineering Technician III
March 20, 2023
Response A1-1: This introductory comment is noted. Comments provided in this letter are further responded to below.

Response A1-2: This comment states Section 4.11.1.5 states that the project site is in Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Drainage Area “AS.” The project site is actually in two FMFCD Drainage Areas, “AS” and “ZZ.” The District requests that the NOA be revised to state the FMFCD Drainage Areas correctly. Therefore, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter

4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 4.11-5 has been revised as follows:

The FMFCD drainage area for stormwater from the project site is bBasin Drainage Areas “AS” and “ZZ”, located southwest from the site.

This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Recirculated Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. As such, additional analysis is not required.

Response A1-3: This comment states that the FMFCD will need to review and approve the final improvement plans for all development (i.e., grading, street improvement and storm drain) within the proposed project to ensure consistency with the approved Storm Drainage Master Plan. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the Recirculated Draft EIR.

Response A1-4: This comment states that the FMFCD’s drainage fee schedule was revised on March 8, 2023, and the current drainage fee for the proposed site is $700,335. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Recirculated Draft EIR; therefore, no further analysis is required.

Response A1-5: This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and does not question the adequacy of the analysis included in the Recirculated Draft EIR.

No further response is required.

April 10, 2023
Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission sƚĂīƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨScannell Properties Office/Warehouse Project (Development Permit Application No. P21-02699 and Tentative Parcel Map No. P21-05930)
ZĞĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚĞĚƌĂŌ
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚZĞƉŽƌƚ;
/ZͿ ƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͗ϮϳϰϬtĞƐƚEŝĞůƐĞŶǀĞŶƵĞ͕&ƌĞƐŶŽ
• DŽĞƐŶŽƚƐŝƚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŝƌƉŽƌƚŶŽŝƐĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌƐ͘
• dŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇ ŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƐŝƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽŶĞϰ͕KƵƚĞƌƉƉƌŽĂĐŚͬĞƉĂƌƚƵƌĞŽŶĞ͕ ĂŶĚĂ ƉŽƌƟŽŶ;ƉƵƌƉůĞͿŝŶ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽŶĞϲ͕dƌĂĸĐWĂƩĞƌŶŽŶĞŽĨ&ƌĞƐŶŽŚĂŶĚůĞƌ ǆĞĐƵƟǀĞŝƌƉŽƌƚ͘/ƚ
aůƐŽƐŝƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞsƵůŶĞƌĂďůĞKĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐZĞǀŝĞǁƌĞĂ;sKZͿ͘sƵůŶĞƌĂďůĞŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͕ƚŚĞĞůĚĞƌůǇ͕ĂŶĚƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƟĞƐ͘
dŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚϰ͘ϳ͘ϱŽŶƉĂŐĞϮ-ϭϰŽĨƚŚĞ
/ZƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĂŝƌƉŽƌƚ ůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉůĂŶŽƌ͕ǁŚĞƌĞƐƵĐŚĂƉůĂŶŚĂƐŶŽƚďĞĞŶĂĚŽƉƚĞĚ͕ǁŝƚŚŝŶƚǁŽŵŝůĞƐŽĨĂƉƵďůŝĐĂŝƌƉŽƌƚŽƌƉƵďůŝĐ ƵƐĞĂŝƌƉŽƌƚĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĂƐĂĨĞƚǇŚĂǌĂƌĚĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞƌĞƐŝĚŝŶŐŽƌǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂ͘ ,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕>hƐƚĂīǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽĚƌĂǁĂƩĞŶƟŽŶ ƚŽ ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƐƉĞĐƚƐ͗ ϭ͘ tŝƚŚϯϴϱĐĂƌƉŽŽůƐƉĂĐĞƐĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͕ĂŶĚϭϭƐƉĂĐĞƐĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚĨŽƌĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͕ŝƚŝƐůŝŬĞůǇƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůŝŶŚĂďŝƚĂŶƚƐǁŽƵůĚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵŶŽŶ-ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů ŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨďŽƚŚǌŽŶĞƐϰĂŶĚϲ͘
Ϯ͘ ^ĞĐƟŽŶϰ͘ϭ͘ϭ͘ϲ͕>ŝŐŚƚ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐĂŶĚ'ůĂƌĞŽŶƉĂŐĞϰ͘ϭ-ϯĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞƐĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ ƵƌďĂŶŝǌĞĚ͕ĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ͕ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂƌĞĂƐ͘DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ ^-1-ϱ ƐŚŽƵůĚĂůƐŽƚĂŬĞŝŶƚŽ
ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĂƐƐƵƌŝŶŐŐůĂƌĞ ,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůHĂǌĂƌĚƐƚŽFůŝŐŚƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂů ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ƚĂůůŽďũĞĐƚƐͿ͕ǀŝƐƵĂů͕ĂŶĚĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĨŽƌŵƐŽĨŝŶƚĞƌĨĞƌĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚǇŽĨĂŝƌĐƌĂŌ ŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƐƚĞƉƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƚĂŬĞŶ ƚŽŚŽŽĚĂůůƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨŽƵƚĚŽŽƌůŝŐŚƟŶŐ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ŝƌƉŽƌƚ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽŶĞƐϰĂŶĚϲ͘
ϯ͘ dŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚϰ͘ϵ͘ϯŽŶƉĂŐĞϮ-ϭϲŽĨƚŚĞ
/ZĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĨŽƌĂƉƌŽũĞĐƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ǀŝĐŝŶŝƚǇŽĨĂƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĂŝƌƐƚƌŝƉŽƌĂŶĂŝƌƉŽƌƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉůĂŶŽƌ͕ǁŚĞƌĞƐƵĐŚĂƉůĂŶŚĂƐ ŶŽƚďĞĞŶ ĂĚŽƉƚĞĚ͕ǁŝƚŚŝŶƚǁŽŵŝůĞƐŽĨĂƉƵďůŝĐĂŝƌƉŽƌƚŽƌƉƵďůŝĐƵƐĞĂŝƌƉŽƌƚ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚ Comment
LeƩ er
A2
A2-1
A2-3
A2-2
A2-5
A2-4
ŶŽƚĞǆƉŽƐĞƉĞŽƉůĞƌĞƐŝĚŝŶŐŽƌǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂƚŽĞǆĐĞƐƐŝǀĞŶŽŝƐĞůĞǀĞůƐ͘DŽƌĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚůǇ͕ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƐŝƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĂŝƌƉŽƌƚŶŽŝƐĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌƐŽĨ&ƌĞƐŶŽ-ŚĂŶĚůĞƌ ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶŝƌƉŽƌƚĂŶĚŝƐƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞŶŽƚĂŶŽŝƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĨŽƌƚŚĞ>h͘ ϰ͘ &ŝŐƵƌĞϯ-ϱ, ϮϳϰϬtĞƐƚEŝĞůƐŽŶKĸĐĞͬtĂƌĞŚŽƵƐĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞϭϬ-ϮϬй ŽƉĞŶůĂŶĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞĂŝƌƉŽƌƚƐĂĨĞƚǇǌŽŶĞƐ͘

Comment
LeƩ er
A2
Cont.

A2-6
A2-5
cont.

Fresno County ALUCP ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽŶĞϰ͕KƵƚĞƌƉƉƌŽĂĐŚͬĞƉĂƌƚƵƌĞŽŶĞ ^ĂĨĞƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ:
• ϭĚ͘Ƶ͘ƉĞƌϮĂĐƌĞƐ
• ϭϱϬƉĞƌƐŽŶƐƉĞƌĂĐƌĞ- ƵƐĂŐĞŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚǇĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶƐƐŚĂůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞ ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐ͕ĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐͬǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ͿǁŚŽŵĂǇďĞŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐŽƌƐŝƚĞĂƚĂƐŝŶŐůĞƉŽŝŶƚŝŶ ƟŵĞ͕ǁŚĞƚŚĞƌŝŶĚŽŽƌƐŽƌŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ͘
• ϮϬйKƉĞŶ>ĂŶĚ͘KƉĞŶůĂŶĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚǁŝƚŚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽĂŶĞŶƟƌĞ ǌŽŶĞ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉůĂŶŽƌĂƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶďƵt ŵĂǇĂůƐŽĂƉƉůǇƚŽůĂƌŐĞ;ϭϬĂĐƌĞƐŽƌŵŽƌĞͿĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘ WƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚƵƐĞƐ͗
• ŚŝůĚƌĞŶ’ƐƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ĚĂǇĐĂƌĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ
• ůŝďƌĂƌŝĞƐ͕ŚŽƐƉŝƚĂůƐ͕ŶƵƌƐŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐ
• ŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐƵƐĞƐ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ĂďŽǀĞŐƌŽƵŶĚďƵůŬĨƵĞůƐƚŽƌĂŐĞŽƌŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐͿ • ůĚŐƐ͘ǁŝƚŚхϯĂďŽǀĞŐƌŽƵŶĚŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞŇŽŽƌƐ
• ,ŝŐŚůǇŶŽŝƐĞ-ƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌŶŽŶ-ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞƐ
• ,ĂǌĂƌĚƐƚŽŇŝŐŚƚ- ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂů;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ƚĂůůŽďũĞĐƚƐͿ͕ǀŝƐƵĂů͕ĂŶĚ ĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĨŽƌŵƐŽĨŝŶƚĞƌĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚǇŽĨĂŝƌĐƌĂŌŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ
KƚŚĞƌĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ͗
• ŝƌƉŽƌƚĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞŶŽƟĐĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
• ŝƌƐƉĂĐĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌŽďũĞĐƚƐхϳϬĨĞĞƚƚĂůů͘dŚŝƐŚĞŝŐŚƚĐƌŝƚĞƌŝŽŶŝƐĨŽƌŐĞŶĞƌĂůŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞ͘ ^ŚŽƌƚĞƌŽďũĞĐƚƐŶŽƌŵĂůůǇǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĂŝƌƐƉĂĐĞŽďƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐƵŶůĞƐƐƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚĂƚĂŐƌŽƵŶĚĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶ ǁĞůůĂďŽǀĞ ƚŚĂƚŽĨƚŚĞĂŝƌƉŽƌƚ;^ĞĞĞǆĂŵƉůĞƐϭ͕Ϯ͕ΘϯŽŶ ǆŚŝďŝƚϯͿ͘dĂůůĞƌŽďũĞĐƚƐŵĂǇďĞ
ĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞŝĨĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚŶŽƚƚŽďĞŽďƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐ͘ĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚ ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚĞϭϰ&ZWĂƌƚϳϳƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐŵƵƐƚĮůĞ&ŽƌŵϳϰϲϬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ&ƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞŝĨϳϰϲϬƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕ĐŽŶƐƵůƚ&’ƐEŽƟĐĞƌŝƚĞƌŝĂdŽŽů͗
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬŽĞĂĂĂ͘ĨĂĂ͘ŐŽǀͬŽĞĂĂĂͬĞǆƚĞƌŶĂůͬŐŝƐdŽŽůƐͬŐŝƐĐƟŽŶ͘ũƐƉ͍ĂĐƟŽŶсƐŚŽǁEŽEŽƟĐĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚdŽŽů &Žƌŵ
Fresno County ALUCP ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽŶĞϲ͕dƌĂĸĐWĂƩĞƌŶŽŶĞ ^ĂĨĞƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ:
• EŽ>ŝŵŝƚŽŶĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐƉĞƌĂĐƌĞƐ
• DĂǆŝŵƵŵEŽŶ-ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͗ϯϬϬƉĞƌƐŽŶƐƉĞƌĂĐƌĞ- ƵƐĂŐĞŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚǇĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶƐƐŚĂůů ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐ͕ĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐͬǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ͿǁŚŽŵĂǇďĞ ŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐŽƌƐŝƚĞĂƚĂƐŝŶŐůĞƉŽŝŶƚŝŶƟŵĞ͕ǁŚĞƚŚĞƌŝŶĚŽŽƌƐŽƌŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ • ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚKƉĞŶ>ĂŶĚ͘ ϭϬйKƉĞŶůĂŶĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚǁŝƚŚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽĂŶ ĞŶƟƌĞǌŽŶĞ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉůĂŶŽƌĂƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶ͕ ďƵƚŵĂǇĂůƐŽĂƉƉůǇƚŽůĂƌŐĞ;ϭϬĂĐƌĞƐŽƌŵŽƌĞͿĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘ WƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚhƐĞƐ͗
• ,ĂǌĂƌĚƐƚŽŇŝŐŚƚ - ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂů;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ƚĂůůŽďũĞĐƚƐͿ͕ǀŝƐƵĂů͕ĂŶĚĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĨŽƌŵƐŽĨŝŶƚĞƌĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚǇŽĨĂŝƌĐƌĂŌŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ
• KƵƚĚŽŽƌƐƚĂĚŝƵŵƐĂŶĚƐŝŵŝůĂƌ ƵƐĞƐǁŝƚŚǀĞƌǇŚŝŐŚŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚǇƵƐĞƐ Comment
LeƩ er
A2
AƩ ach.

KƚŚĞƌĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ͗
• ŝƌƉŽƌƚĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞŶŽƟĐĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
• ŝƌƐƉĂĐĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌŽďũĞĐƚƐхϭϬϬĨĞĞƚƚĂůů͘dŚŝƐŚĞŝŐŚƚĐƌŝƚĞƌŝŽŶŝƐĨŽƌŐĞŶĞƌĂůŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞ͘ ^ŚŽƌƚĞƌŽďũĞĐƚƐŶŽƌŵĂůůǇǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĂŝƌƐƉĂĐĞŽďƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐƵŶůĞƐƐƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚĂƚĂŐƌŽƵŶĚĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶ ǁĞůůĂďŽǀĞƚŚĂƚŽĨƚŚĞĂŝƌƉŽƌƚ;^ĞĞĞǆĂŵƉůĞƐϭ͕Ϯ͕ΘϯŽŶ ǆŚŝďŝƚϯͿ͘dĂůůĞƌŽďũĞĐƚƐŵĂǇďĞ
ĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞŝĨĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚŶŽƚƚŽďĞŽďƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐ͘ĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚ ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚĞϭϰ&ZWĂƌƚϳϳƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐŵƵƐƚĮůĞ&ŽƌŵϳϰϲϬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ&ƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞŝĨϳϰϲϬƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕ĐŽŶƐƵůƚ&’ƐEŽƟĐĞƌŝƚĞƌŝĂdŽŽů͗
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬŽĞĂĂĂ͘ĨĂĂ͘ŐŽǀͬŽĞĂĂĂͬĞǆƚĞƌŶĂůͬŐŝƐdŽŽůƐͬŐŝƐĐƟŽŶ͘ũƐƉ͍ĂĐƟŽŶсƐŚŽǁEŽEŽƟĐĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚdŽŽů &Žƌŵ
• EĞǁƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚŽŶĞǆŝƐƟŶŐƚĞƌƌĂŝŶƚŚĂƚƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚĞƐϭϰ&ZWĂƌƚϳϳƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐ • EĞǁƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĂŝƌƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞϱϬ-ĨŽŽƚƚĞƌƌĂŝŶ ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶďƵīĞƌ
• WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞƐǁŚŽƐĞƉƌŝŵĂƌǇƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŝƐƚŽƐĞƌǀĞǀƵůŶĞƌĂďůĞŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶϯ͕ϬϬϬĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞƌƵŶǁĂǇĂŶĚϱ͕ϬϬϬĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞƌƵŶǁĂǇƐŚĂůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ>hƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘/Ŷ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚƵƐĞƐůŝƐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶdĂďůĞϯŽĨƚŚĞ>hW͕ĂŶǇƵƐĞǁŚŽƐĞƉƌŝŵĂƌǇ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ŝƐƚŽƐĞƌǀĞǀƵůŶĞƌĂďůĞŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚĂďŽǀĞŝƐƐƚƌŽŶŐůǇĚŝƐĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĚ͘ Comment
LeƩ er
A2
AƩ ach.
3-15

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) LETTER A2
Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission
Staff Review
April 10, 2023
Response A2-1: This comment is introductory. Itstates that the project site does not sit within airport noise contours and that the majority of the property sits within Safety Zone 4, Outer Approach/Departure Zone, with a portion in Safety Zone 6, Traffic Pattern Zone of Fresno Chandler Executive Airport. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Recirculated Draft EIR; therefore, no further analysis is required.

Response A2-2: This comment is noted. Staff comments provided in this letter are further responded to below.

Response A2-3: This comment states that with 385 carpool spaces dedicated for standard vehicles, and 11 spaces dedicated for accessible standard vehicles, it is likely that the parcel inhabitants would exceed the maximum non-residential intensity of both zones 4 and 6.

As discussed in Section 3.3.1, Access, Circulation, and Parking of the Recirculated Draft EIR, a total of 594 on-site parking spaces would be provided for vehicles and trucks. Of the 594 parking spaces, 385 spaces would be dedicated for standard vehicles, 11 spaces would be dedicated for accessible standard vehicles, and 10 spaces would be dedicated for accessible vans. The proposed project would not provide 385 carpool spaces.

In addition, based on the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) safety requirements, in zone 4, the maximum non-residential intensity is 150 persons per acre and in zone 6, the maximum non-residential intensity is 300 persons per acre. As identified in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project site is 48.03 acres.

Therefore, the maximum non-residential intensity would be between 7,204 and 14,409 persons. As discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. At this time, the specific number of employees is not yet known. However, the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft EIR) assumed that the proposed project would have approximately 4,920 employees, which was calculated based on a buildingsquare-footage-to-employee conversion factor in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. As such, it is not expected that the proposed project would generate 7,204 or more employees. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the maximum non-residential intensity of zones 4 and 6.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

4.1-3 addresses accommodations for the urbanized, adjacent, and residential areas. This comment also states that Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES5 should also take into account requirements for ensuring minimization of glare. In addition, this comment states that potential hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Therefore, steps should be taken to hood all sources of outdoor lighting within Airport Safety Zones 4 and 6.

As discussed on pages 4.1-7 and 4.1-8 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase of nighttime lighting levels over current levels in the project area, associated with parking lot lights and security-related lighting in the project site.

Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations [CCR]) standards would minimize the proposed project’s light and glare impacts. Additionally, all exterior lighting at the project site would be pointed downward toward the project site to minimize lighting levels at nearby uses. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Article 25, Performance Standards, of the Zoning Ordinance, which includes standards related to lighting and glare. Further, Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-3 would ensure that the proposed project’s lighting systems do not create a substantial new source of light by requiring shielding mechanisms to direct light away from nearby uses. As a result, any new sources of light resulting from the proposed project would not be substantial in the context of existing lighting sources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4 would ensure that the proposed project’s lighting systems do not create a substantial new source of light by imposing a cap on the intensity of lighting systems based on the average intensity of the surrounding streets.

Additionally, while the project does not propose use of highly reflective glass elements or building materials, Mitigation Measure AES-5 requires materials used on building façades to be non-reflective. Therefore, any new source of glare would not be substantial.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-5, lighting systems would include shields to direct light downward and materials uses on building facades shall be non-reflective. As such, with the implementation of these measures, all outdoor lighting would be shielded consistent with requirements for airplane safety and minimization of hazards to flight.

Response A2-5: This comment states that Threshold 4.9.3 of the Recirculated Draft EIR states that for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. More importantly, this project does not sit within the airport noise contours of 3-17

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport and is therefore not a noise concern for the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). This comment is noted.

Response A2-6: This comment states that Figure 3-5, Site Plan, of the Recirculated Draft EIR does not address the 10–20 percent open land requirement of the airport safety zones. As discussed in Section 3.3.2, Open Space and Landscaping, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, consistent with City requirements, landscaping would be provided throughout the project site. The project would also include a vegetative plan that includes the planting of trees and other landscaping materials throughout the perimeter of the project site that would be consistent with the 10–20 percent open land requirement of the airport safety zones.

Comment
LeƩ er
A3
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
Comment
LeƩ er
A3
AƩ ach.

Comment
LeƩ er
A3
AƩ ach.

Comment
LeƩ er
A3
AƩ ach.
3-49

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) LETTER A3
Fresno Irrigation District
Laurence Kimura, P.E., Chief Engineer
May 17, 2023
Response A3-1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Recirculated Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

Response A3-2: This comment states that the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) previously reviewed and commented on the proposed project. Previous comments state that should the project include any street and/or utility improvements along Nielsen Avenue, Hughes Avenue, Marks Avenue, or in the vicinity, FID would require its review and FID would approve all plans. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Recirculated Draft EIR; therefore, no further analysis is required.

Response A3-3: This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and does not question the adequacy of the analysis included in the Recirculated Draft EIR.

No further response is required.

May 18, 2023
Steven Martinez
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Project: Notice of Availability of Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project District CEQA Reference No: 20230341
Dear Mr. Martinez:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Fresno (City) for the above mentioned project. Per the DEIR, the project consists of four office/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 901,438 square feet and 201 loading dock doors (Project). The Project is located at 2740 West Nielsen Avenue in Fresno, CA.

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

Assembly Bill 617
Assembly Bill 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantage communities. The Project lies near one of the impacted communities in the State selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (2017, Garcia) and has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to increased air pollution within the nearby impacted community. The South Central Fresno CERP was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September of 2019 and identifies a wide range of measures designed to reduce air pollution exposure. Therefore, in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure to the impacted disadvantaged community, the District recommends the City incorporate mitigation measures outlined in the South Central Fresno CERP for the Project. For more information regarding the CERP approved for South Central Fresno, please visit the District’s website at:
http://community.valleyair.org/selected-communities/south-central-fresno Comment
LeƩ er
A4
A4-2
A4-1
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023
Project Emissions
Based on the DEIR, specifically the Technical Appendices Volume I: Appendix C, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) air quality modeling results, includes a 7.3 mile trip length for quantifying Project operational air quality emissions from Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) Truck travel. This value represents the default CalEEMod trip length. This Project consists of warehouse development and is expected to generate increased HHD truck trips that have the ability travel further distances (e.g. trip length) for distribution. As a result, the Project related emissions resulting from the CalEEMod analysis may be underestimated. The trip length included in the DEIR is not consistent with trip length values we have seen for similar warehouse development projects and the DEIR lacks sufficient analysis to justify the use of the default value. The District recommends the DEIR be revised to include a project specific trip length value and associated analysis to justify the value. The DEIR and supporting CalEEMod air quality modeling results should be revised to reflect an appropriate trip length distance that is supported by projectspecific factors.

Recommended Feasible Mitigation for Operational Air Quality Impacts 3a) Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Based on the above, criteria pollutant emissions may result in emissions exceeding the District’s significance thresholds, potentially resulting in a significant impact on air quality. When a project is expected to have a significant impact, the District recommends the DEIR also include a discussion on the feasibility of implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for this Project.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs. The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions.

Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated. Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-3
A4-4
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023

reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.
3b) Industrial/Warehouse Emission Reduction Strategies
The District recommends the City consider the feasibility of incorporating emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts, such as those listed below:
• Locate loading docks a minimum of 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptor unless dock is exclusively used for electric trucks
• Incorporate signage and “pavement markings” to clearly identify on-site circulation patterns to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel • Locate truck entries on streets of a higher commercial classification • Ensure all building roofs are solar-ready
• Ensure all portions of roof tops that are not covered with solar panels are constructed to have light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index of greater than 78
• Ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the development project
• Ensure power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have “plugin” capacity, which will eliminate prolonged idling while loading and unloading goods
• Incorporate bicycle racks and electric bike plug-ins
• Require the use of low volatile organic compounds (VOC) architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
• Designate an area during construction to charge electric powered construction vehicles and equipment, if temporary power is available • Prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction
• Inform the project proponent of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program) offered to reduce air emissions from the Project

Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-5
A4-4
cont.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023
Health Risk Screening/Assessment
Based on the DEIR, specifically the Technical Appendices Appendix D: Health Risk Assessment (HRA), the truck travel particulate matter emission factors for 5-15 MPH and 5-55 MPH for 2-4 axle trucks and 5+ axle trucks are presented. However, the methodology and calculations for developing these emission factors is not shown or referenced. The District recommends the DEIR include the methodology and calculations used for developing the truck travel emissions factors in the HRA.

Also, the HRA did not consider air toxic emissions from potential warehouse equipment (e.g. forklifts, yard trucks, emergency backup generators, etc.) from operational activities. Should the Project include such equipment, the HRA should be revised to evaluate air toxic emissions and health impacts from these equipment types. Additionally, should the Project air quality emissions analysis be revised to reflect an updated trip length, the HRA should be revised for consistency.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for the Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant, especially if the Project related air quality emissions analysis is revised to reflect an updated trip length.

An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

Truck Routing
The Project consists of warehouse development and is expected to generated increased HHD truck trips. As a result, truck routing involves the assessment of which roads HHD trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on nearby sensitive receptors single family residential units located south of the Project.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for the Project, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-8
A4-7
A4-6
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023
destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The District’s CARB-approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g-NOx/bhp-hr by 2023. Additionally, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s Plan relies on a significant and immediate transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies, including the near-zero truck standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx established by CARB.

Per the DEIR, the Project is expected to generate increased HHD truck trips. The District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
• Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhphr NOx) technologies. • Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

The Project is expected to generate increased HHD truck trips, and as such, truck idling will be limited to 5 minutes in accordance with the states inti-idling regulation per the DEIR. However, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-8
cont.

A4-9
A4-10
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023
Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
The Project consists of warehouse development and may have the potential to result in increased use of off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the DEIR include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.

Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
There are single family residential units located south and south east of the Project.

The District suggests the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.

Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-12
A4-11
A4-14
A4-13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023
Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

This Project may involve equipment that is subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receives a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.

Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-14
cont.

A4-15
A4-16
A4-17
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

For this Project, the District has received and approved an AIA application (ISR project #20220195).

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.

In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-17
cont.

A4-18
A4-19
A4-20
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 9 District Reference No: 202300341
May 18, 2023
Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Harout Sagherian by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5860.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
Comment
LeƩ er
A4
Cont.

A4-20
cont.

A4-21
A4-22
3-59

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) LETTER A4
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
May 18, 2023
Response A4-1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Recirculated Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

Response A4-2: This comment encourages the City to incorporate mitigation measures outlined in the South Central Fresno Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERP). As discussed on page 4.2-22 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, South Central Fresno and the City of Shafter are the first Valley communities selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional resources under Assembly Bill (AB) 617. The Valley Air District has established a steering committee for each of these communities comprising community residents, businesses, community advocates, and government representatives to assist in the development and implementation of community air monitoring and emission reduction programs. Fresno’s CERP was adopted by the CARB and is now in the implementation phase.

As discussed on pages 4.2-31 through 4.2-37 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project to evaluate the potential impact on sensitive receptors from construction and operation of the proposed project. The HRA evaluates the potential health risk to people living and working near the proposed project associated with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment. This analysis was performed in a manner consistent with the goals of the CERP to reduce emissions of pollutants that have been shown to have adverse impacts on public health, including fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants (TACs) in impacted disadvantaged communities. As shown in Table 4.2.J of the Recirculated Draft EIR, and based on the results of the construction HRA, construction of the proposed project with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2, which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, would not exceed San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

In addition, as shown in Table 4.2.K, health risk levels from project operation to the nearest sensitive receptors would also be below SJVAPCD thresholds.

Further, as described on pages 4.2-36 and 4.2-37 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -60 (CalEnviroScreen) identifies California communities by census tract that are disproportionately burdened by, and vulnerable to, multiple sources of pollution. Pollution Burden scores for each census tract are derived from the average percentiles of the seven exposure indicators (ozone and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less [PM2.5] concentrations, diesel particulate matter [DPM] emissions, drinking water contaminants, pesticide use, toxic releases from facilities, and traffic density) and the five Environmental Effects indicators (cleanup sites, impaired water bodies, groundwater threats, hazardous waste facilities and generators, and solid waste sites and facilities).

According to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map,1 the project site has a pollution burden percentile of 97. Surrounding areas have pollution burdens ranging from 56 to 100.0. In addition, as identified on pages 4.2-36 and 4.2-37 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, according to the Senate Bill (SB) 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map,2 the project area is designated as an SB 535 disadvantaged community. Based on the CalEnviroScreen results, the project area is already at an elevated risk level. Therefore, although the maximum cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 6.154 in one million, which is less than the SJVAPCD’s project risk criteria of 20 in one million. Any additional risk increase is cumulatively potentially significant.

Therefore, to reduce the cumulative health risk, through implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project applicant shall ensure that the proposed project would provide the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric heavy-duty trucks, which would further reduce TAC emissions. The infrastructure provided shall accommodate a minimum of one future charger per 50,000 square feet. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, cumulative health risk impacts would be less than significant related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during project operation. Therefore, Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to potential health risk impacts, and implementation of these measures is consistent with the goals of the CERP to reduce air exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities and consistent with CERP measures related to Heavy Duty Mobile Sources and Emissions Exposure and Land Use.

Response A4-3: This comment states that the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) air quality modeling includes a 7.3-mile trip length, which could be underestimated for a warehouse project.

As discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be 1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2021. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 (accessed May 2021). 2 OEHHA. 2022. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities using CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results. Website:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1c21c53da8de48f1b946f3402fbae55c/page/SB-535- Disadvantaged-Communities/.pdf (accessed October 2022). 3-61

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified.

As such, at this time, specific truck trip lengths are not yet known. As described further in Response B3-14, truck trips were not included in the VMT analysis, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), which states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Further, as described in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI),1 when quantifying project emissions, the latest approved models by the SJVAPCD should always be used for air quality analysis. As identified in the GAMAQI, the latest approved model available is CalEEMod. Therefore, consistent with SJVAPCD guidance, CalEEMod was used to evaluate project emissions. As described in the CalEEMod User Guide, CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted methodologies for estimating emissions combined with default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available.2, 3 Sources of these methodologies and default data include but are not limited to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP-42 emission factors, CARB vehicle emission models, and studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). In addition, some local air districts provided customized values for their default data and existing regulation methodologies for use for projects located in their jurisdictions. When no customized information was provided, and no regional differences were defined for local air districts, statewide default values were utilized.

A majority of CalEEMod’s default data associated with locations and land use are derived from surveys of existing land uses. For any project that substantially deviates from the types and features included in the surveys, site-specific data that are supported by substantial evidence should be used, if available. The model provides several opportunities for the user to change the defaults in the model; however, users are required to provide justification for all changes made to the default settings (e.g., reference more appropriate data sources), and no such data are available. The CalEEMod User Guide states that trip lengths are based on location and urbanization selected on the project characteristics screen and were supplied by the air districts or use a default average by the State, which is reported in Appendix D, Table 4.2 of 1 San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). March 19. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf (accessed May 2023). 2
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide. May. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (accessed May 2023). 3 Detailed information regarding CalEEMod default assumptions can be found in the User’s Guide:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -62 the CalEEMod User Guide. Appendix D, Table 4.2, of the CalEEMod User Guide shows that projects in urban areas within the SJVAPCD, such as the proposed project, would have a 7.3-mile trip length for commercial-nonwork trips and a 9.5-mile trip length for commercial-work trips. The trip lengths provided in Appendix D, Table 4.2, of the CalEEMod User Guide are based on trip length data provided by the SJVAPCD. Based on CalEEMod defaults and consistent with Appendix D, Table 4.2, of the CalEEMod User Guide, the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed project assumes a 7.3-mile trip length for commercial-nonwork trips (41 percent of the project trips) and a 9.5-mile trip length for commercial-work trips (59 percent of the project trips). As such, since a project-specific truck trip length is not yet known, the use of CalEEMod defaults is appropriate for projects in the SJVAPCD and the city of Fresno and is consistent with standard practice.

Response A4-4: This comment recommends that an assessment be performed of the feasibility of implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA). The VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects.

The SJVAPCD is the administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. As demonstrated on pages 4.2-26 through 4.2-31 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance criteria. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1, which includes SJVAPCD Regulation VIII measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions. However, since the proposed project would not generate emissions that would exceed SJVACPD thresholds, a VERA would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level.

Response A4-5: This comment recommends the inclusion of several industrial/warehouse emission reduction strategies in the Recirculated Draft EIR. As noted on page

4.2-30 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, operational impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance criteria and would result in a less than significant impact; the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the Recirculated Draft EIR properly determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to operational air quality. As such, identification and analysis of mitigation measures or the emission reduction strategies suggested in the comment would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level.

Response A4-6: This comment requests that the Recirculated Draft EIR include the methodology and calculations for developing truck travel emission factors in the HRA. This comment further states that the HRA did not consider air toxic 3-63

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) emissions from potential warehouse equipment (e.g., forklifts, yard trucks, emergency backup generators) from operational activities.

The commenter is referred to pages 4.2-34 and 4.2-35 and Appendix D of the Recirculated Draft EIR for a discussion of the methodology and calculations for truck travel emission factors used in the HRA. As described in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the idling emissions of trucks operating on the project site were modeled in accordance with standard protocols as point sources within the area sources representing the planned loading docks. EMFAC2021 was used to determine the emissions factors of idling and operating diesel trucks to determine the total emissions of DPM. While it is expected that the truck emissions rate will continue to decrease over time, an HRA only allows for a single emission rate to represent the entire 70-year exposure period.

Emissions factors for the year 2022 were used as a conservative estimate of emissions, although the project is not expected to be fully operational until 2025. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect that the methodology and calculations for developing truck travel emission factors in the HRA were not included in the Revised Draft EIR.

As discussed on pages 4.2-34 and 4.2-35 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would generate a total of 1,920 daily trips, with up to 342 truck trips per day. The trucks would access the site by North Hughes Avenue, West Nielsen Avenue, and North Marks Avenue. As identified in the Project Description, Building 1 would provide 122 loading dock doors; Building 2 would provide 46 loading dock doors; Building 3 would provide 18 loading dock doors; and Building 4 would provide 15 loading dock doors. As such, the proposed project would have a total of 201 loading dock doors. As the project would contain multiple loading docks, off-site queuing of trucks is not anticipated. While the TAC emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles have a small health effect compared to DPM, the HRA includes both gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle emissions to represent reasonable worst-case conditions. For the diesel exhaust emissions, it is sufficient to only consider the DPM (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and PM2.5) portions of the exhaust; all the TACs for the gasoline exhaust emissions are contained in the reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions. Using speciation data from CARB, the emission rates of the TAC components are derived from the total ROG emissions.

Further, as discussed on pages 4.2-34 and 4.2-35, project trucks would operate in two modes: stationary idling and moving on and off the site. The emissions from trucks while idling result in a much higher concentration of TACs at nearby sensitive receptors compared to the emissions from moving trucks. This is due to the dispersion of emissions that occurs with distance and with travel of the vehicle. For this HRA, the truck travel emissions were modeled as a series of volume sources along the on-site driveway, along 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -64 North Marks Avenue going north and south of the site driveway, and along West Nielsen Avenue going east and west of the site driveway, consistent with standard methodology. LSA assumed vehicles traveling on site would maneuver slowly, averaging approximately 5-15 miles per hour (mph), and that vehicles traveling on roadways would average 5–55 mph.

As discussed on page 3-13 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. The use of equipment (e.g., forklifts, yard trucks, and emergency backup generators) would be dependent on specific tenants and is not being proposed as part of the project.

However, to be conservative, a supplemental analysis to evaluate potential emissions associated with on-site equipment (forklifts), emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps was conducted using CalEEMod. This supplemental analysis conservatively assumed that 40 diesel-powered forklifts would be used for 8 hours per day and that four diesel-powered 500-horsepower (HP) emergency backup generators and four diesel-powered 500 HP diesel fire pumps would be used for up to 50 hours per year. The results of the supplemental analysis, shown in Table A, below, indicate that the use of equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, or PM2.5 emissions.

Because emissions would still be below the SJVAPCD’s thresholds, operational emissions would still be considered less than significant.

Table A: Project Operation Emissions with Additional
Stationary-Source Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area-Source Emissions 4.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 <0.1
Energy-Source Emissions 0.1 0.8 0.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Mobile-Source Emissions 0.5 3.1 5.7 <0.1 2.2 0.6
Off-Road-Source Emissions 0.5 4.3 5.9 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Stationary-Source Emissions 0.2 0.5 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Operation Emissions 5.4 8.6 12.7 <0.1 2.5 0.9 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10.0 10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2023).

Note: Some values may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding.

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrous oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gases
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxide
3-65

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) In addition, the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states that TAC emissions are considered significant if an HRA shows an increased risk of greater than 20 in 1 million.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines1 has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC it has evaluated. In addition, CARB has also identified DPM emitted by off-road, diesel-fueled engines as a TAC.2 As such, the TAC of concern would be DPM associated with the use of diesel engines during project construction. For risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA specifies that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is DPM. HRA analyses typically use PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance. As shown above, PM10 emissions, which are a surrogate for TAC emissions during construction, would result in pollutant emissions below the recommended thresholds, indicating that a significant health risk would also not occur.

However, it is important to note that the use of equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps would be dependent on specific tenants and is not being proposed as part of the project. Also, any equipment would be subject to permitting requirements and other regulations identified by CARB under Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 93155 (the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines), which sets strict emission standards for engines and limits on run times to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions.

Response A4-7: The commenter is recommending an ambient air quality analysis (AAQA) using a dispersion model for projects that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. As shown in Table 4.2.H of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 4.8 tons per year of ROG, 3.9 tons per year of NOX, 6.4 tons per year of CO, less than 0.1 ton per year of SOX, 2.3 tons per year of PM10, and 0.7 ton per year of PM2.5 emissions. When converted to pounds per day, the proposed project would generate approximately 26.3 pounds per day of ROG, 21.4 pounds per day of NOX, 35.1 pounds per day of CO, 0.5 pound per day of SOX, 12.6 pounds per day of PM10, and 3.8 pounds per day of PM2.5. As such, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be well below 100 pounds per day for any pollutant. Therefore, an AAQA evaluation would not be required.
1 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. March. Website:
https://oehhaca.gov/air/air-toxics-hot-spots (accessed August 2023). 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Proposed Amendments to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. November 17. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/ res/2022/res22-19.pdf (accessed April 2023).
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -66 Response A4-8: This comment recommends an evaluation of heavy-duty (HHD) truck routing patterns for the project, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. As discussed on page 4.2- 35 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, truck travel emissions were modeled as a series of volume sources along the on-site driveway, along North Marks Avenue going north and south of the site driveway, and along West Nielsen Avenue going east and west of the site driveway. LSA assumed vehicles traveling on site would maneuver slowly, averaging approximately 5–15 mph, and that vehicles traveling on roadways would average 5–55 mph, consistent with standard methodology. As shown in Table 4.2-K of the Recirculated Draft EIR, operational health risks for the MEI would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds. Further, as described in Response A4-2, although the maximum cancer risk for the MEI would be less than the project risk criteria of 20 in one million, to reduce the cumulative health risk, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, the project applicant will ensure that the proposed project would provide the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric heavy-duty trucks, which would further reduce TAC emissions. The infrastructure provided shall accommodate a minimum of one future charger per 50,000 square feet. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, cumulative health risk impacts would be less than significant related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during project operation. In addition, as discussed on page 3-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project site is in close proximity to State Route 180 (SR-180), which is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the project site. In addition, there is a planned closure of the Belmont Avenue/State Route 99 (SR-90) on- and off-ramps. As such, it is expected that trucks would primarily access the project area using the Marks Avenue/SR-180 instead of traveling through residential communities. Therefore, further evaluation of truck routes is not necessary.

Response A4-9: This comment recommends the following measures to reduce project-related operational emissions: fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour [g/bhp-hr] NOX) technologies; and all on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

As identified in Table 4.2-H of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance criteria for annual ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. As such, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Additionally, any future tenants that have HHD fleets would be required by law to meet the CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus 3-67

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) regulations, as well as the Advanced Clean Truck and forthcoming Advanced Clean Fleets regulations.

As discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified.

Therefore, the use of such equipment would be dependent on specific tenants and is not being proposed as part of the project. However, as discussed in Response A4-6, to be conservative, a supplemental analysis to evaluate potential emissions associated with equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps was conducted using CalEEMod. This supplemental analysis conservatively assumed that 40 diesel-powered forklifts would be used for 8 hours per day and that four diesel-powered 500 HP emergency backup generators and four diesel-powered 500 HP diesel fire pumps would be used for up to 50 hours per year. The results of the supplemental analysis, shown in Table A, above, indicate that the use of equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Because emissions would still be below the SJVAPCD’s thresholds for this very conservative scenario, operational emissions would still be considered less than significant. However, it is important to note that the use of equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps would be dependent on specific tenants and is not being proposed as part of the project.

Response A4-10: This comment recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

As discussed on page 4.2-35 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the idling emissions of trucks operating on the project site were modeled as point sources within the area sources representing the planned loading docks. EMFAC2021 was used to determine the emissions factors of idling and operating diesel trucks to determine the total emissions of DPM. As demonstrated in Table 4.2.K of the Recirculated Draft EIR, operational health risks for the MEI would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds. Further, as described in Response A4-2, although the maximum cancer risk for the MEI would be less than the project risk criteria of 20 in one million, to reduce the cumulative health risk, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, the project applicant shall ensure that the proposed project would provide the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric heavy-duty trucks, which would further reduce PM2.5 and TAC emissions. The infrastructure provided will be required to accommodate a minimum of one future charger per 50,000 square feet.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, cumulative health risk impacts would be less than significant related to the exposure of sensitive 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

Therefore, further mitigation, such as more stringent idling restrictions, would not be necessary.

Response A4-11: This comment recommends that the Recirculated Draft EIR include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero-emission offroad and on-road equipment.

Therefore, the use of such equipment would be dependent on specific tenants and is not being proposed as part of the project.

The results shown in Table 4.2.H of the Recirculated Draft EIR indicate the proposed project’s operational emissions would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. As such, identification and analysis of mitigation measures is not required. In addition, as demonstrated in Response A4-6, a supplemental analysis to evaluate potential emissions associated with equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps was conducted using CalEEMod. The results of the supplemental analysis, shown in Table A, above, indicate that the use of equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Because emissions would still be below the SJVAPCD’s thresholds, operational emissions would still be considered less than significant. However, it is important to note that the use of equipment, emergency backup generators, and diesel fire pumps would be dependent on specific tenants and is not being proposed as part of the project.

In addition, as discussed above in Response A4-2, although the maximum cancer risk for the MEI would be less than the project risk criteria of 20 in one million to reduce the cumulative health risk, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, the project applicant shall ensure that the proposed project would provide the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric heavy-duty trucks, which would further reduce TAC emissions.

The infrastructure provided shall accommodate a minimum of one future charger per 50,000 square feet. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, cumulative health risk impacts would be less than significant related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during project operation.
3-69

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) Response A4-12: This comment states that the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units). As identified in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, consistent with City requirements, landscaping would be provided throughout the project site. The project would also include a vegetative plan that includes the planting of trees and other landscaping materials throughout the perimeter of the project site. In addition, as shown in Table

4.2.H of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would not exceed the emission thresholds established by the SJVAPCD; therefore, additional mitigation is not required.

Response A4-13: This comment recommends that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the project. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) building measures and 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Standards). The proposed project would also include cool roof materials. In addition, as described on pages 4.5-9 and 4.5- 10 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity and natural gas services. In 2021, a total of 50 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric, and various forms of bioenergy.1 PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017 and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in SB 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to its customers and upgrade its distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand. As shown in Table 4.2.H, the proposed project would not exceed the emission thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. In addition, as demonstrated in Section 4.6, Energy, the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and would not result in a significant energy impact. Therefore, additional mitigation, such as a solar power system emission reduction strategy, is not required.

Response A4-14: This comment recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites and at strategic locations. As discussed in Response A4-2, above, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, the project applicant shall ensure that the proposed project would provide the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric HHD trucks, which would further reduce TAC emissions. The infrastructure provided shall accommodate a minimum of one future charger per 50,000 1 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. https://www.pge.com/en_US/ about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energysolutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy (accessed October 2022). 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -70 square feet. In addition, identified in the Project Description, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 Standards. The 2022 CALGreen code includes mandatory measures for non-residential projects, which apply to all new non-residential buildings, which include requirements for electric vehicle (EV) capable spaces in accordance with Table 5.105.5.3.1 of CALGreen.1
Response A4-15: This comment provides information on SJVAPCD rules and regulations and states that current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/ rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other SJVAPCD rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888. This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

Response A4-16: This comment provides information on SJVAPCD applicable air quality permitting rules and regulations. The information provided in this comment is noted. The project does not propose any stationary sources of emissions.

Response A4-17: This comment states that the project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review [ISR]) and that the District has received and approved an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application (ISR project #20220195). The information provided in this comment is noted.

Response A4-18: This comment states that the project may be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. SJVAPCD Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all required SJVAPCD rules and regulations. In addition, as identified in Appendix H, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update Checklist, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project would have over 100 employees and would be required to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9410.

Response A4-19: This comment states that the project may be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) since it may utilize architectural coatings. This 1 International Code Council. 2023. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) – 5.106.5.3Electric vehicle (EV) charging. Website: https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CAGBC2022P1/ chapter-5-nonresidential-mandatory-measures/CAGBC2022P1-Ch05-SubCh5.1-Sec5.106.5.3 (accessed May 2023).
3-71

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all required SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

Response A4-20: This comment states that the project may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities, as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. In addition, as indicated in Section 4.2 Air Quality, the proposed project would be required to be consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII.

Response A4-21: This comment states that the project may be subject to the following SJVAPCD rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all required SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

Response A4-22: This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and does not question the adequacy of the analysis included in the Recirculated Draft EIR.

No further response is required.

00

0

0

0 0.0<-0@J JJ

0 &'
)
"J!%'"
+ J$;,==0@J
$;,==7=5J,=/J0E0;>?<0=BJ0?,@B<0=BJ

0
"J$) J$
J$@>80.BAJ/<7=7AB@,B>@J
0?,@B<0=BJ>1J$D-;7.J(B7;7B70AJ
(B7;7B70AJ$;,==7=5JJ
=57=00@7=5J

0
0
00
0

0
0

0
0

0

0
0 000

0

0

0

0
0
"'%(0*!$000

0

0
0 0#+,0%#&+#(0

.#(-#0
=J@010@0=.0JB>JB60J*,B0@J&D??;HJAA0AA<0=BJ*&J,=/J6,?B0@AJ J,=/J
J>1J
B60J/<7=7AB@,B7E0J@,4J
=E7@>=<0=B,;J<?,.BJ%0?>@BJ/<7=J@,1CJ
%J2>@JB60J
?@>?>A0/J&.,==0;;J#37.0
*,@06>DA0J$@>90.BJ,BJJ*0ABJ"70;A0=JE0=D0J
$@>80.BJF0J>30@JB60J2>;;>F7=5J.><<0=BAJ
!,#*0-))&/0
++#++'#(,0

0=0@,;J.><<0=B
'60J?@>?>A0/J$@>80.B
A?0.717.JF,B0@J/0<,=/J7AJ17@ABJ<0=B7>=0/J>=J$,50JJ7=JB60 B7B;0 JB60=J/7A.DAA0/J>=J$,50AJ J J,=/JJF0J@0.><<0=/J?@>E7/7=5J, AD<<,@HJAB,B0<0=BJA><0F60@0J.;>A0JB>JB60J-057==7=5J>1JB60J/>.D<0=B

*&J?5
J JB67@/J?,@,5@,?6
),@7>DAJ0/7B7>=A
,//7B7>=AJ@0;,B0/JB>JB60J0G7AB7=5J,=/J?@>?>A0/JF,B0@J,=/JA0F0@ <,7=AJA00JB60J,BB,.60/J6,=/
<,@:0/J$
J>1J?5
J

*&J?5
J J17@ABJ?,@,5@,?6
;,@717.,B7>=J>=JB60J/,B,J0GB@,.B0/J1@><JB60JJ(*!$JA00JB60J,BB,.60/J6,=/I <,@:0/J$
J>1J?5
J

*&J?5
J J->BB><J>1JB67@/J?,@,5@,?6
%010@0=.0AJB>JB60J
[email protected]=BJ.,?J,=/J @0E7A0/J7BH

J,5@00<0=BJA00JB60
,BB,.60/J6,=/
<,@:0/J$
J>1J?5
J

*&J?5
J J;,ABJBF>J?,@,5@,?6A
$;0,A0J?@>E7/0J$@>80.B
A?0.717.JF,B0@J/0<,=/J0AB7<,B0AJA00JB60J,BB,.60/J6,=/I <,@:0/J$
J>1J?5
J

Comment
LeƩ er
A5
A5-1
A5-2
A5-3
A5-4
A5-5
A5-6
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
Cont.

A5-7
A5-8
A5-9
A5-10
A5-11
A5-12
A5-13
A5-14
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
Cont.

A5-15
A5-16
A5-17
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #1
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #1
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #1
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #1
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #1
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #1
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #2
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #2
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #2
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #2
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #3
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #3
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #3
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #3
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #3
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #3
From: Dejan Pavic
To: Steven Martinez
Cc: Juan Lara; Israel Trejo; Jesus Gonzalez Jr; Brock Buche Subject: RE: Scannell Warehouse EIR - Water & Utility Comments Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 4:43:00 PM
Attachments: Scannell Office-Warehouse Project (2740 West Nielsen Avenue-WSA and Admin Draft EIR-DPU Comments-2022- 12-14.pdf
Scannell Warehouse-2740 W Nielsen Ave-WSA-DPU comments-12_14_2022.pdf Scannell Warehouse-2740 W Nielsen Ave-Admin Draft EIR Ch 4.8-DPU comments-12_14_2022.pdf Scannell Warehouse-2740 W Nielsen Ave-Admin Draft EIR Ch 4.11-DPU comments-12_14_2022.pdf Importance: High
Steven,
Attached is a Memorandum with our comments on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and Chapters 4.8 and 4. 11 of the Admin Draft EIR (Admin Draft EIR) for the referenced project, along with PDFs of relevant pages of the WSA and Admin Draft EIR.

Please let me know if you need any additional information on this matter at this time.

Thank you,
Dejan
From: Steven Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Dejan Pavic <[email protected]>; Brock Buche <[email protected]> Cc: Juan Lara <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Scannell Warehouse EIR - Water & Utility Comments Hello Dejan and Brock, I hope you two are doing well.

Will you need additional time for review of Chapters 4.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality), 4.11 (Utilities and Service Systems), and the Water Supply Assessment of the Scannell Draft EIR? We can grant a small extension of time if needed. Please let me know.

If there are any questions, feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you.

Steven Martinez - Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
559 - 621 - 8047
[email protected]
From: Steven Martinez
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #4
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 12:55 PM
To: Dejan Pavic <[email protected]>; Brock Buche <[email protected]> Cc: Juan Lara <[email protected]>
Subject: Scannell Warehouse EIR - Water & Utility Comments Hello Dejan and Brock, I hope you two are doing well.

The Planning Department is respectfully requesting your review of Chapters 4.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality) & 4.11 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the Scannell Office / Warehouse Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Word version of the section has been attached to this email. We hope the chapter is acceptable as is, however, comments and corrections are welcomed.

At this time, we would like your review complete by end of business on Thursday, December 1st; additional time may be granted if needed.

If there are any questions, feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you.

Steven Martinez - Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
559 - 621 - 8047
[email protected]
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #4
From: Dejan Pavic
To: Steven Martinez
Cc: Kevin Gray; Robert Diaz; Brock Buche
Subject: RE: Notice of Availability - DEIR 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:19:37 PM
Attachments: RE Scannell Warehouse EIR - Water Utility Comments .msg Importance: High
Hi Steven,
It appears that MOST (if ANY) of our comments sent to you on December 14, 2022 (attached to this email) were NOT INCORPORATED into the DEIR.

As you probably recall, the majority of our comments were on the WSA (Water Supply Assessment; which is Appendix K to the DEIR), and then several comments on Chapters 4.8 and 4.11 were by reference to the comments on WSA. It doesn’t appear that any of the comments made into the WSA, and consequently into those two chapters.

Thank you,
Dejan
From: Steven Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:46 AM
To: Robert Diaz <[email protected]>
Cc: Dejan Pavic <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Availability - DEIR 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project Thank you Robert.

Dejan, the EIR should cover your previous comments, please confirm if you have the chance.

Thank you.

Steven Martinez - Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
559 - 621 - 8047
[email protected]
From: Robert Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:45 AM
To: Steven Martinez <[email protected]>
Cc: Dejan Pavic <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Availability - DEIR 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #5
Steven,
I am forwarding this on to Dejan. He has previously provided comments to EIR submittals.

Robert A. Diaz
Supervising Engineering Technician
Department of Public Utilities – Utilities Planning & Engineering Office: (559) 621-1623
Cell: (559) 981-7462
From: Steven Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 3:18 PM
To: Steven Martinez <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Availability - DEIR 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project Hello, I hope you are doing well.

Please see attached the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Steven Martinez - Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
559 - 621 - 8047
[email protected]
Comment
LeƩ er
A5
AƩ ach. #5
3-95

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) LETTER A5
City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
Dejan Pavic, PE
Projects Administrator
December 14, 2022, and March 29, 2023
Response A5-1: This comment letter and email was internally received by the City Planning and Development Department in December 2022 in response to the Administrative Draft EIR. The City did not previously address these internal comments in the document; therefore, responses are provided herein.

This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Recirculated Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

Response A5-2: This comment recommends providing a summary statement in the beginning of the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix K of the Recirculated Draft EIR).

Therefore, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 1 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. As such, the project-specific water usage is not yet known. Project-specific water demand was calculated based on the Water Study Demand Manual1, which estimates that industrial uses demand
approximately 0.9 acre-feet per year (AFY) per acre. The proposed project site is 48.03 acres; therefore, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 43.23 AFY.

The project water demand evaluated in this WSA will be compared to the water service planned for future industrial uses in the City using the City’s adopted 2020 UWMP methodologies, which was calculated on the basis of the following assumptions:
• Figure 4-3 of the 2020 UWMP indicates there will be 5,201 acres of industrial uses in Fresno in 2025.
1 Sacramento, City of. 2018. Water Study Demand Manual. January. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

Therefore, is the 2020 UWMP assumed that industrial land uses will demand approximately 1.42 AFY per acre in 2025. The total project site is 48.03 acres; therefore, based on the assumptions for water demand associated with industrial land uses identified above, the 2020 UWMP estimated approximately 68.2 AFY for the project site.

As identified above, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 43.23 AFY. As such, the proposed project’s water demand is below the 68.2 AFY planned for the project site in the 2020 UWMP.

Since land use acreages and water demand in the 2020 UWMP were based on the City’s General Plan land use designations for 2020 and buildout in 2056 and since the acreage associated with the proposed project was assumed Industrial in the 2020 UWMP, this WSA assumes that demand for water was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. There is no evidence, in consideration of the calculated project water demand, that such demand exceeds that estimated in the 2020 UWMP. The adequacy of the water supply for the project is thus consistent with the basis of the analysis of the City’s water supply in the adopted 2020 UWMP.

As such, this WSA concluded that the City of Fresno’s water system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045.

Response A5-3: This comment suggests various edits and additions related to the existing and proposed water and sewer mains to page 5 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Therefore, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 5 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

The project site is located in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities, including: water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and natural gas infrastructure. Water service to the project site would be provided by the City. New water within the 3-97

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) project site would connect to the existing 14-inch main located on North Marks Avenue, and the 16-inch main on North Hughes Avenue, and the 14-inch main on West Nielsen Avenue. The project would also include an on-site private 12-inch water main. The City would provide wastewater collection and treatment for the proposed project, and maintains an existing 12- to 18-inch line located inon West Nielsen Avenue, a 36-inch main on North Marks Avenue, and an 8-inch main on North Hughes Avenue. The proposed project includes the installation of a new on-site private 8-inch wastewater line that would connect to the City’s existing lines. The proposed project would include construction of a new curb and gutter along North Marks Avenue, West Nielsen Avenue, and North Hughes Avenue that would connect to the existing Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) stormwater system.

Response A5-4: This comment requests clarification of the data extracted from the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) on page 6 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Therefore, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 6 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

The City of Fresno relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin; surface water from the Central Valley Project (CVP), through a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR); Kings River water, through a contract with Fresno Irrigation District (FID); and recycled water to meet current and future water demands. The information provided on the following pages areis extracted directly from the 2020 UWMP (Pages 6-1 through 6-32) in satisfaction of Water Code sections 10910(A)(1) and 10910(D)(2).

This information is applicable to the entire City of Fresno municipal water service area, including the project site.

Response A5-5: This comment requests removal of the references to the 29.0 percent cap and “revised” City/FID agreement on page 18 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR: Therefore, in response to this 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -98 comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 18 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

As such, the supply projections in this plan limit the City’s FID supply with the 29.0 percent cap, but if the agreement were revised in the future the City’s FID allocation percentage could grow beyond 29.0 percent as the water service area expands.

Response A5-6: This comment requests project-specific water demand estimates. As discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildingsthat would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. As such, at this time, project-specific water demand is not yet known. However, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 45 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Assumptions
Project-specific The City’s projected future water demand was calculated using the methodology from the 2020 UWMP, as described above, based on the following assumptions:
• Figure 4-3 of the 2020 UWMP indicates there will be 5,201 acres of industrial uses in Fresno in 2025.
• Table 4-6 of the 2020 UWMP indicates the projected water demand for industrial land uses in 2025 will be 7,410 AFY.

Therefore, it isthe 2020 UWMP assumed that industrial land uses, such as the proposed project, will demand approximately 1.42 AFY per acre in 2025. The total project site is 48.03 acres; therefore, based on the assumptions for water demand associated with industrial land uses identified above, the 2020 UWMP estimated approximately 68.2 AFY for the project site.

Proposed Project Water Demand
The total project site is 48.03 acres. Therefore, based on the assumptions identified above, the proposed project is estimated to 3-99

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) demand approximately 68.2 AFY.The project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. In addition, at this time, the specific number of employees is not yet known. As such, the proposed project’s water demand was calculated based on the Water Study Demand Manual1, which estimates that industrial uses demand approximately 0.9 AFY per acre. The proposed project site is 48.03 acres; therefore, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 43.23 AFY.

As such, the proposed project’s water demand is below the 68.2 AFY planned for the project site in the 2020 UWMP.

Response A5-7: This comment states that the statement of adequacy will be confirmed once the project-specific water demand estimates are provided. As discussed in Response A5-6, tenants have not been identified for the proposed project; as such, project-specific water demand is not yet known. Therefore, projectspecific water demand was calculated based on United States Energy Information Administration Water Consumption data, which estimates that warehouse uses demand approximately 3.4 gallons per day per 1,000 square foot. The proposed buildings would result in a total gross floor area of approximately 901,438 square feet; therefore, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 3,064.8 gallons per day or approximately 3.4 AFY.

Furthermore, as discussed on page 46 of Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project site is included in the land use area covered by the City’s 2020 UWMP. Land use acreages and water demand in the 2020 UWMP were based on the City’s General Plan land use designations for 2020 and buildout in 2056. As such, the acreage associated with the proposed project was assumed Industrial in the 2020 UWMP; therefore, it is assumed that demand for water was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. There is no evidence, in consideration of the calculated project water demand, that such demand exceeds that estimated in the 2020 UWMP. The adequacy of the water supply for the project is thus consistent with the basis of the analysis of the City’s water supply in the adopted 2020 UWMP. Therefore, no further analysis is required. 1 Sacramento, City of. 2018. Water Study Demand Manual. January. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -100 Response A5-8: This comment states that the statement of adequacy will be confirmed once the project-specific water demand estimates are provided. Refer to Response A5-7, above.

Response A5-9: This comment requests the environmental setting in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft EIR to match Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment. Section 4.8.1, Environmental Setting, of the Recirculated Draft EIR outlines the hydrological conditions of the City of Fresno, including precipitation, hydrologic setting, groundwater, surface water, stormwater draining, and inundation hazards. The information provided in Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR includes more detailed information taken directly from the 2020 UWMP and provides additional information beyond what is necessary for inclusion in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Recirculated Draft EIR; therefore, no further analysis is required.

Response A5-10: This comment states that the statement of adequacy will be confirmed once the project-specific water demand estimates are provided. Refer to Response A5-7, above.

Response A5-11: This comment requests that the project-specific water demand estimates match Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

As discussed in Response A5-7, above, tenants have not been identified for the proposed project; as such, project-specific water demand is not yet known. Therefore, project-specific water demand was calculated based on the Water Study Demand Manual, which estimates that industrial uses demand approximately 0.9 AFY per acre. The proposed project site is 48.03 acres; therefore, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately

43.23 AFY. In response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 4.8-13 of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Project-specificThe City’s projected future water demand was calculated using the methodology from the 2020 UWMP, as described above, based on the following assumptions:
• Figure 4-3 of the 2020 UWMP indicates there will be 5,201 acres of industrial uses in Fresno in 2025.
• Table 4-6 of the 2020 UWMP indicates the projected water demand for industrial land uses in 2025 will be 7,410 AFY.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) based on the assumptions for water demand associated with industrial land uses identified above, the proposed project is 2020 UWMP estimated to demand approximately 68.2 AFY for the project site.

The project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. In addition, at this time, the specific number of employees is not yet known. As such, the proposed project’s water demand was calculated based on the Water Study Demand Manual1, which estimates that industrial uses demand approximately 0.9 AFY per acre. The proposed project site is

48.03 acres; therefore, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 43.23 AFY. As such, the proposed project’s water demand is below the 68.2 AFY planned for the project site in the 2020 UWMP.

Response A5-12: This comment states that the statement of adequacy will be confirmed once the project-specific water demand estimates are provided. Refer to Response A5-7, above.

Response A5-13: This comment requests the environmental setting in Section 4.11, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR to match Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment. Section 4.11.1, Environmental Setting, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, provides a citation to refer to Appendix K and outlines the utilities and service systems in the Fresno area and in the vicinity of the project site, including the water purveyor and system, water demand, water supply, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, and electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications. In addition, page 4.11-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR states that the Water Supply Assessment contains information from the City’s 2020 UWMP. The information provided in Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR includes more detailed information taken directly from the 2020 UWMP and provides additional information beyond what is necessary for inclusion in Section 4.11, Utilities and Service Systems. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Recirculated Draft EIR; therefore, no further analysis is required.

Response A5-14: This commentsuggests various edits and additions related to the existing and proposed water and sewer mains to page 4.11-14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Therefore, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 4.11-14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
1 Sacramento, City of. 2018. Water Study Demand Manual. January. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -102 Once operational, water service to the project site would be provided by the City. New water within the project site would connect to the existing 14-inch main located on North Marks Avenue, and the 16- inch main on North Hughes Avenue, and the 14-inch main on West Nielsen Avenue. The project would also include an on-site private 12- inch water main. Extension of the water infrastructure from the adjacent streets into the project site would be a routine part of the construction process analyzed in this EIR and would not have a material environmental impact. The water facility improvements would be limited to the project site and connection points to the adjacent, existing facilities. In addition, as described further in Threshold 4.11.2 below, the City has concluded that the City of Fresno’s water system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause a significant environmental impact, and the impact would be less than significant.

In addition, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 4.11-14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Once operational, the City would provide wastewater collection and treatment for the proposed project, and maintains an existing 12- to 18-inch line located inon West Nielsen Avenue, a 36-inch main on North Marks Avenue, and an 8-inch main on North Hughes Avenue.

The proposed project includes the installation of a new on-site private 8-inch wastewater line that would connect to the City’s existing line. Any sewer improvements associated with the proposed project would be designed and constructed to City standards. In addition, the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and wastewater services would be available to serve the proposed project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies.

In addition, as described further in Threshold 4.11.2 below, the City has concluded that the City of Fresno’s wastewater system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater 3-103

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) treatment or collection facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause a significant environmental impact.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Response A5-15: This comment requests that the project-specific water demand estimates match Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment, of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

43.23 AFY. In response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this RTC Document, text on page 4.11-18 of the Recirculated Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Therefore, it isthe 2020 UWMP assumed that industrial land uses, such as the proposed project, will demand approximately 1.42 AFY per acre in 2025. The total project site is 48.03 acres.; tTherefore, based on the assumptions for water demand associated with industrial land uses identified above, the proposed project is 2020 UWMP estimated to demand approximately 68.2 AFY for the project site.

The project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. In addition, at this time, the specific number of employees is not yet known. As such, the proposed project’s water demand was calculated based on the Water 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -104 Study Demand Manual1, which estimates that industrial uses demand approximately 0.9 acre-feet per year (AFY) per acre. The proposed project site is 48.03 acres; therefore, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 43.23 AFY. As such, the proposed project’s water demand is below the 68.2 AFY planned for the project site in the 2020 UWMP.

Response A5-16: This comment states that the statement of adequacy will be confirmed once the project-specific water demand estimates are provided. Refer to Response A5-7, above.

Response A5-17: This comment states that the statement of adequacy will be confirmed once the project-specific water demand estimates are provided. Refer to Response A5-7, above.
1 Sacramento, City of. 2018. Water Study Demand Manual. January.

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 572-
0400
May 15, 2023
Steven Martinez VIA EMAIL TO:

Planner [email protected]
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, California, 93721
Subject: Comments on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Warehouse EIR (SCH NO. 2022050265) Dear Mr. Martinez,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed P21-02699 2740 West Nielsen Ave. Warehouse Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The project proposes to construct and operate four industrial fulfillment center buildings totaling 901,438 square feet (sf) on an approximately 48 acre vacant site. The four buildings would be comprised of the following: Building 1 would be 468,812 square feet and include 122 loading dock doors; Building 2 would be 248,786 square feet and include 46 loading dock doors; Building 3 would be 93,074 square feet and include 18 loading dock doors; and Building 4 would be 90,766 square feet and include 15 loading dock doors. The project site provides a total of 594 on-site parking spaces, including 407 passenger car parking spaces and 188 truck/trailer parking spaces.

3.0 Project Description
The Project Description states that “The proposed project would not require any soil import or export.” There is no mechanism for public verification of this conclusion, such as a grading plan, included in the EIR. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a grading plan to determine the Comment
LeƩ er
B1
B1-2
B1-1
B1-3
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 2 ends

quantity of soils/materials to be imported/exported from the site. These grading truck hauling trips must be included for all sections of environmental analysis, including but not limited to the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation analysis.

The EIR does not include a detailed site plan, floor plan, grading plan, or elevations for the proposed project. The basic components of a Planning Application include a site plan, floor plan, grading plan, elevations, and written narrative. The figure provided in Figure 3-5: Site Plan has been edited for public review to remove any and all site-specific information. Providing a detailed site plan for public review in the EIR is vital as it provides information such as the earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, site coverage, floor area ratio, etc. The site plan provided is not useful for public review and do not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure.

The elevations would provide information regarding building height that is utilized for Aesthetics analysis and compliance with the Fresno County ALUCP. The EIR has excluded these required application items from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)).

Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as these documents contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand. The EIR must be revised to include all of these application items in their unedited and complete form, and recirculated for public review.

4.2 Air Quality, 4.5 Energy, and 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.01, CalEPA s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project s census tract (6019000700) ranks in the 100th percentile, indicating that it is among the most polluted census tracts in the state. The surrounding community, including residences adjacent to the south and adjacent SB 535 Census Tracts 6019002000 (north), 6019000200 (east), 6019000800 (south), and 6019001900 (west) bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on several pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 82nd percentile for ozone burden, the 96th percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, and the 57th percentile for diesel particulate matter burden. All of these environmental factors are attributed to heavy trucks and industrial activity in the area. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health conditions, even at low levels of exposure2. The very small particles of 1 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 2 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-3
cont.

B1-4
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 3 ends

diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems.

These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer3.

The census tract ranks in the 94th percentile for hazardous waste impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people4. The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 77% of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water5.

The census tract also ranks in the 84th percentile for contaminated drinking water and 45th percentile for groundwater threats. Poor communities and people in rural areas are exposed to contaminants in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state6. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes7.

The census tract also ranks in the 78th percentile for solid waste facility impacts, which can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilites are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations8.

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 66% Hispanic, 19% African-American, and 8% Asian-American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 91% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma. The community also has a high rate of poverty, meaning 95% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care9 . Poor
communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution10. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution11. Living in 3 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulatematter 4 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 5 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 6 OEHHA Contaminated Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water 7 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats 8 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-andfacilities 9 OEHHA Poverty https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty 10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.

Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-5
B1-4
cont.

B1-6
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 4 ends

poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care.

Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 95th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 98th percentile for incidence of asthma. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 79% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further challenges and inequities due to this.

Additionally, the project census tract (6019000700) and census tracts adjacent to the project site (6019002000 (north), 6019000200 (east), 6019000800 (south), and 6019001900 (west)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities12. This indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts resulting form a saturation of the warehousing and logistics industry in the City have become distinctly inequitable.

The severity of significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities must be included for analysis as part of a revised EIR. Each section of the EIR must include the specific analysis of each environmental impact on the Disadvantaged Communities, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

California s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC) is the State’s only approved energy compliance modeling software for non-residential buildings in compliance with Title 2413.

CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. A revised EIR with modeling using the approved software (CBECC) must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the EIR utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not the approved software.

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed Project site is within Chandler Executive Airport Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) and Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ). The Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update was adopted by the ALUC on December 3, 2018 and amended December 202114. The 12 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 13 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-1 14 Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission https://www.fresnocog.org/project/airport-land-use-commissionfresno-county/ Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-8
B1-7
B1-6
cont.

Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 5 ends

EIR states that “The City of Fresno Development Code Priority of Plans section mentioned above (Section 15-104-B.4) clearly establishes the adopted Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as the plan that takes precedence over all of the City s other land use plans within the Airport Influence Areas defined in the Plan” to conclude that there will be less than significant impacts. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook15 states that Airport Land Use Commission review is required “when a local jurisdiction has neither revised its local plan(s) to be consistent with the ALUCP (PUC Section 21676.5(a)).” The City’s General Plan was adopted on December 18, 2014 and has not been updated to be consistent with the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Updates of December 3, 2018 and amended December 2021. The City’s Development Code is not equivalent to the General Plan review and analysis necessary to determine consistency with the new ALUCP. ALUC review of the revised General Plan would be required to ensure consistency with the ALUCP. Therefore, ALUC review of the proposed project is required pursuant to PUC Section 21676.5(a) and the EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance because the review has not occurred.

Further, the EIR is inadequate as it states “the project contemplates densities below those required in TPZs and OADZs and the project would include over 20 percent open land,” but does not provide any meaningful evidence to support this claim. The EIR does not include a calculation for compliance with the maximum intensity of 300 persons per acre (TPZ area) or 150 persons per acre (OADZ area). A revised EIR must be prepared with a calculation of the project’s maximum intensity of people per acre in order to accurately and adequately analyze the potentially significant impacts.

4.10 Transportation
As noted above, the EIR does not demonstrate compliance with the following Transportation related General Plan policies:

1. MT-1-n Peak Hour Vehicle LOS. Maintain a peak-hour vehicle LOS standard of D or better for all roadway areas outside of identified Activity Center and Bus Rapid Transit Corridor districts, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.

2. MT-2-i Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing 15 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-8
cont.

B1-9
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 6 ends

and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements.

A) Transportation impact criteria are tiered based on a project s location within the City s Sphere of Influence. This is to assist with areas being incentivized for development. The four zones, as defined on Figure MT-4, are listed below. The following criteria apply:

A) Traffic Impact Zone II (TIZ-II): TIZ-II generally represents areas of the City currently built up and wanting to encourage infill development. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.

Although LOS analysis is not required to determine Transportation impacts, it is fully required to determine compliance with the General Plan. This contributes Land Use and Planning impacts.

As noted above, the EIR and Transportation Appendix concludes the project will result in LOS F during the PM peak hour at Intersection 1 - Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue in cumulative year 2035. The EIR is not adequate as an informational document because it has not analyzed compliance with these policies. The EIR must be revised with this information for analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental document.

Further, the EIR has underreported the quantity of VMT generated by project operations. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees arrive at work at the proposed fulfillment center, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a fulfillment center, which will drastically increase project-generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. The project’s actual VMT generated during operations is not consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing VMT. A revised EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

The EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The EIR has not provided any exhibits depicting the available truck/trailer turning radius at the project driveways or the Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-9
cont.

B1-10
B1-11
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 7 ends

intersections of Hughes Ave./Nielsen Ave. or Marks Ave./Nielsen Ave. to determine if there is enough space available to accommodate heavy truck maneuvering. Figure 3-5 Site Plan does not depict an analysis of adequate on-site heavy truck maneuvering, either. The exhibit does not depict two or more trucks attempting to turn corners around the site, park, etc across the site at any point.

There are also no exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. A revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project with this analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

5.0 Alternatives
The EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA § 15126.6.) The two alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required “No Project” alternative and only one other alternative - Reduced Project Alternative. The EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives as only one alternative beyond the required No Project alternative is analyzed.

The EIR must be revised to include analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and foster informed decision making (CEQA § 15126.6). This could include alternatives such as development of the site with a mixed-use project that provides affordable housing and localserving commercial uses that may reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and improve Air Quality.

6.0 CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Land Use and Planning
The EIR/Initial Study does not provide a consistency analysis with all applicable Fresno General Plan goals and policies. A revised EIR must be prepared with this analysis, including the following policies:

2. MT-2-i Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-11
cont.

B1-12
B1-13
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 8 ends

determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements.

B) Transportation impact criteria are tiered based on a project s location within the City s Sphere of Influence. This is to assist with areas being incentivized for development. The four zones, as defined on Figure MT-4, are listed below. The following criteria apply:

Although LOS analysis is not required to determine Transportation impacts, it is fully required to determine compliance with the General Plan. This contributes Land Use and Planning impacts.

Also, the EIR does not provide a detailed site plan, floor plan, grading plan, or elevations for public review to determine conformance with the City’s development standards and requirements, including the maximum permitted floor area ratio. An EIR must be prepared with these application items in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis, including consistency with the City’s development standards and requirements.

Additionally, the EIR/Initial Study has not provided any consistency analysis with Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS. Due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence as noted in this comment letter, the proposed project has signifiant potential for inconsistency with Goal 2:

Vibrant communities that are accessible by sustainable transportation options, Policy 4: Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, and Policy 6: Encourage sustainable development that focuses growth near activity centers and mobility options that achieve greater location efficiency. The project site is also identified as an Environmental Justice area16 in the Fresno Council of Governments 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)17. A revised EIR 16 Environmental Justice Chapter of 2022 Fresno COG RTP/SCS https://www.planfresno.com/planfresno/uploads/2022/06/Chapter-7-Environmental-Justice-Final-Draft.pdf 17 2022 Fresno COG RTP/SCS https://www.fresnocog.org/project/regional-transportation-plan-rtp/ Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-13
cont.

B1-14
B1-15
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 9 ends

must be prepared to include revised Air Quality/HRA, Energy, GHG, and VMT modeling in order to accurately analyze potential consistency or inconsistency with the 2022 RTP/SCS document.

Population and Housing
The EIR/Initial Study utilizes uncertain language and does not provide any meaningful analysis or supporting evidence to substantiate the conclusion that there will be no significant impacts to population and housing. The EIR/Initial Study does not provide a calculation of jobs created by the project during construction or operations. It also does not provide information regarding the location of qualified workers to fill the construction and operational jobs.

In order to comply with CEQA s requirements for meaningful disclosure, the EIR must be revised to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by construction and operations of the project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions. Additionally, an estimate of the number of workers relocating to the City as a result of the project should be provided utilizing existing housing vacancy rates in the City and the projected City unemployment rate at the time of project year opening. Department of Finance population estimates should also be used to determine whether the project in addition to all projects in the pipeline/under construction will exceed Fresno COG RTP/SCS projections and City projections for employment and residents within the City. A revised EIR must also include information and analysis regarding the number of construction jobs generated by the project and their potential to relocate to the City. A revised EIR must also provide a cumulative analysis of projects approved since 2020 and projects “in the pipeline” to provide an adequate and accurate analysis to determine if the project will exceed Fresno COG’s employment and population growth forecasts, and all projects approved since 2014 and projects in the pipeline” to provide an adequate and accurate analysis to determine if the project will exceed the City’s General Plan employment and population growth forecasts.

Notably, the VMT Analysis within the Transportation Appendix states that the project will have 4,920 employees. However, the methodology that resulted in the calculation of 4,920 operational employees is not included for review by the public. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this information for review and analysis in order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-15
cont.

B1-16
B1-17
Steven Martinez
May 15, 2023

Page 10 ends

communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Comment
LeƩ er
B1
Cont.

B1-17
cont.
3-115

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) LETTER B1
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Gary Ho
May 15, 2023
Response B1-1: This introductory comment is noted. More specific comments provided in this letter are further responded to below.

Response B1-2: This comment provides a brief project description and does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is necessary.

Response B1-3: This comment states that that the Recirculated Draft EIR’s Project Description does not include a detailed site plan, floor plan, grading plan, or elevations for the proposed project. Further, this comment asserts that the figure provided in Figure 3-5: Site Plan has been edited for public review to remove any and all site-specific information. Further, the comment asserts that the elevations would provide information regarding building height that is utilized for aesthetics analysis and compliance with the Fresno County ALUCP.

Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact:
(a) The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shown on a detailed map, preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map.
(b) A statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project and may discuss the project benefits.
(c) A general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals, if any, and supporting public service facilities. (d) A statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including: a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision making; a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project; and a list of related environmental review and consultation 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -116 requirements of federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or policies. To the fullest extent possible, the lead agency should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and consultation requirements and decisions subject to CEQA should be listed, preferably in the order in which they will occur.

Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR is consistent with these requirements and describes the characteristics of the proposed project. Figure 3-1 shows the project site’s regional and local context and Figure 3-2 shows the project site and surrounding land uses, consistent with the requirements of Section 15124(a). In addition, the proposed project’s objectives are listed in Section 3.2, Project Objectives, consistent with the requirements of Section 15124(b). A description of the proposed project is included in Section 3.3, Project Description, consistent with the requirements of Section 15124(c). In addition, the list of agencies and potential permits and approvals that may be required is included in Section 3.4, Approvals/Permits, consistent with the requirements of Section 15124(d). As such, the Project Description is consistent with CEQA requirements. In addition, the Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft EIR stated that all documents related to the project were availability for public review at the lead agency.

As identified on page 3-18 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would not require any soil import or export. The project site is relatively flat; therefore, soil would be balanced on site without any requirement for soil import or export.

In addition, as described on page 3-13 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the buildings’ exterior would be up to 44 feet high, with an interior height of up to 36 feet, and designed with a total of 201 loading dock doors on the north and south sides of the buildings. Further, the building height is identified on page 4.2-5 of the Recirculated Draft EIR and is evaluated in the aesthetics analysis. In addition, the project’s parking is described in Section 3.3.1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

In addition, as discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. Detailed floor plans and elevations would not provide additional details that would aid in evaluating impacts to aesthetics analysis or compliance with the Fresno County ALUCP as the proposed heights and massing of the buildings are known and were considered in the Recirculated Draft EIR analysis.

Response B1-4: This comment asserts that the Recirculated Draft EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts such as air pollution. This comment also claims 3-117

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) that the census tract (6019000700) ranks in the 100th percentile, indicating that it is among the most polluted census tracts in the State. This comment also states that the surrounding community, including residences adjacent to the south and adjacent SB 535 census tracts, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on several pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen.

As identified on pages 4.2-10 and 4.2-11 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the OEHHA, on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), released Version 4.0 of CalEnviroScreen in October 2021.

CalEnviroScreen identifies California communities by census tract that are disproportionately burdened by, and vulnerable to, multiple sources of pollution. Pollution burden scores for each census tract are derived from the average percentiles of the seven Exposures indicators (ozone and PM2.5 concentrations, DPM emissions, drinking water contaminants, pesticide use, toxic releases from facilities, and traffic density) and the five Environmental Effects indicators (cleanup sites, impaired water bodies, groundwater threats, hazardous waste facilities and generators, and solid waste sites and facilities). According to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map,1 the project site has a pollution burden percentile of 97. Surrounding areas have pollution burdens ranging from 56 to 100.0. In addition, according to the SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map,2 the project area is designated as an SB 535 disadvantaged community.

In addition, as described on page 4.2-26 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM2.5 for federal standards and non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards. The SJVAPCD’s non-attainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified SJVAPCD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively 1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2021. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 (accessed May 2021). 2 OEHHA. 2022. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities using CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results. Website:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1c21c53da8de48f1b946f3402fbae55c/page/SB-535- Disadvantaged-Communities/.pdf (accessed October 2022). 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -118 considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As shown in Tables 4.2-G and 4.2-H of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would generate construction and operational emissions that are below the SJVAPCD’s thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required.

Although the project site has a pollution burden percentile of 97, is designated as an SB 535 disadvantaged community, and is considered a diverse community, there is no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a community-wide area. The SJVAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance apply to individual development projects and evaluate the incremental increase in emissions from a proposed source. In developing thresholds of significance for individual projects, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The City relies on the SJVAPCD’s recommended methodology to evaluate cumulative impacts, which is to conclude that an impact considered to be significant on a project-specific basis would also cause a significant cumulative impact.

Response B1-5: This comment states that the census tract ranks in the 94th percentile for hazardous waste impacts, in the 84th percentile for contaminated drinking water, in the 45th percentile for groundwater threats, and in the 78th percentile for solid waste facility impacts.

Although the project’s census tract ranks in the 94th percentile for hazardous waste impacts, impacts related to hazardous waste are addressed in Section

4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Recirculated Draft EIR. As described in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the project site by SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) on January 29, 2021, and a Phase II ESA was conducted for the project site by SALEM on February 3, 2021. The Phase I ESA identified evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and one Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC). The Phase II ESA was performed to address the RECs and HREC identified in the Phase I ESA, to gather data regarding current site conditions, to establish baseline soil and soil vapor concentrations, and to evaluate if soil vapor conditions pose a potential vapor intrusion risk to future occupants at the project site. Based on the results of the Phase II ESA, it was determined that no additional assessment activities are required. The Phase II ESA determined that the project site is suitable for unrestricted use and no engineering controls (i.e., VOC vapor barrier) are required. In the event the project site would undergo any redevelopment that would include soil disturbance, the Phase II ESA recommended that a Soil Management Plan (SMP) be prepared to address soil management procedures that may arise based on historical 3-119

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) use of the project site and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and arsenic, which was required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would require preparation of an SMP, would effectively mitigate any impacts related to a significant hazard to the public or the environment to less than significant levels.

In addition, although the census tract also ranks in the 84th percentile for contaminated drinking water, the 45th percentile for groundwater threats, and the 78th percentile for solid waste facility impacts, as described in Section

4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.11, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to significant cumulative water quality or solid waste facility impacts.

Response B1-6: This comment states that this census tract is a diverse community with a high rate of low educational attainment and a high rate of poverty, which can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food, and necessary medical care. This comment also states that poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution and that poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Further, this comment states that the project census tract is identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities and that the Recirculated Draft EIR must include an analysis of impacts on the disadvantaged communities.

See Response B1-4. Although the project site is designated as an SB 535 disadvantaged community and is considered a diverse community, there is no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a community-wide area. The SJVAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance apply to individual development projects and evaluate the incremental increase in emissions from a proposed source. These thresholds do not apply to cumulative projects. The City relies on the SJVAPCD’s recommended methodology to evaluate cumulative impacts, which is to conclude that an impact considered to be significant on a project-specific basis would also cause a significant cumulative impact.

Response B1-7: This comment claims that California’s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC) is the State’s only approved energy compliance modeling software for non-residential buildings, in compliance with Title 24, and that CalEEMod is not the approved software.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -120 As described in the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI,
1 when quantifying project emissions,
the latest approved models by the SJVAPCD should always be used for air quality analysis. The latest approved model available is CalEEMod, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operations (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use.2 The commenter asserts the use of CalEEMod to estimate the project’s energy demand was inappropriate and that CBECC should have been used instead. The compliance modeling software that is referenced by the commenter is used to confirm the final design of a development project and complies with applicable energy efficiency regulations based on detailed information included in construction drawings. As such, the purpose of the CBECC model is to evaluate compliance with the 2022 Title 24 standards, not to evaluate potential energy impacts under CEQA.

The information needed to demonstrate compliance with Title 24 using the CBECC model is not available at this time and is not typically prepared until after a project has been approved/entitled. After approval and preparation of detailed building plans, the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with Title 24 using the CBECC model. As described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted methodologies for estimating emissions combined with default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available. 3,4 Sources of these methodologies and default data include, but are not limited to, the USEPA AP-42 emission factors, CARB vehicle emission models, and studies commissioned by California agencies such as the CEC and CalRecycle. The User’s Guide also states that CalEEMod calculates construction and operations emissions from land use development projects which can be used to support preparation of air quality and GHG analyses in CEQA documents, including EIRs. In addition, the User’s Guide states that the emissions inventory modules also contain default values for estimating utility consumption (e.g., water, electricity, 1 San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). March 19. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf (accessed May 2023). 2
Ibid. 3
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide. May. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (accessed May 2023). 4 Detailed information regarding CalEEMod default assumptions can be found in the User’s Guide:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.
3-121

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) natural gas) that may be useful for preparing hydrology and energy analyses in other sections of a CEQA document. Additionally, it should also be noted that the energy use factors included in the CalEEMod model, which was used to estimate energy for the project, are based on the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies, which provide a more conservative assumption based on actual use surveys and are the best available information for purposes of this assessment. As such, CalEEMod is appropriate for use in energy analyses.

Further, as discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 Standards. Therefore, use of the CBECC model would not change the findings identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR.

Response B1-8: This comment states that the City’s General Plan has not been updated to be consistent with the Fresno County ALUCP Updates to the December 3, 2018 plan (amended December 2021). As such, this comment asserts that ALUC review of the revised General Plan would be required to ensure consistency with the ALUCP. Therefore, ALUC review of the proposed project is required pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676.5(a), and the Recirculated Draft EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance because the review has not occurred. In addition, this comment asserts that the Recirculated Draft EIR must include a calculation of the project’s maximum intensity of people per acre in order to accurately and adequately analyze the potentially significant impacts.

The ALUC has reviewed the proposed project and has provided comments.

As discussed in Response A2-3, based on the Fresno County ALUCP safety requirements, in zone 4, the maximum non-residential intensity is 150 persons per acre, and in zone 6, the maximum non-residential intensity is 300 persons per acre. As identified in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project site is 48.03 acres. Therefore, the maximum non-residential intensity would be between 7,204 and 14,409 persons. As discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. As such, at this time, the specific number of employees is not yet known. However, given that the project site would primarily be used for warehouse uses, it is not expected that the proposed project would generate more than 7,204 employees.

Further, as discussed in Response A2-6 and as discussed in Section 3.3.2, Open Space and Landscaping, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, consistent with City requirements, landscaping would be provided throughout the project site. The project would also include a vegetative plan that includes the planning of trees and other landscaping materials throughout the perimeter 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -122 of the project site. As such, the vegetative plan would be consistent with the 10–20 percent open land requirement of the airport safety zones.

In addition, the proposed project would not include any structures higher than 70 feet, hazardous uses, hazards to flight, or prohibited land uses. In addition, the proposed project would not include any structures that would penetrate 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 surfaces. Therefore, revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR are not required.

Response B1-9: This comment asserts that the Recirculated Draft EIR does not demonstrate compliance with General Plan policies related to traffic and traffic studies (MT-1-n Peak Hour Vehicle LOS and MT-2-i Transportation Impact Studies) and is not adequate as an informational document because it has not analyzed compliance with these policies.

As discussed on pages 4.10-7 and 4.10-8 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, level of service (LOS) analysis is no longer a criterion of significance for traffic impacts under CEQA. Threshold 4.10.1 used in the analysis is consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to transportation if it would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The City of Fresno General Plan includes policies that utilize LOS to determine project conditions of approval. As such, the Recirculated Draft EIR evaluates LOS impacts on pages 4.10-7 through 4.10-11 and in the TIS (Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft EIR).

General Plan Policy MT-1-n requires the City to maintain a peak-hour vehicle LOS standard of D or better for all roadway areas outside of identified Activity Center and Bus Rapid Transit Corridor districts, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies. General Plan Policy MT-2-i requires a TIS to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing and planned streets, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements. The commenter is incorrect that the Recirculated Draft EIR does not demonstrate compliance with these policies because a TIS was prepared for the proposed project and evaluates LOS.

As discussed on page 4.10-10 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue is currently operating at a deficient LOS and will worsen with time. This intersection meets several signal warrants under the Existing, Existing with Project, Near‐Term Approved and Pending with Project, Cumulative Year (2035) without Project, and Cumulative Year (2035) with Project scenarios. As discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the 3-123

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) project adds to the existing and forecasted deficiency at this location. The City, however, has already earmarked this location for installing a signal and has a funding mechanism in place (the City’s Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact [TSMI] fee program). As discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, this intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS with the implementation of the proposed improvement, and impacts to intersection LOS would be less than significant with implementation of the signal.

Therefore, the commenter is incorrect in stating that the Recirculated Draft EIR is not adequate as an informational document because it has not analyzed compliance with City’s General Plan policies.

For the reasons described above, this comment does not identify any new significant environmental issues or impacts that were not already addressed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Neither this comment nor the response constitutes new information requiring recirculation of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

Response B1-10: This comment asserts that the Recirculated Draft EIR has not correctly addressed VMT consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce GHG emissions by reducing VMT.

As described on pages 4.10-12 through 4.10-14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the Fresno Council of Governments’ (Fresno COG) Activity-Based Model (ABM) was used to estimate the project’s VMT and VMT metric. ABM is a tour-based model that captures travel behavior of the region comprehensively. As such, the project employee VMT included VMT from all employee tours and sub-tours, which include employee commute tours, project-related delivery tours within the region, and any other tours related to the project. In addition, the project VMT and the VMT metric used for this analysis are consistent with the City’s and Fresno COG’s adopted methodology/guidelines for preparation of VMT analysis. The guidelines provide substantial evidence demonstrating the appropriateness of the VMT analysis methodology, consistent with the intended goals for SB 743. Truck trips were not included in the VMT analysis, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), which states “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” The technical guidance from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) does say that heavy-duty truck VMT “could be included”; however, the Guidance goes on to state that this would be for modeling convenience and ease of calculation. Heavy-duty trucks are not included in the CEQA guidelines for VMT analysis, are not included in the Fresno COG model, and therefore were not included in the VMT analysis. “An agency’s use of a reasonable standard for gauging the significance of an impact may not be set aside on the ground the impact would have been found significant if other recognized standards had instead been used.” (Kostka, § 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -124

6.45, p. 6-50/50; see Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at 887; Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at 336–336.) Therefore, the project’s analysis of VMT is consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743, and additional analysis is not required.

Response B1-11: This comment claims that the Recirculated Draft EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access.

As described on pages 4.10-14 and 4.10-15 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project site plan does not add any sharp curves or hazardous geometric features. As shown on Figure 3-5, Site Plan, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, all internal roadways within the project are 40 feet wide. These internal roadways are perpendicularly connected to each other, avoiding any sharp curves, hazardous geometric feature, or any requirement for sharp maneuvers. Further, as shown on the site plan, within the project site, there are multiple areas for vehicles (both cars and trucks) turning or backing up to avoid any conflicting movements, if required. Additionally, as shown on the site plan, with the docking and parking areas, truck maneuvering spaces are a minimum of 185 feet wide, which is wide enough for safe maneuvering of large semitrailer trucks. All these measurements shown on the site plan demonstrate that the project does not create any hazardous design.

As identified on page 3-5 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project site is surrounded by low-density residential, light and heavy industrial, and cemetery uses, as well as vacant, undeveloped land. As the proposed project is located near existing light and heavy industrial uses, truck-intensive uses are currently present in the project site vicinity. Trucks access these sites using the intersections and driveways along Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue. The project is not anticipated to be accessed by any vehicle larger than the existing trucks using the circulation network along the project frontages.

As shown on the project site plan, the project would have seven driveways along Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue. Trucks would access the project site using the central driveway along Marks Avenue or the other project driveways along Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue designed 3-125

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) for truck access. All of these driveways have been designed in accordance with the City’s standard for driveways to be utilized by truck traffic. The site plan, including the project driveway designs, has been reviewed and confirmed to maintain the City’s design standard for truck access during the planning process. As such, all project truck traffic would have adequate maneuvering and turning spaces in and along the project frontages, including at the project driveways.

Further, as discussed on page 4.10-15, due to the presence of multiple driveways along all three project frontages, emergency vehicles have adequate alternatives to access the project, if required. Additionally, the proposed project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the Fresno Fire Department (FFD) to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. Improvements identified in the TSMI fee program would provide for an enhanced roadway network that accommodates forecasted travel demand and would provide adequate emergency access in the project vicinity. As such, the proposed project would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation or FFD access to and from the project site, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Response B1-12: This comment asserts that a reasonable range of alternatives was not included in the Recirculated Draft EIR.

As discussed on page 5-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, an accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that would “feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly adverse environmental effects of the project.” An EIR does not need to consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason.”
Furthermore, as discussed on page 5-3 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6I requires an EIR to identify and briefly discuss any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. The City considered certain alternatives during the preparation of this EIR and found them to be infeasible. Section 5.3 of the Recirculated Draft EIR provides a description of 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -126 potential alternatives that were identified and considered by the City and the reasons why they were ultimately not selected for further evaluation in the Recirculated Draft EIR. In dismissing these alternatives from detailed evaluation in the Recirculated Draft EIR, primary considerations were whether the alternatives would meet most of the project’s basic objectives, whether the alternatives were feasible, and whether they would substantially reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project. As described in Section 5.3, an alternative that would develop residential uses on the project site was considered but dismissed from detailed evaluation because such an alternative would not achieve three of the four objectives of the proposed project. Further, residential uses on the project site would not be consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial (IH) and zoning designation of Heavy Industrial District (IH). In addition, as described in Section 5.3, other parcels in the Fresno area could be suitable for the development of industrial warehouse uses comparable to the proposed project. However, similar to the proposed project, the development on other sites would still have the potential to result in significant impacts on air quality, biological, cultural, and hazards and would require the same or comparable mitigation measures. Further, there would be similarly significant aesthetics and noise impacts. As this alternative would not reduce or avoid the project’s significant impacts, and because the applicant does not own the site or can reasonably acquire it, this alternative was not carried forth for detailed evaluation.

Response B1-13: This comment incorrectly states that the Recirculated Draft EIR does not provide a consistency analysis with all applicable Fresno General Plan goals and policies, including policies MT-1-n, Peak Hour Vehicle LOS, and MT-2-I, Transportation Impact Studies. This comment asserts that although LOS analysis is not required to determine transportation impacts, it is fully required to determine compliance with the General Plan.

Refer to Response B1-9, above. As discussed on pages 4.10-7 and 4.10-8 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, LOS analysis is no longer a criterion of significance for traffic impacts under CEQA. Threshold 4.10.1 used in the analysis is consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to transportation if it would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The City of Fresno General Plan includes policies that utilize LOS to determine project conditions of approval. As such, the Recirculated Draft EIR evaluates LOS impacts on pages 4.10-7 through 4.10- 11 and in the TIS (Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft EIR).

Response B1-14: This comment states that the Recirculated Draft EIR does not provide a detailed site plan, floor plan, grading plan, or elevations for public review to 3-127

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) determine conformance with the City’s development standards and requirements, including the maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR).

As described in Response B1-3, above, the proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. Further, as discussed in Response B3-1, the information contained in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR is consistent with the requirements of Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft EIR stated that all documents related to the project were availability for public review at the lead agency. Detailed site plans, floor plans, grading plans, and elevations would not provide additional details that would aid in evaluating impacts to conformance with the maximum permitted FAR as the overall square footage and siting of the buildings were known and were considered in the Recirculated Draft EIR analysis. Further, the City is reviewing the proposed project to determine conformance with the City’s development standards and requirements, including the maximum permitted FAR.

Response B1-15: This comment states that the Recirculated Draft EIR has not provided any consistency analysis with the Fresno COG’s 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and that the proposed project has significant potential for inconsistency with Goal 2: Vibrant communities that are accessible by sustainable transportation options; Policy 4: Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions; and Policy 6: Encourage sustainable development that focuses growth near activity centers and mobility options that achieve greater location efficiency. This comment also states that the project site is also identified as an environmental justice area in the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS.

As demonstrated on page 4.10-14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact concerning consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). In addition, consistent with the City’s General Plan policies, the project would implement multi-modal improvements along the project frontage, including the addition of sidewalks all along the project frontage. In addition, as described in Appendix H, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update Checklist, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project would have over 100 employees and would be required to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9410, which requires the implementation of trip reduction programs such as increasing transit use, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or other measures to reduce VMT. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the proposed project would be inconsistent with Goal 2, Policy 4, or Policy 6 in the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS. Refer to Responses B1-4, B1- 5, and B1-6 for a discussion of impacts related to environmental justice. The 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -128 project site is consistent with the Heavy Industrial General Plan land use designation and is located in a primarily industrial area; therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding uses and would not be inconsistent with the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS.

Response B1-16: This comment states that the Recirculated Draft EIR utilizes uncertain language and does not provide any meaningful analysis or supporting evidence to substantiate the conclusion that there will be no significant impacts to population and housing. The comment also states that the EIR/Initial Study does not provide a calculation of jobs created by the project during construction or operations and that it does not provide information regarding the location of qualified workers to fill the construction and operational jobs.

The TIS (Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft EIR) estimated approximately 4,920 employees for purposes of the VMT analysis. As discussed on page 96 of the TIS, the employment was calculated based on a building square footage to employee conversion factor in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Daily trip rates per employee were divided by daily trip rates per 1,000 square feet to estimate the ratio between land use square footage and number of employees. However, this employment calculation was only used for the purposes of the VMT analysis. In addition, based on CalEnviroScreen, the project’s census tract is in the 97th percentile for unemployment. Since the proposed project is located in an area with high unemployment, it is expected that there would be an available pool of employees to fill future employment positions at the project site. As discussed in the Initial Study, included as Appendix B of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in direct population growth as the use proposed is not residential and would not contribute to permanent residency on-site.

Further, the site is designated Heavy Industrial by the General Plan and would not generate growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.

Response B1-17: This comment states that the City must prepare a revised EIR for the proposed project and is noted. For the reasons explained in the responses above, the Recirculated Draft EIR properly evaluated the proposed project’s potential impacts, and the commenter has not presented substantial evidence to the contrary. Therefore, a revised EIR is not required. 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] May 17, 2023
Steven Martinez
Planner
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno CA, 93721
Via U.S. Mail and email to [email protected]
re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project, SCH No. 2022050265
Dear Mr. Martinez:

Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project (Project) located at 2740 West Nielsen Avenue, on the north side of West Nielsen Avenue between North Marks and North Hughes Avenues in the City and County of Fresno, California. The Project proposes to construct four concrete tilt-up office/warehouse buildings for heavy industrial uses with a total gross floor area of 901,438 square feet on a 48.03-acre lot. There would be a total of 594 on-site parking spaces.

The comments below are based on the concern that the RDEIR violates CEQA.

Advocates for the Environment is a public interest law firm and advocacy organization with the mission to educate the public about the law as it pertains to the environment and provide legal services in support of environmental causes. It is within the scope of Advocates for the Environment’s mission to provide comments on the development of this project, especially because the RDEIR reflects potential issues of non-compliance with CEQA. Advocates for the Environment has reviewed the RDEIR released in February 2023 and provides its comments below on the sufficiency of the RDEIR’s greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis.

GHG Significance Analysis
The RDEIR incorporated three significance thresholds for GHG emissions that will be discussed below. For all three thresholds, there was a conclusion of “less than significant” impact, and that no mitigation is required to reach this level of significance. (RDEIR 4.6-20- 26). However, this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. In reality, the Project is likely to have a significant impact on GHG emissions that should be analyzed and mitigated appropriately according to the Project’s fair share of cumulative emissions.

Advocates for the Environment
A non-profit public-interest law firm
and environmental advocacy organization
Comment
LeƩ er
B2
B2-1
B2-2
City of Fresno Page 2
Comments on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project May 17, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] The RDEIR concludes that this proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. However, evidence in the record before the City indicates that the Project is inconsistent with applicable plans and policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG), and failed to fall within the adopted significance thresholds, and is therefore likely to have a significant environmental impact due to high levels of GHG emissions.

Threshold 4.6.1 – Direct or Indirect Significant Impact The first significance threshold adopted by the RDEIR is Threshold 4.6.1: “the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.” (RDEIR 4.6-20). The Project estimated annual construction emissions at approximately 1,961.0 Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, with total operational emissions of approximately 4,967 MTCO2e annually. GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod. The RDEIR states that “if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that meets the standards, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant GHG emission impacts.” (RDEIR, p. 4.6-22.) The City claims that the RDEIR qualifies, based on consistency with the Fresno Reduction Plan Update (RPU), as determined by compliance with the Consistency Checklist (Checklist). (RDEIR, p. 4.6-23).

The City concluded that the Project meets all the Checklist requirements, does not conflict with the City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update, and therefore results in a less than significant impact. However, the resulting significance determination on this basis is erroneous because the Project would not meet all the applicable requirements of the RPU’s Consistency Checklist. In particular, the Project is not compliant with Checklist item 2:b, which requires commercial buildings to “provide EV charging spaces capable of supporting EV capable spaces at 4% to 10% of the parking space.” (Appendix H). The City claims that this item is not applicable to this Project because it “would not include commercial uses.” Yet, the title of the Project as an “Office/Warehouse” indicates that offices—a well-known commercial use—will be one of the primary uses. And in certain cases warehouses are also commercial.

Although it may not be a commercial project on the whole due to the potential inclusion of industrial uses, the Checklist specifies that this item applies to commercial “buildings.” Thus, the Project will need to demonstrate that it will install the required EV charging spaces for all of the buildings intended to be used as offices in order to be in compliance with the Checklist.

This apparent failure to meet all the applicable Checklist requirements means that the City cannot rely on the Checklist as a mechanism to rule out a determination of significant GHG impact, and results in the Project being deemed inconsistent with the entire RPU. (Appendix H). Thus, the City will need to apply a different standard for determining “direct or indirect impact” if it is to use Threshold 4.6.1 as one of the significance thresholds and cannot Comment
LeƩ er
B2
Cont.

B2-3
B2-4
City of Fresno Page 3
Comments on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project May 17, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] claim no significant impact on this basis. Further, any project that fails to meet all of the applicable Checklist requirements must go a step further by incorporating all of the Checklist measures “to the extent feasible,” which would likely go beyond the minimal requirements.

Threshold 4.6.2 - Inconsistent with Applicable Plans
The second significance threshold adopted by the RDEIR is Threshold 4.6.2: the project would not “conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.” (RDEIR, p. 4.6-23). This language requires the Project to comply with all applicable plans, not only the plans most favored by the City. But here the RDEIR excluded a meaningful analysis of several applicable plans while identifying and comparing plans that are no longer applicable. The RDEIR concluded the Project would have no significant GHG impact under this adopted threshold, but that conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.

The RDEIR analyzed five applicable plans: Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the 2022 Scoping Plan. The RDEIR conclusively stated that “the proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in EO B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, mainly based on the argument that the Project is consistent with the RPU. (RDEIR 4.6-25.) For example, the RDEIR states that because the Project is consistent with the RPU, that “emissions associated with the project would not hinder the City’s ability to meet the reduction targets outlined in SB 32.” (RDEIR 4.6-26). However, as demonstrated above, the Project is not consistent with the RPU, so the lead agency will need to find a different basis to establish consistency with SB 32.

The RDEIR was unable to establish, with substantial evidence, that the Project is consistent with all of the identified appliable plans, policies, and regulations for the reduction of GHGs. Therefore, its conclusion that the proposed Project would have less than significant impact is not supported.

There are significant inconsistencies with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan which the RDEIR analysis failed to address. The Scoping Plan was developed to facilitate California’s compliance with SB 32, which requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. (Health & Safety Code § 38566.) The 2017 CARB Scoping Plan sets out statewide goals for total GHG emissions targets of 6 MTCO2e/capita by 2030, and 2 MTCO2e/capita by 2050 (CARB Scoping Plan, p. 99).

From the information provided in the RDEIR, it is impossible to determine the Project’s actual per capita metric, because there is no mention of the number of workers that would Comment
LeƩ er
B2
Cont.

B2-4
cont.

B2-5
B2-6
City of Fresno Page 4
Comments on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project May 17, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] comprise the Project’s service population, but the average warehouse employs 182 workers.1 Because the Project’s net operational GHG emissions are estimated to be 4,967 MTCO2e/year, the Project’s per-service population emissions would be about 27.29 MTCO2e/service population each operating year.2
As this is more than four times the 2030
goal of 6 MTCO2e/capita, and the building would likely last more than seven years, there is a fair argument that this inconsistency demonstrates significant GHG impact. To the extent that the true predicted service population differs from this average, the City should update the resulting estimated per capita emissions and compare the result to the goals set out in the 2017 Scoping Plan for the Project’s full lifespan.

Further, the Project is clearly inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. It is likely that this Project will be operating well into 2045, due to the long lifespan of warehouses, so the RDEIR must demonstrate consistency with the entire operation of the Project. Here, there is no showing that the Project would achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 because it anticipates using natural gas and other carbon-intensive fuels with no future plan for reduction.

The RDEIR should be updated to reflect consistency not only with the identified applicable plans, but also other applicable plans that it disregarded. Specifically, for the Project’s impacts to be insignificant, the Project must be consistent with the EO B-55-18, because it is an applicable policy.

And the RDEIR made no effort to reconcile the Project with EO B-55-18, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. As this Project requires industrial storage and transportation using large vehicles, with no plans of reducing or offsetting emissions to zero by 2045, the City has made no demonstration of consistency with B-55-18, which is an applicable policy that the Project must demonstrate consistency with in order to conclude that the impact is less than significant.

Threshold 4.6.1 – Cumulative Impact
“Threshold 4.6.3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.” There is no need for this to be analyzed in a separate significance threshold because CEQA requires that all GHG impact to be cumulative. For the reasons given above, the Project would contribute to significant cumulative GHG impact because the RDEIR has not demonstrated that the GHG impact is below the significance thresholds.
1 www.mmh.com/article/2018_warehouse_distribution_center_survey_labor_crunch_driving_automation 2 4,967 MTCO2e 182 people = 27.29 MTCO2e/service population Comment
LeƩ er
B2
Cont.

B2-7
B2-6
cont.

B2-8
City of Fresno Page 5
Comments on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project May 17, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] CalEEMod Deficiencies
Appendix C contains the CalEEMod output sheets, which show the basis for the RDEIR’s GHG emissions estimates. There is no evidence for the CO2 efficiency of 203.98 lb/MWhr, a parameter which was used for CalEEMod. Evidence demonstrates that the intensity score in reality is much higher, at about 352.45 lb/MWhr.3 There is also no indication
on the CalEEMod parameters of where the intensity score originated or otherwise was calculated from, for all intensity metrics of CO2, CH4, and NO2. The agency should amend the intensity scores for all of them as necessary and cite where the numbers are from.

Additionally, the CalEEMod analysis indicates a population of zero although presumably there will be some non-zero service population due to the need for employees to conduct general operations at the warehouse. The RPU Consistency Checklist indicates that the Project will employ over 100 individuals, although it does not specify how many. The agency should amend the CalEEMod population parameter to reflect the true estimated value because it could affect the Project’s emissions.

Certain EMFAC Adjustment factors were changed to be lower than their default value, which would result in a reduction in the total CO2e estimation. But the RDEIR does not support these alterations of the default with any evidence or rationale for why they would be any different from the standard program used for modeling vehicle emissions. The result of this is an underreporting of VMT-related GHG emissions without a basis for doing so.

Lastly, certain values are reported as zero when there is evidence that it would result in emissions in reality. For example, the entry for “architectural coatings,” which are paints or other products for the exterior of the building, would likely be used and release some amount of GHGs that should be accounted for in section 6.2 (Appendix H).

Overall, the total estimation of 4,967 MTCO2e per year appears to be an underexaggeration which does not reflect an accurate estimation of the Project’s GHG emissions.

Feasible Mitigation
No mitigation measures were considered for GHGs due to the erroneous determination of less than significant impact. The identification and analysis of mitigation is necessary because the REIR does not sufficiently demonstrate that GHG emissions would have a less than significant impact. However, because the City should have found significant impact for GHG emissions, it should update its findings accordingly and would therefore be required to mitigate to the fair share level. To do so, the RDEIR should incorporate mitigation measures to make it 3 https://findenergy.com/ca/fresno-county-electricity/#fuel-types (1,002,972,444 kg * conversion factor = 2211175739.13 lbs. 2211175739.13 lbs/6,273,644 MWh = 352.4547678).

Comment
LeƩ er
B2
Cont.

B2-12
B2-9
B2-10
B2-11
City of Fresno Page 6
Comments on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project May 17, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] clear that the Project’s effects would be sufficiently mitigated to lower GHG impact to the fair share extent.

There are many mitigation measures that can feasibly be adopted. For example, while Cal Green standards would be met, it would not follow any other green ratings. One mitigation that could be implemented is adherence to the LEED certification standard, among other green building standards. The warehouse could incorporate energy-generating features such as rooftop solar panels or sponsor local renewable energy programs. The Project could require future tenants to use electric equipment and vehicles to the extent possible, and strictly prohibit idling on the premises.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis
Finally, the RDEIR identified the impact of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as “less than significant” without mitigation, simply based on the fact that the Project’s estimated VMT per employee is lower than the regional average of 25.6 miles. (RDEIR 4.10-14). However, this conclusion cannot stand without adequately supporting the validity of chosen significance threshold.

The RDEIR recognizes that “a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance.” (RDEIR 4-10.13).

Although the RDEIR may have technically satisfied this requirement, the conclusion it came to is not supported by substantial evidence because the adopted threshold of significance (namely, comparing the estimated VMT to the current regional average) does not have a rational basis.

Specifically, the RDEIR has not demonstrated that the current average VMT of the region is a rational significance threshold. This logic, without more evidentiary support, is invalid because there is no reason why a current average value could not also be a “significant” VMT value; it is not mutually exclusive. Thus, this threshold relies on the inherent presumption that the current average value is necessarily less than significant without demonstrating that this is the case.

Even if the City can demonstrate that the current average value is less than significant, it must still analyze the potential need for VMT reductions in the future and how the Project will meet the goals for the reasonable lifetime of an office/warehouse building. In all likelihood, average VMT may have to be reduced in the near future and consistently achieve reductions from the current average in order to meet local, regional, and statewide VMT goals and concomitant GHG reductions. And because the significance analysis must account for the reasonable lifetime of the Project in its entirety, the VMT analysis should likewise demonstrate that the Project will not only demonstrate a VMT impact that meets the current standard, but also will be able to achieve VMT reductions in alignment with future standards to the extent that it would create an above-significant impact during the Project’s operation.

Comment
LeƩ er
B2
Cont.

B2-13
B2-12
cont.

City of Fresno Page 7
Comments on 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project May 17, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Conclusion
In conclusion, the lead agency assumed, without analyzing, that the project will comply with the measures outlined in applicable plans and policies, but clearly conflicts with those plans. And it entirely ignored several key applicable plans for GHG reductions.

Please put Advocates for the Environment on the list of interested parties to receive updates about the progress of this potential project approval.

Sincerely,
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
Executive Director, Advocates for the Environment
Comment
LeƩ er
B2
Cont.

B2-14
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -136 LETTER B2
Advocates for the Environment
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
May 17, 2023
Response B2-1: This introductory comment is noted. More specific comments provided in this letter are further responded to below.

Response B2-2: This comment asserts that no substantial evidence supported the less than significant impact conclusion for three significance thresholds for GHG emissions. This comment also claims that the proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on GHG emissions that should be analyzed and mitigated appropriately according to the project’s fair share of cumulative emissions.

The analysis of GHG impacts contained in the Recirculated Draft EIR is supported by substantial evidence. As described on page 4.6-22 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

In accordance with CEQA, the City made a good-faith effort to evaluate the project’s GHG emissions based on the City’s GHG Reduction Plan. Consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Plan that meets the standards, the lead agency may presume that the project would not have significant GHG emission impacts.

The City of Fresno’s GHG Reduction Plan was adopted in December 2014 to reduce local community GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, consistent with the State objectives set forth in AB 32. The City’s 2014 GHG Reduction Plan meets the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in Fresno, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. 3-137

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) The City of Fresno updated its 2014 GHG Reduction Plan in 2021 to conform with existing applicable State climate change policies and regulations to reduce local community GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030, consistent with the State objectives set by SB 32. The GHG Plan Update outlines strategies that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of GHG emission reductions. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, the Program EIR1 for the General Plan and GHG Reduction Plan Update and City Council Hearings provide the environmental review and adoption in a public process.

The GHG Reduction Plan Update requires an analysis of GHG emissions to ensure that the change in land use designation would not result in a significant increase in GHG emissions compared to the existing land use designation. The proposed project would not require a change in the General Plan land use designation or the current zoning and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning applicable to the project site. Therefore, an analysis of the proposed project’s estimated GHG emissions compared to the estimated GHG emissions associated with the maximum buildout of the existing designation would not be required.

The GHG Reduction Plan Update includes a Consistency Checklist to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA. The City evaluated the proposed project using the Consistency Checklist for consistency with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update, as discussed on pages 4.6-22 and 4.6-23 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. The project’s Consistency Checklist is included in Appendix H of the Recirculated Draft EIR. As shown in the Consistency Checklist, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies from the GHG Reduction Plan Update. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, as described further in Responses B2-3 through B2-9 and on pages 4.6-23 through 4.6-26 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would have a less than significant cumulative impact.

Response B2-3: The commenter states that evidence in the record before the City indicates that the project is inconsistent with applicable plans and policies designed to reduce GHG emissions, failed to fall within the adopted significance 1 The Program EIR can be found online at: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019050005/3. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

Please refer to Response B2-2, above. The City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update meets the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in Fresno, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The Recirculated Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update, and the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary. In addition, as described on pages 4.6- 23 through 4.6-25 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the 2022 Scoping Plan. The City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update is consistent with the SB 32 statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Further, as identified on page 4.6-25 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 requires the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric heavy-duty trucks, which would be consistent with the State’s advanced clean fleets rule, which has a goal of achieving a zero-emission truck and bus California fleet by 2045.

Therefore, the Recirculated Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant, and the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary.

Response B2-4: This comment states that the proposed project’s estimated annual construction emissions would be approximately 1,961.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year and the total operational emissions would be approximately 4,967 metric tons of CO2e per year. Further, this comment states that the City concluded that the project meets all the Consistency Checklist requirements, does not conflict with the City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update, and therefore results in a less than significant impact. However, this comment asserts that the significance determination is erroneous because the project is not compliant with Checklist item 2:b, which requires that new commercial buildings provide electric vehicle (EV) capable charging spaces at 4% to 10% of the parking spaces per the 2019 CALGreen code (Title 24, Part 11), Section 5.106.5.3.

The commenter is incorrect that the proposed project’s estimated annual construction emissions would be approximately 1,961.0 metric tons of CO2e per year. As shown in Table 4.6.E of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,961.0 metric tons of CO2e over the entire construction period, not per year.
3-139

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) As discussed in Appendix H, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update Checklist, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project would not include commercial uses. As identified in the Project Description, the project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. As shown in Figure 3-5 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the four buildings would be configured for heavy industrial uses and would potentially include small offices that would support the industrial/warehouse uses. The proposed project would not be considered an office or commercial land use.

Therefore, Checklist item 2:b, intended for commercial land uses, is not applicable to the project. In addition, as identified in the Project Description, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 Standards. The 2022 CALGreen code includes mandatory measures for non-residential projects, which apply to all new nonresidential buildings and include requirements for EV-capable spaces in accordance with Table 5.105.5.3.1 of CALGreen.1 As such, although the proposed project is not a commercial project, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 CALGreen code, which is consistent with the requirements in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update Checklist.

Response B2-5: This comment claims that the Recirculated Draft EIR excluded a meaningful analysis of several applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and that the Recirculated Draft EIR identified and compared plans that are no longer applicable, including EO B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the 2022 Scoping Plan. In addition, this comment claims that the project is not consistent with the GHG Reduction Plan Update, so the lead agency will need to find a different basis to establish consistency with SB

32. Please refer to Responses B2-2, B2-3, and B2-4. The City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update meets the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in Fresno, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The Recirculated Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update, and the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary. The City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update is consistent with the SB 32 statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In addition, the Recirculated Draft EIR qualitatively evaluates the proposed project according to the goals of EO B-30-15, SB 32, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Recirculated Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of 1 International Code Council. 2023. op. cit.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -140 reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant, and the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary.

Response B2-6: This comment asserts that the proposed project would exceed estimated percapita emissions and compares the result to the goals set out in the 2017 Scoping Plan. This comment incorrectly claims that the warehouse would employ 182 workers, resulting in per-service population emissions of approximately 27.29 metric tons of CO2e per year, which is more than four times the 2030 goal of 6.0 metric tons of CO2e per year.

As discussed in Response B2-2, above, on page 4.6-23 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, and in the GHG Reduction Plan Update, a quantitative analysis of GHG emissions is only required for projects that would require a change in the General Plan land use designation or zoning designation. The proposed project would not require a change in the General Plan land use designation or the current zoning and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, an analysis of the proposed project’s estimated GHG emissions would not be required. As stated above, the GHG Reduction Plan Update includes a Consistency Checklist to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA, which was used for the GHG analysis in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Therefore, an evaluation of percapita emissions is not required. Furthermore, as discussed in Response B1- 16, the TIS (Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft EIR) estimated that the proposed project would have approximately 4,920 employees. As such, the proposed project would result in per-service population emissions of 1.0 metric tons of CO2e per year, which is well below the 2030 goal of 6.0 metric tons of CO2e per year identified in the comment letter. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Response B2-7: This comment claims that the project is inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

In addition, as explained in Responses B2-4 and B2-5, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 Standards. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement the building decarbonization goals by 2045 from the 2022 Scoping Plan. Further, as identified on page 4.6-25 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 requires the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric heavyduty trucks, which would be consistent with the State’s advanced clean fleets rule, which has a goal of achieving a zero-emission truck and bus California fleet by 2045.
3-141

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) Response B2-8: This comment claims that the project would contribute to a significant cumulative GHG impact because the Recirculated Draft EIR has not demonstrated that the GHG impact is below the significance thresholds.

Please refer to Responses B2-2, B2-3, and B2-4. The City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update meets the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in Fresno, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The Recirculated Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update, and the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, the Recirculated Draft EIR properly determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant project or cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions.

Response B2-9: This comment states that there is no evidence for the carbon dioxide (CO2) efficiency of 203.98 pounds per megawatt-hour (lbs/MWhr), a parameter that was used for CalEEMod.

The CO2 intensity in CalEEMod was based on default assumptions based on PG&E as the utility company. As discussed in the CalEEMod User Guide, 1 when a specific utility is selected, the intensity factors for CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) will be automatically populated with defaults applicable to the specified utility. The intensity factors are used in various modules to calculate the GHG emissions associated with electricity use. The default values are based on CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGO)2 for CO2, updated public utility protocols for CO2, and E-Grid values for CH4 and N2O. Each default CO2 intensity factor is based on the latest reporting year available for each utility. Appendix D, Table 1.2, of the CalEEMod User Guide provides the default CO2 intensity factor and reporting year from which the factor was identified for each utility identified in the drop-down list.

Response B2-10: This comment states that the CalEEMod analysis indicates a population of zero, although presumably there will be some non-zero service population due to the need for employees to conduct general operations at the warehouse.

In regard to comments regarding the population of zero, according to the CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix A, population data is only used to estimate emissions associated with residential land uses. CalEEMod does not consider employees as population. Since the proposed project does not include residential uses and population is not used to calculate non-residential 1 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0. May. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide (accessed May 2022). 2
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/localgov.htm. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -142 emissions, the Recirculated Draft EIR’s use of a zero population for CalEEMod purposes was appropriate and consistent with standard practice.

Response B2-11: This comment states that certain EMFAC adjustment factors were changed and that certain values are reported as zero when there is evidence that it would result in emissions in reality. For example, the entry for “architectural coatings,” which are paints or other products for the exterior of the building, would likely be used and release some amount of GHGs that should be accounted for.

Further, the comments claiming EMFAC adjustment factors were changed and that certain values are reported as zero, including architectural coating, are not correct. The non-default changes to CalEEMod include the following:
adjusting the construction schedule based on the project schedule; updating the vehicle trips and fleet mix to account for the vehicle and truck trip generation for the proposed project as identified in the TIS; and assuming compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) and use of Tier 4 construction equipment as required by Mitigation Measure AIR-2.

These nondefault changes were made in CalEEMod based on project-specific information provided by the project applicant. The commenter is incorrect that changes were made to EMFAC adjustment factors and architectural coating assumptions in CalEEMod.

Response B2-12: This comment states that the identification and analysis of mitigation is necessary for the proposed project. Please refer to Responses B2-2 and B2-3.

The City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update meets the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in Fresno, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 standards and would also include cool roof materials. The proposed project would include EV-capable spaces and Mitigation Measure AIR-1, as identified in Section 4.2, Air Quality, which requires the infrastructure for AC and/or DC chargers for electric heavy-duty trucks. This would be consistent with the State’s advanced clean fleets rule, which has a goal of achieving a zero-emission truck and bus California fleet by 2045. The Recirculated Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update, and the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, the Recirculated Draft EIR properly determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

As such, identification and analysis of mitigation measures is not required. (See Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21100, subd. (b)(3); San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco [1989] 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1517.)
3-143

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) Response B2-13: This comment claims that the Recirculated Draft EIR identified VMT impacts as “less than significant” without mitigation, based on the fact that the project’s estimated VMT per employee is lower than the regional average of

25.6 miles. This comment states that this conclusion cannot stand without adequately supporting the validity of the chosen significance threshold. This comment also states that even if the City can demonstrate that the current average value is less than significant, it must still analyze the potential need for VMT reductions in the future and how the project will meet the goals for the reasonable lifetime of an office/warehouse building.

As discussed on page 4.10-12 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.” In addition, as discussed on page 4.10-12, on June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines), pursuant to SB 743, to be effective as of July 1, 2020. The City’s document serves as a detailed guideline for preparing VMT analyses consistent with SB 743 requirements for development projects, transportation projects, and plans. Project applicants are required to follow the guidance provided in the City’s document for preparation of CEQA VMT analysis. As such, the significance threshold used in the Recirculated Draft EIR was obtained from the City’s VMT Guidelines. The City’s VMT Guidelines include substantial evidence for establishment of the region’s significance thresholds. The City’s VMT Guidelines state the following:
“The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to disclose and reduce GHG emissions by reducing the number and length of
automobile trips. As part of the SB 375 land use/transportation integration process and the GHG goal setting, the State and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) have
agreed to reduce GHG through integrated land use and
transportation planning by a statewide average of
approximately 15 percent by 2035...”
Based on the City’s VMT Guidelines, to achieve these goals, the regional VMT per employee would be reduced if a project’s VMT per employee is less than the regional VMT per employee threshold. In case of the Fresno region, the threshold is 13 percent below the existing VMT per employee for the region. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
S EPTEMBER 2023
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\Final\3.0 Responses.docx (09/01/23) -144 Therefore, a project that would have a VMT per employee lower than the regional threshold would help achieve the targeted VMT and GHG goals for the region.

The analysis for existing conditions presents a conservative scenario. The project trip lengths are longer in the existing conditions compared to future conditions as explained on page 4.10-14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. The project trip lengths are reduced in the future due to additional developments occurring in the region compared to existing conditions. These additional developments allow for intervening opportunities closer to the project, compared to the lengthier distances between existing land uses under existing conditions. Therefore, the existing conditions have been analyzed for the project consistent with recommendations from the City’s guidelines. The guidelines provide substantial evidence demonstrating the appropriateness of the VMT analysis methodology consistent with the intended goals for SB 743.

This comment does not identify any new significant environmental issues or impacts that were not already addressed in the Recirculated Draft EIR.

Neither this comment nor the response constitutes new information requiring recirculation of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

Response B2-14: This comment states that the project conflicts with the measures outlined in applicable plans and policies and clearly conflicts with key plans. This comment is noted. For the reasons explained in the responses above, the Recirculated Draft EIR properly evaluated the proposed project’s potential impacts, and the commenter has not presented substantial evidence to the contrary. Therefore, a revised EIR is not required.
6179-012j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
.

SO. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000
SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
___________
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper

May 19, 2023
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Steven Martinez, Planner
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
City Hall
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043,
Fresno, California, 93721-3604
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project, Development Permit Application No. P21-02699 and Tentative Parcel Map No. P21-05930 (SCH 2022050265)
Dear Mr. Martinez:

We write on behalf of Fresno Residents for Responsible Development (“Fresno Residents”) to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and Recirculated DEIR (“RDEIR”) prepared by the City of Fresno (“City”) for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project, Development Permit Application No. P21-02699 and Tentative Parcel Map No. P21 05930 (SCH 2022050265) (“Project”), proposed by Scannell Properties (“Applicant”).1 The Project proposes construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses.2 The proposed buildings would result in a total gross floor area of approximately 901,438 square feet.3 The buildings’ exterior height would be up to 44 feet with an interior height of up to 36 feet and designed with a total of 201 loading dock doors on the north and south 1 City of Fresno, Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project (SCH: 2022050265) (hereinafter “DEIR”) (February 2023); and Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project (SCH:
2022050265) (hereinafter “RDEIR”) (April 2023) available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022050265/3 2 DEIR, p. 1-3. 3 DEIR, p. 1-3.

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
B3-1
May 19, 2023

Page 2 ends

6179-012j
sides of the buildings.4 The four buildings would be comprised of the following:

Building 1 would be 468,812 square feet and would provide 122 loading dock doors; Building 2 would be 248,786 square feet and would provide 46 loading dock doors; Building 3 would be 93,074 square feet and would provide 18 loading dock doors; and Building 4 would be 90,766 square feet and would provide 15 loading dock doors.5 The Project site is located at 2740 West Nielsen Avenue, between North Marks and North Hughes Avenues in the City and County of Fresno.6 The 48.03- acre Project site is currently vacant but formerly consisted of an industrial warehouse that has since been demolished.7 The Project site is bounded to the north by partially developed land, to the east by North Hughes Avenue, to the south by West Nielsen Avenue, and to the west by North Marks Avenue.8 Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 180 (“SR-180”), which is located approximately

0.3 mile south of the project site, and State Route 99 (“SR-99”), which is located approximately 0.8 miles east of the project site.9
The Project proposes a total of 594 on-site parking spaces for vehicles and trucks.10 Of the 594 parking spaces, 385 spaces are allocated for passenger vehicles, 11 spaces for accessible vehicles, and 10 spaces for accessible vans. 11 The remaining 188 spaces are allocated for trailers and are proposed to be located along the eastern and western edges of the project site.12

The Applicant seeks the following approvals from the City in order to construct the Project: certification of the EIR; development permit; tentative parcel map; water connection permit; and sanitary sewer connection permit.13 The Project also requires approval from Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) for electrical and natural gas connections, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”) for a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) for a Dust Control Plan Approval letter and compliance with Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review.14 4 DEIR, p. 1-3.
5 DEIR, p. 1-3.
6 DEIR, p. 2-2.
7 DEIR, p. 3-5.
8 DEIR, pp. 2-1 – 2-2.
9 DEIR, p. 3-1.
10 DEIR, p. 1-3.
11 DEIR, p. 1-3.
12 DEIR, p. 1-3.
13 DEIR, p. 3-18.
14 DEIR, p. 3-18.

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-1
cont.

May 19, 2023

Page 3 ends

6179-012j
Based upon our review of the DEIR and supporting documentation, we conclude that the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act15 (“CEQA”). The DEIR fails to adequately analyze many of the Project’s significant environmental impacts and fails to propose enforceable mitigation measures that can reduce those impacts to a less than significant level, as required by CEQA.

As explained more fully below, the DEIR fails to properly analyze and mitigate the Project’s transportation, air quality, health risk, GHG emissions, energy, and noise impacts. The DEIR fails to support its significant findings with substantial evidence, and fails to mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible, in violation of CEQA. The Project also conflicts with applicable land use plans and policies, resulting in land use inconsistencies as well as significant impacts under CEQA. The City may not approve the Project until the City revises the DEIR to adequately analyze the Project’s significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

We reviewed the DEIR, technical appendices, and reference documents, with the assistance of our expert consultants, including air quality and hazardous materials expert James J.J. Clark, Ph.D. of Clark and Associates, noise expert Derek Watry of Wilson Ihrig, and transportation expert Normal Marshall of Smart Mobility whose comments and qualifications are included as Attachment A, Attachment B, and Attachment C respectively.16 Dr. Clark, Mr. Watry, and Mr.

Marshall provide substantial evidence of potentially significant impacts that have not been adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated. The City must address and respond to their comments separately and fully.17
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Fresno Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential impacts associated with Project development. East Bay Residents includes the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 100, Plumbers and Pipefitters UA Local 15 Pub. Resources Code (hereinafter “PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs (hereinafter “CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq.
16 Exhibit A, James J.J. Clark, Ph.D., Clark & Associates (hereinafter “Clark Comments”); Exhibit B, Derek Watry, Wilson Ihrig (hereinafter “Watry Comments”); Exhibit C, Norman Marshall, Smart Mobility (hereinafter “Marshall Comments”). 17 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a), (c).

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-2
B3-3
May 19, 2023

Page 4 ends

6179-012j
442, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 669, District Council of Ironworkers their members and their families, and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of Fresno and Fresno County.

Fresno Residents support sustainable development in the City. Residents have a strong interest in enforcing the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Large warehouse projects like this Project should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, noise levels, transportation, biological resources, and public health, and should take all feasible steps to ensure unavoidable impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial and industrial development truly be sustainable.

The individual members of Fresno Residents live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Fresno and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work constructing the Project itself. They would be the first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards which may be present on the Project site. They each have a personal interest in protecting the Project area from unnecessary, adverse environmental and public health impacts.

In addition, Fresno Residents has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

Finally, Fresno Residents is concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits. CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts to the environment.18 It is in this spirit we offer these comments.
18 PRC § 21081(a)(3); Citizens for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-3
cont.

May 19, 2023

Page 5 ends

6179-012j
II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA requires public agencies to analyze the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions in an EIR.19 “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”20
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project.21 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’”22 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”23 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”24
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring consideration of environmentally superior alternatives and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.25 The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.”26 If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has 19 PRC § 21100.
20 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (internal quotations omitted).
21 PRC § 21061; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1); 15003(b)-(e); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 517 (“[T]he basic purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.”).
22 Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 392). 23 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810; see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v.

Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”) (purpose of EIR is to inform the public and officials of environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made). 24 CEQA Guidelines § 15003(b). 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2), (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564. 26 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2).

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-4
May 19, 2023

Page 6 ends

6179-012j
“eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment” to the greatest extent feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.”27 While courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”28 As the courts have explained, a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”29 “The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”30 III. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
The DEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate and complete Project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate.

California courts have repeatedly held that “an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”31 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.32 Without a complete project description, the 27 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090(a), 15091(a), 15092(b)(2)(A), (B); Covington v.

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 28 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409, fn. 12).
29 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision-makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). 30 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 405). 31 County of Inyo v. County of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. 32 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 192–193.

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-4
cont.

B3-5
May 19, 2023

Page 7 ends

6179-012j
environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.33 A lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description.34 CEQA Guidelines section 15378 defines “project” to mean “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”35 “The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term project does not mean each separate governmental approval.36 Courts have explained that a complete description of a project must “address not only the immediate environmental consequences of going forward with the project, but also all “reasonably foreseeable consequence[s] of the initial project.”37 “If a[n]…EIR…does not adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project, informed decisionmaking cannot occur under CEQA and the final EIR is inadequate as a matter of law.”
A. The DEIR Fails to Identify the End Users of the Project The Project description typically need not identify the end user for a project because CEQA is concerned with the project’s environmental impacts, not who uses it.38 However, courts have held that where the tenant, or type of business, is known and there is evidence that an impact unique to that tenant or type of business will result, an EIR must disclose that information.39 Here, the type of end users of the Project may have significant environmental impacts depending on the truck trips that those end users will generate.

The DEIR assumes that the end users of the site will generate truck trips consistent with the average trip generation rate of 2.13 trucks per 1,000 square feet found in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study 33 Id.
34 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (“Sundstrom”). 35 14 C.C.R. 15378(a).
36 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
37 Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at p. 396 (emphasis added); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-50. 38 Maintain Our Desert Env’t v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 CA4th 430. 39 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 CA4th 1184, 1213.

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-5
cont.

B3-6
May 19, 2023

Page 8 ends

6179-012j
(“WRCOG Study”).40 However, the WRCOG Study shows that trip generation rates can vary widely depending on the end user of a project. For example, the WRCOG Study found that an Amazon facility generated 4.5 daily trips per 1,000 square feet, twice the rate assumed in the DEIR.41 This approach is unsupported and is likely to underestimate impacts. Since the City lacks information about the type of end user that will ultimately occupy the Project warehouses after construction, the DEIR should have analyzed truck trips based on the most intensive reasonably foreseeable use of the site, not an average use, because the City has no evidence that Project truck trips will less intensive, or “average,” when compared to other comparable facilities.

The DEIR relies on average trip generation rates for its analysis of the Project’s operational air quality, health risk, GHG emissions, energy, noise, and vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts. The DEIR may therefore substantially underestimate the severity of each of these impacts of a more trip-intensive use occurs at the Project site. The DEIR should be revised to calculate impacts based on the most intensive foreseeable uses at the Project site.

B. The DEIR Fails to Disclose Whether the Project Will Require Use of Backup Generators
An EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of a proposed future expansion or other future action at a project site if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.42 Commercial and industrial businesses commonly rely on backup generators (“BUG”) to supply emergency power during project operations in order to limit downtime.

A recent study of BUG use in California (“BUG Study”) found that backup generator use is sharply rising among commercial and industrial land uses, and are clustered in existing environmentally burdened communities.43 For example, in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, BUG use significantly expanded between 2020 and 2021, growing from 12,104 in 2020 to 14,785 in 2021, a 22 40 DEIR, 4.10-9.
41 Marshall, p. 4.
42 Id.
43 M.Cubed, Diesel Back-Up Generator Population Grows Rapidly in the Bay Area and Southern California (“BUG Use Study”) (2021) p. 7. Available at
Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-6
cont.

B3-7
May 19, 2023

Page 9 ends

6179-012j
percent increase.44 The BUG Use Study found that forty-seven percent of generators are sited in communities classified as being in CalEnviroScreen’s 80th to 100th percentile for pollution burden, with 33 percent of BUGs located in communities above the 90th percentile.45 Backup generators commonly rely on fuels such as natural gas or diesel,46 and thus can significantly impact air quality, GHG emissions, and public health through toxic diesel particulate (“DPM”) emissions.47 As the end users of the Project will likely not want to stop operations during power supply emergencies, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project would use on-site BUGs. Therefore, the DEIR must disclose whether the Project will use BUGs, and, if so, analyze the effects of the Project’s use of generators. The DEIR’s failure to provide any information about the use of generators causes the DEIR to fail as an informational document.

C. The DEIR Fails to Disclose Whether the Project Will Require Use of Diesel Fire Pumps
The DEIR fails to analyze the diesel emissions from routine testing and operation of fire pumps at the Project site. An email from the City Fire Department to the City Planning Department sent on September 16, 2022 explains that “warehouse developments of this [Project’s] size will typically have high demand fire sprinkler systems for high rack storage and fire sprinkler systems will be 44 BUG Use Study, p. 8.
45 BUG Use Study, p. 7.
46 SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators (“Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel”).
47 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-publicsafety-power-shutoff (“When electric utilities de-energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury. Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)”).

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-7
cont.

B3-8
May 19, 2023

Page 10 ends

6179-012j
supplemented with private fire pumps as needed.”48 However, the DEIR’s CalEEMod output sheets located in Appendix C, which show the results of the DEIR’s air quality impacts analysis, fail to include an output for the Project’s fire pumps.49 The DEIR’s failure to provide any information about the Project’s use of fire pumps causes the DEIR to fail as an informational document.

IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ESTABLISH THE EXISTING

BASELINE
The DEIR fails to accurately disclose the baseline environmental conditions related to the Project’s health risk impacts. As a result, the DEIR lacks the necessary baseline information against which to measure the Project’s environmental impacts with regard to impacts on sensitive receptors from construction.

The existing environmental setting is the starting point from which the lead agency must measure whether a proposed project may cause a significant environmental impact.50 CEQA defines the environmental setting as the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and regional perspective.51 Describing the environmental setting accurately and completely for each environmental condition in the vicinity of the Project is critical to an accurate, meaningful evaluation of environmental impacts. The courts have clearly stated that,“[b]efore the impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an [environmental review document] must describe the existing environment. It is only against this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined.”52
48 DEIR, Appendix A: NOP Comments, pdf. p. 65. Email from Byron Beagles to Steven Martinez re Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2740 W. Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project (September 16, 2022)
49 DEIR, Appendix C: CalEEMod Output Sheets, p. 34 of 34. 50 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Env’t v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (March 15, 2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 316.
51 CEQA Guidelines §15125(a) (emphasis added); Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1453 (“Riverwatch”). 52 County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952.

Comment
LeƩ er
B3
Cont.

B3-8
cont.

B3-9
May 19, 2023

Page 11 ends

Fresno City CouncilJanuary 11, 2024

Fresno City Council
January 11, 2024