Exhibit Q-1
Appeal Letter from
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
G
reen Jobs & Clean Communities
1 of 5
765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Corona, CA 92880
1265 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93711
October 15, 2023
J
ennifer Clark
Director of Development
Steven Mar�nez
Planner
Via Email To:
[email protected]
Steven.Mar�[email protected]
[email protected]
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, California 93721
Subject: Appeal to the Fresno City Council regarding a decision of the Fresno Planning Commission, during the P/C Mee�ng of October 4, 2023. Specifically. Development Permit Applica�on No. P21- 02699 and Tenta�ve Parcel Map No. P21-05930. SCH# 2022050265.
Project Name: 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Warehouse EIR
Appellant: Golden State Environmental Jus�ce Alliance
PURPOSE OF APPEAL
T
his appeal seeks to reverse the en�re decision of the Fresno City Planning Commission issued on October 4, 2023, approving the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office / Warehouse Project.
REASONS FOR APPEAL AND DENIAL OF PROJECT
Golden State Environmental Jus�ce Alliance (“Appellant”) presented mul�ple arguments in our comment leter dated May 15, 2023, addressing the flaws of the DEIR. Addi�onally, comments sent to the Planning Commission on September 29, 2023, addressed the Commission’s failure in its duty to adequately address the environmental, social, and economic jus�ce burden placed on the City of Fresno’s residents. The Planning Commission should have requested an updated Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project due to its size, comprising 901,438 Sq. Ft. or denied the project if the Developer was unwilling to provide a Revised EIR.
Green Jobs & Clean Communities
2 of 5
765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Corona, CA 92880
1265 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93711
Grievances
The decision of the Commission issued on October 4, 2023, would result in further impacts on an already pollu�on-burdened and traffic congested ci�zenry. Government Code sec�on 11135(a) requires local agencies to consider environmental jus�ce impacts on their residents. With the Commission’s decision to approve the project, GSEJA believes the Commission did not fulfill its duty to adequately inves�gate nor mi�gate the project. Further, under CEQA, the city must “Take all ac�on necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthe�c, natural, scenic, and historic environmental quali�es, and freedom from excessive noise.” CEQA also, “Requires governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality.” Pub. Res. Code 21001 (b)(f).
Furthermore, this appeal also addresses the inadequacy of the Response to Comments.
The Responses to Comments (RTC) submited by GSEJA, do not provide meaningful evidence to support the conclusions made. For example, Comment B1-3 states:
“The Project Descrip�on states that “The proposed project would not require any soil import or export.” There is no mechanism for public verifica�on 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 quan�ty of soils/materials to be imported/exported from the site. These grading truck hauling trips must be included for all sec�ons of environmental analysis, including but not limited to the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transporta�on analysis.” The RTC addresses this comment with uncertain language unsupported by meaningful evidence.
The RTC states that “The project site is rela�vely flat; therefore, soil would be balanced on site without any requirement for soil import or export.” The project site’s rela�ve flatness is not described in detail and no context is provided to determine the comparison of rela�vity. Again, there is no method (such as a grading plan) provided for the public or decision makers to verify that the project site is rela�vely flat. A revised EIR must be prepared and recirculated for public comment to include a grading plan to determine the quan�ty of soils/materials to be imported/exported from the site. These grading truck hauling trips must be included for all sec�ons of environmental analysis, including but not limited to the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transporta�on analysis.
Green Jobs & Clean Communities
3 of 5
765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Corona, CA 92880
1265 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93711
Further, Comment B1-8 states:
“The proposed Project site is within Chandler Execu�ve Airport Traffic Patern Zone (TPZ) and Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ). The Fresno County Airport Land Use Compa�bility Plan Update was adopted by the ALUC on December 3, 2018 and amended December 2021. The EIR states that “The City of Fresno Development Code Priority of Plans sec�on men�oned above (Sec�on 15-104- B.4) clearly establishes the adopted Fresno County Airport Land Use Compa�bility 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 Handbook 2 states that Airport Land Use Commission review is required “when a local jurisdic�on has neither revised its local plan(s) to be consistent with the ALUCP (PUC Sec�on 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 Compa�bility 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 Sec�on 21676.5(a) and the EIR must be revised to include this informa�on 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 densi�es 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 calcula�on 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 calcula�on of the project’s maximum intensity of people per acre in order to accurately and adequately analyze the poten�ally significant impacts.”
The RTC addresses Comment B1-8 again with uncertain language not supported by meaningful evidence. The RTC states that “The ALUC has reviewed the proposed project and has provided comments.” However, the ALUC review and comments are not atached for public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informa�onal documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Incorpora�on by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the ALUC review and comment document contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand. A revised EIR must be prepared and recirculated for public comment to include the ALUC review and comments for review by the public and decision makers.
Green Jobs & Clean Communities
4 of 5
765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Corona, CA 92880
1265 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93711
Further, Comment B1-11 states:
"The EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s poten�al to substan�ally increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersec�ons) or incompa�ble uses; or the project’s poten�al to result in inadequate emergency access. The EIR has not provided any exhibits depic�ng the available truck/trailer turning radius at the project driveways or the intersec�ons 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 atemp�ng to turn corners around the site, park, etc. across the site at any point. There are also no exhibits depic�ng emergency vehicle access. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construc�on permi�ng phase is improper mi�ga�on and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informa�onal documents.
A revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project with this analysis to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.”
The RTC addresses Comment B1-11 with uncertain language not supported by meaningful evidence.
For example, the RTC states that “within the project site, there are mul�ple areas for vehicles (both cars and trucks) turning or backing up to avoid any conflic�ng movements, if required.” However, the RTC has not provided any truck turning templates to demonstrate that the project site provides adequate maneuvering area for both trucks and passenger cars simultaneously moving throughout the project site. The RTC also states that “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,” and that “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.” However, the City’s review and confirma�on that the project driveway designs meet design standards for truck access has not been included for public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informa�onal documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Incorpora�on by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as this “review and confirma�on” contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand. Addi�onally, deferring environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construc�on permi�ng phase (FFD emergency access) is improper mi�ga�on and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informa�onal documents. A revised EIR must be prepared and recirculated for public comment to include the City’s “review and confirma�on” for review by the public and decision makers.
Green Jobs & Clean Communities
5 of 5
765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Corona, CA 92880
1265 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93711
Conclusion
Due to the above-men�oned reasons as well as the reasons listed in the original comment leter to the EIR and subsequent leter to the planning commission, GSEJA believes the EIR and RTC are flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. GSEJA requests the City of Fresno City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and require a Revised Environmental Impact Report be completed.
Appeal Fees
Please provide the appeal fee and payment will be provided once that informa�on has been received.
Sincerely,
Pete Sheehan Joe Bourgeois Central California Representa�ve Execu�ve Director Golden State Environmental Jus�ce Alliance Golden State Environmental Jus�ce Alliance 1265 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 100 765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Fresno, CA 93711 Corona, CA 92880 (559) 313-5065 (951) 279-4697
Green Jobs & Clean Communities
6 of 5
765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Corona, CA 92880
1265 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93711