1 Steven Mar�nez, Planner
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Costco Commercial Center Project (CEQA State Clearinghouse # 2021100443) Response to Final EIR Informa�on and Comments
Dear Mr. Mar�nez,
Presented in this leter are comments addressing the Response to Comments and other informa�on provided as part of the Final EIR for the proposed Costco Commercial Center Project. The comments are organized into essen�ally the same three topic areas from my DEIR comment leter, which are:
1) Comments regarding inconsistency between the operational characteristics identified in the proposed project description and the uses allowed by the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone.
2) Comments addressing issues and deficiencies in the analysis of specific categories of environmental effects (For this letter, the comments are particularly focused on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation impacts).
3) Comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR’s Alternatives analysis.
I appreciate that at least some informa�on was provided in the Final EIR which helped provide clarity on the content and analysis from the DEIR. However, as I stated during my public comments in opposi�on to the proposed project at its Planning Commission hearing, “Responses are not always answers.” The zoning consistency issue has not been resolved, and inadequacies in the environmental analysis persist.
Some of these issues and inadequacies pertain to environmental planning and CEQA topics that are par�cularly technical in nature, while others involve issues that are plainly recognized – such as those related to the transporta�on and safety concerns expressed in numerous DEIR comments.
The comments presented in this leter are primarily intended to refer back to issues that have already been raised where addi�onal discussion is appropriate, but a por�on of the comments also address informa�on that was discovered months a�er the DEIR review and comment period was completed. I men�on this because I do not want these comments to be characterized as a “last-minute document dump” (and I should note I have been on the other side of that situa�on).
I want to reiterate that I am generally in favor of the development of a new Costco in northwest Fresno, but I have major reserva�ons with the proposed project site loca�on due to adverse environmental impacts that are specifically atributable to the site. I sincerely believe that developing the proposed Costco project at a nearby alterna�ve site such as at Veterans Boulevard would have an equal or superior overall outcome for the City, its residents, and Costco itself. Every benefit sought by the proposed reloca�on of the west Shaw Costco would be either fully or substan�ally realized. At the same �me, a number of significant nega�ve externali�es to surrounding residents would be avoided (such as noise and traffic safety issues in neighborhoods), and being located at a major roadway that is already grade- separated will reduce or avoid transporta�on safety issues as well as opera�onal challenges that are 2 likely to arise (both in the near-team while Herndon is not grade-separated and in the intermediate period when Herndon undergoes construc�on to become grade-separated).
I am also well aware that there is mo�va�on to simply get this project completed and opera�onal at the proposed site despite its drawbacks so that the benefits of the project can be realized sooner rather than later. I would also generally prefer that outcome, but not at the expense of an inadequate evalua�ve process.
Short of developing the project at a different loca�on, this is what I believe should be done:
• The EIR should be recirculated in order to properly iden�fy and disclose that the project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding GHG emissions, in par�cular because informa�on in the EIR (despite presen�ng a conclusion otherwise) demonstrates that the project will conflict with exis�ng GHG emissions plans, policies, and regula�ons due to its high levels of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in excess of the thresholds iden�fied in the City’s VMT Guidelines. • Along with/as part of the process of recircula�ng the EIR, the land use applica�on and project descrip�on should be revised to include a GPA and Rezone that is consistent with all of the proposed uses included as part of the project (par�cularly the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility).
Alterna�vely, the project component triggering the conflict with the currently proposed Land Use and Zoning designa�ons (the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility) could be removed from the project.
• As part of the process of recircula�ng the EIR, the Alterna�ves analysis should be revised to more precisely evaluate at least one of the alterna�ve sites iden�fied in the DEIR comments (either in my comments or other comments). Specifically, a transporta�on queuing analysis should be prepared so that the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable queuing impacts can be adequately and meaningfully contextualized (i.e., to provide understanding of whether the queuing impacts are especially site-specific and could be avoided by developing the project at another site, or if significant and unavoidable queuing impacts would s�ll be likely to occur if the project was developed elsewhere in the vicinity).
I appreciate your considera�on of these comments and their inclusion in the record.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brannick
3 1. Comments regarding inconsistency between the operational characteristics identified in the proposed project description and the uses allowed by the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone.
Response I103-2 presents addi�onal informa�on about the details of the proposed Market Delivery Opera�on (“MDO”) component of the project (also referred to at �mes as a “Last Mile Delivery” facility in project documents and during public mee�ngs). The response indicates that the City determined the MDO/Last Mile Delivery component falls within the accessory use classifica�on (i.e., an accessory to the large-format retail Costco store). The response also provides further details about how the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility will be related to and complement opera�on of the large-format retail por�on of the proposed Costco project.
The informa�on provided in the response does not resolve the issue of whether the Development Code was properly applied, primarily because it ignores or sidesteps considera�on whether the MDO/Last Mile Facility component of the project is already defined and regulated in the Development Code.
As men�oned in earlier comments, the proposed MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility falls under the defini�on of what the City of Fresno’s Development Code defines as a “Warehousing, Storage, and Distribu�on” use (herea�er abbreviated as “WSD”). The defini�on from the Development Code is as follows:
Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution. Storage and distribution facilities without sales to the public on-site or direct public access except for public storage in small individual spaces exclusively and directly accessible to specific tenants.
The MDO fits this defini�on because it will be used for storage and distribu�on, and it will not offer direct public access or be used for public on-site sales. See text below for reference:
“… This approximately 47,000-square-foot relocated market delivery opera�on (MDO) is a last- mile facility for delivery of large and bulky items and is not open to visita�on by Costco members. At MDO facili�es, large goods are dropped off, organized, and loaded for daily deliveries to Costco members’ homes. Services would be the same scale as the exis�ng program but would be consolidated into the proposed warehouse facility.” (DEIR, p. 2-13) As also previously men�oned, the Development Code lists several sub-types of WSD uses (see Sec�on 15-6705), including “Indoor Warehousing and Storage” and “Wholesaling and Distribu�on”, and the proposed MDO/Last Mile Delivery Facility falls under the defini�on of these sub-types.
It is also noted that WSD uses are listed under the “Industrial Use Classifica�ons” in 15-6705 rather than “Commercial Use Classifica�ons” in 15-6704. The only type of WSD use allowed in Commercial Zone Districts is Personal (Mini) Storage. While there is one type of WSD allowed in Commercial districts, the fact that WSD uses are listed under the “Industrial Use Classifica�ons” rather than “Commercial Use Classifica�ons” implies that the Development Code considers such uses to be predominantly industrial in nature.
As demonstrated here and in earlier comments, the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility is not some special undefined or previously uncontemplated use but rather one that is already defined in the 4 code and a type of which already exists locally. The Amazon warehouse located near SR-180 and Clovis Avenue in the City of Fresno is an example of a last-mile delivery facility use. The site of that facility (APN 456-030-56) is zoned Light Industrial, which is both consistent with the Development Code and reflec�ve of the physical/opera�onal nature of that use. Even if the footprint of the project’s proposed MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility is not as large as a typical standalone last-mile facility, the use is s�ll the use.
To further illustrate this point, I would like to call aten�on to the treatment of the Car Wash component of the subject project. According to informa�on presented by both the Applicant’s representa�ves and City staff in presenta�ons, the inclusion of the GPA and Rezone as part of the project’s applica�on for en�tlements was necessary to allow the development of the Car Wash.
Specifically, the Car Wash was not a permited use (either by-right or through a CUP) in the exis�ng “Community Commercial” (“CC”) zone district, thus the project applica�on includes a GPA and Rezone to the “Commercial General” (“CG”) zone district which condi�onally allows for development of a Car Wash.
If the Car Wash cannot be considered an “accessory use”, then the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility similarly cannot be considered an “accessory use”. The Applicants’ public statements and the Response to Comments have gone to great length to highlight details about opera�onal synergies and similar advantages between the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility and the large-format retail store. Many of the same points could be raised about the Car Wash and the store. A�er all, offering car washes alongside the large-format retail store would also likely be considered a reflec�on of “members’ evolving shopping paterns and demands.”
Even though the Car Wash’s footprint would be rela�vely small compared to the size of the large- format retail building and parking areas, and its opera�on would be subordinate to that of the retail store area, the GPA and Rezone is required because the use is still the use.
Further, in case it needs to be stated, the absence of WSD uses other than “Personal Storage” from the Use Table reflects that they are prohibited from all Commercial zone districts. “Personal Storage” is the only WSD use listed because it is the only such use allowed in at least some of the Commercial zone districts. When a use is prohibited from all districts listed under a zoning category, it is not listed in the table with all dashes (‘-‘) but rather is omited en�rely from the use table for that category. (For a visual reference, refer to Use Tables in the Citywide Development Code or which were atached to my DEIR comment leter.)
As an example, if I wanted to open an auto dealership at my residence and went to the City for a zone clearance, I would presumably be denied because auto dealerships are not allowed in Residen�al designa�ons. While the Use Table for Residen�al Districts does not expressly list auto dealerships as a prohibited use, it is their complete absence from the Use Table for Residen�al Districts which indicates they are not allowed uses in that district.
The Applicant’s representa�ves men�oned on at least one occasion that the proposed MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility was added to the project a�er the land use applica�on was ini�ally submited to the City. This would at least par�ally explain why the proposed Land Use and Zoning associated with the project applica�on does not align with inclusion of the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility.
Whether the inconsistency has persisted due to an oversight or a more inten�onal decision to carry 5 on contrary to the provisions of the Development Code, it is not appropriate for the project to be able to skip directly to a “Director’s Determina�on” and shoehorn the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility component into the prior applica�on when doing so means it no longer conforms to the underlying land use and zoning designa�on.
The fact of the mater is that the MDO/Last-Mile Delivery facility use is one that is expressly defined in the Development Code 15-6705 among the list of Industrial Use Classifica�ons. Since the Development Code lists the use in ques�on, Sec�on 15-5020 is not triggered. Such uses are only listed under the Use Table for Employment Districts (Table 15-1302). The only type of WSD use listed at all in the Use Table for Commercial Districts (Table 15-1202) is Personal Storage, and the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility is absolutely not that.
By proceeding in this manner, adop�on of the project would be in conflict with the zoning regula�ons set forth in the City’s Development Code. It raises ques�ons about the overall integrity of the City’s planning and development processes. It also sets an unsetling precedent of the City allowing logis�cs and warehousing uses in areas designated for Commercial use when those uses are absent from the Use Table and thus should be considered excluded from/not allowed in Commercial Districts.
As indicated in my DEIR comments (and not challenged in the Response to Comments), there would not be a consistency issue present if the subject land use applica�on involved a GPA and Rezone to one of the “Employment” designa�ons (e.g., “Employment – Light Industrial”). Therefore, to remedy the zoning inconsistency, the land use applica�on and project descrip�on should be revised to include a GPA and Rezone that is consistent with all of the proposed uses included as part of the project (par�cularly the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility). Alterna�vely, the project component triggering the conflict with the currently proposed Land Use and Zoning designa�ons (the MDO/Last Mile Delivery facility) could be removed from the project so that it is consistent with CG zoning.
2. Comments addressing issues and deficiencies in the analysis of specific categories of environmental effects.
Part 2 of my Dra� EIR comments raised ques�ons and expressed concerns regarding the analysis of several categories of environmental effects in the DEIR. Responses I103-3 through I103-7 address the comments in Part 2 of my DEIR comment leter. The comments here are focused on Transporta�on and Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts.
Transportation
The Dra� EIR iden�fies three significant and unavoidable environmental impacts involving transporta�on effects: 1) VMT above SB 743 thresholds; 2) transporta�on safety issues due to poten�ally hazardous queuing condi�ons at three loca�ons in the vicinity of the site (Fir and Riverside, Herndon and Riverside, and Herndon and Golden State); and 3) cumula�ve impacts associated with VMT above thresholds. The comments here are related to the second impact (transporta�on safety).
6 Response I103-7 provides more detailed informa�on concerning transporta�on queuing condi�ons and proposed improvements/measures that would help reduce poten�al risks, including risks related to the proximity of the railroad tracks that run parallel to Golden State Boulevard.
As emphasized elsewhere and in my DEIR comments, the project’s transporta�on safety impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and it is highly likely that the adverse project impact is atributable to the specific site being proposed for development.
Regarding the fourth paragraph of the response, it is unclear whether this statement was intended to specifically rebut some aspects of the concerns raised or to beter demonstrate the validity of the analysis. I just want to note that from a plain reading it appears to corroborate concerns that were iden�fied related to project-related transporta�on ac�vity on Herndon.
The fi�h (and final) paragraph of this response states:
“Finally, the comment suggests consideration of a mitigation measure that would condition operation of the proposed Costco on completion of the grade-separated rail crossing of West Herndon Avenue between North Golden State Boulevard and North Webber [sic] Avenue, which the comment suggests may improve circulation and reduce the queuing concerns identified in the Draft EIR. As acknowledged in the comment, this work is being completed by the California High Speed Rail Authority; the City and applicant have no control over the timing or outcome. This is not feasible mitigation for the City to impose because it would introduce unreasonable uncertainty given that the City has no jurisdiction over the implementation of the rail crossing and cannot ensure that it is completed in a timely fashion (or completed at all). Further, there is no clear evidence that the rail crossing improvements would improve the roadway operations impacts identified in the Draft EIR.”
First, it is slightly unclear whether the men�on of “rail crossing improvements” men�oned in the last sentence refers to the full-on future grade separa�on of Herndon or to the rail crossing improvements men�oned earlier in this comment (e.g., “Do Not Block” signage and/or road paint).
Either way, the risks associated with vehicles being queued near the railroad tracks (not just train-to- vehicle but vehicle-to-vehicle and even vehicle-to-pedestrian) are regularly observed and experienced by people who travel along this segment of Herndon Avenue. When the subject traffic- safety queuing impacts occur, the effects will occur in this same segment, including where the railroad tracks are proximate. It should also be plainly evident how physically separa�ng the roadway from directly interac�ng with the rail corridor would avoid or reduce said impacts.
To reiterate what was already stated in the DEIR comments, the deferral of development should not be considered infeasible or unreasonable given the precedent of Granville’s Parc West residen�al project (a subdivision with 800+ homes on 160 acres), which required deferring the project’s buildout un�l the comple�on of Veterans Boulevard (which like Herndon, entailed a roadway/grade- separa�on project undertaken to allow for HSR buildout) and a fire sta�on to serve the area. Further, the �ming of Veterans’ construc�on was considerably affected by local budgetary and grant-seeking ac�vi�es (i.e., ini�al delays due to de-priori�za�on of Measure C funding, and later advances due to the City applying for and being awarded federal transporta�on money). In other words, the same 7 general considera�ons apply to the Herndon grade separa�on, so it is not accurate to characterize the �ming or comple�on as totally out of the control of local interests.
There are two addi�onal items related to informa�on which came up a�er the end of the DEIR comment period that I want to make sure are noted for the record:
1) During the community mee�ng held by the Applicant’s representa�ves on February 2, 2024, at River Bluff Elementary School, a representa�ve from Kitleson indicated that supplemental traffic analysis was either being conducted or had been completed during January 2024. However, no informa�on regarding a supplemental traffic analysis or similar content appears to have been included as part of the Final EIR or available for public review. My primary concern is that if such informa�on (assuming it does exist) is u�lized or referenced as part of the ul�mate decision to be made by City Council on the subject project, it absolutely would need to have been made available for public review for a reasonable amount of �me ahead of the public hearing and decision. 2) Following submital of my DEIR comment leter, I became aware that a Raisin’ Canes drive-thru restaurant is under construc�on at the north end of the El Paseo shopping center. Raisin’ Canes is among the class of drive-thru restaurants that are known for drawing large crowds and having especially long drive-thru lines.
While it appears that a substan�al amount of drive-thru and parking space has been incorporated as part of the Raisin’ Canes project, the concern here is that addi�onal volume of traffic resul�ng from that new development (in combina�on with exis�ng traffic from vehicles accessing El Paseo) could exacerbate an exis�ng circula�on botleneck within El Paseo and lead to backups of vehicles atemp�ng to enter El Paseo from eastbound Herndon Avenue using southbound Weber Avenue (the roadway that runs between the Raisin’ Canes loca�on and the McDonald’s).
The “Weber Avenue-Weber Avenue” intersec�on inside El Paseo (about 350 feet south of Herndon) is Stop sign-controlled. The Target crosswalk area immediately south of this intersec�on is very ac�ve, so southbound cars are o�en wai�ng at the Stop sign (or just past it) while pedestrians cross to and from the entrance to Target. During high-volume �mes like holiday shopping days, one can see cars backed up from Weber onto Herndon Avenue.
Since Raisin’ Canes appears to be imminently close to opening, I am very interested to see how this will play out – if it does result in backups onto Herndon (akin to the backups on west Shaw that were happening at the In-N-Out loca�on, which is currently undergoing site renova�on in order to address that issue), then it appears likely this condi�on will exacerbate the queuing-related transporta�on safety impacts of the Costco project (that is, the context in which the queuing impacts occur will be worse than expected). More specifically, if vehicles are queued out onto the far right lane of Herndon, it will reduce available space for eastbound thru-traffic on Herndon to navigate around the traffic queuing issues which the EIR indicates will occur in the vicinity of the project site.
From review of the DEIR, it appears that the development of new high-volume drive-thru restaurant uses like Raisin’ Canes in the vicinity of the project site was not an�cipated or considered as part of the EIR’s analysis. If this type of development ac�vity was accounted for, it would be appreciated it the Applicant’s representa�ves and/or the City could clarify how so.
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Response I103-5 addresses comments regarding GHG emissions and in par�cular purports to jus�fy the EIR’s differing significance determina�ons regarding the project’s VMT-related transporta�on effects and its GHG emissions effects. This response here along with the determina�on regarding GHG Emissions impacts in the DEIR is simply baffling and infuria�ng. For reasons previously discussed in my DEIR comments, the determina�on that the project will have significant and unavoidable VMT-related impacts while having no significant impact regarding GHG emissions is irreconcilable.
The following addi�onal comments are intended to further clarify the comments previously presented in my DEIR comment leter:
1) Conflicts and inconsistencies atributable to the project’s VMT in excess of established thresholds are already iden�fied in the EIR and its GHG Appendix (see atached pages at the end of this leter). In addi�on to the very direct inconsistency with Item 1(h) in the GHGRP checklist, the overall amount of references made to VMT in the consistency checklists is very demonstra�ve at a holis�c level of how significant and important reducing VMT is to reducing GHG emissions and achieving climate goals. It is also noted that the consistency analysis seems to arbitrarily imply that the consistency items are all of equal weight and that inconsistency/conflict with an item can be offset simply by demonstra�ng consistency with a majority of other items. This line of apples-to-oranges reasoning is improper. 2) While the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist is organized such that 15061.4(b) (which was implemented by SB 743) is directly presented in the list of ques�ons for Transporta�on impacts, SB 743 and the policies and regula�ons implemented via its adop�on are absolutely about GHG emissions. This is demonstrated by the fact that SB 743 is specifically iden�fied and discussed in the DEIR’s Regulatory Se�ng for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions sec�on as well as in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (DEIR Appendix F). This should be viewed as a complete refuta�on of the narrow-minded asser�on in the FEIR/Response to Comments that VMT in excess of threshold levels referenced by 15061.4(b) is somehow not also in conflict/inconsistent with applicable policy and regula�ons intended to reduce GHG emissions, and/or that this impact should only be looked at or called out as a “Transporta�on” impact because of how the Appendix G Checklist is organized. This project – a large-format Costco retail store featuring 36 gas pumps that largely deters or precludes low-VMT development in its proximity due to its inherent physical and opera�onal characteris�cs – is an extremely apt example of the type of project which the enactment of SB 743 sought to target through its mul�faced aim which includes reducing GHG emissions through encouragement of infill development and a diversity of uses instead of sprawl.
3) In addi�on to failing to appropriately iden�fy the significant and unavoidable impact as required by CEQA, the ra�onale and comments demonstrate what arguably amounts to an atempt to willfully confuse the meaning of and/or downplay the significance of the EIR’s own significant- and-unavoidable determina�on regarding the project’s threshold-exceeding VMT levels. The approach being taken in the EIR func�onally serves to keep the project’s VMT impacts in the realm of “technical minu�ae” and cuts against the provision of adequate informa�on to the public and fostering of meaningful public par�cipa�on.
9 4) The comment below is meant to clean up a typo/omission from my DEIR comments, specifically in the parenthe�cal part of the comment.
On p. 3.7-13:
Additionally, the use of CAP consistency for CEQA determinations is still supported by CARB in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022: 7-10). The 2022 Scoping Plan does not explicitly state that the new reduction goals of AB 1279 disqualify existing CAPs that align with the state’s previous target of reducing emissions by 40 percent from the 1990 inventory.
(Note: The appearance of this statement leads me to believe it is strongly suggested by the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan that older plans not accoun�ng for AB 1279 such as the City’s GHGRP are actually now out of compliance.)
Again, CEQA does not ban projects with significant and unavoidable impacts from ul�mately being carried out when there are compelling reasons to do so, and the range of legi�mate reasons is broad and can be for non-environmentally-centric reasons. What CEQA does require though is disclosure of informa�on in order to allow informed understanding and meaningful public par�cipa�on.
The Dra� EIR’s failure to iden�fy policy and regulatory conflicts and inconsistencies resul�ng from the project’s GHG-related impacts (which stem from its acknowledged threshold-exceeding VMT levels) as being significant and unavoidable impact is a major analy�cal and informa�onal deficiency.
Since recircula�on is required in situa�ons involving subsequent iden�fica�on of a significant and unavoidable impact which was not previously iden�fied as such, recircula�on of this EIR with the necessary updated informa�on should be required in order for the environmental review process to comply with CEQA.
3. Comments on the Draft EIR’s Alternatives analysis
Response I103-8 provided further informa�on and discussion about why the considera�on of alterna�ve project sites would be infeasible and how the EIR has sa�sfied requirements for alterna�ves analysis under CEQA.
The response does not sufficiently refute the need for analyzing alterna�ves nor does it provide informa�on amoun�ng to substan�al evidence that specified alterna�ve loca�ons (par�cularly those at Veterans) would be infeasible.
For reasons already discussed, the proposed alterna�ve loca�ons (specifically the two loca�ons at Veterans) are substan�ally similar in terms of loca�on, overall area, roadway access, physical site characteris�cs, etc. that they are capable of mee�ng most if not all of the iden�fied project objec�ves. Poten�al constraints like the presence of the FMFCD easement are capable of being feasibly reconciled, which is demonstrated through observa�on of the amount of exis�ng development in the area and in comparison to the types of constraint responses entailed in the project as currently proposed (e.g. construc�ng a long new private drive, redesigna�ng a roadway). 10 Zoning and SB 330 considera�ons are not an issue at one or possibly both of the alterna�ve sites on Veterans because the land is (or now appears to be) zoned for Light Industrial, which as explained previously would allow all project components to be developed (see atached GIS figure at the end of this leter; note the apparent revisions that have occurred or are underway at the proposed alterna�ve site area south of Veterans).
The only notable dis�nc�ons are that the proposed alterna�ve sites consist of mul�ple parcels (i.e., 2-3 parcels apiece) and they are not under the immediate control of the applicant. However, not only are the parcels for each area under common ownership, each of the areas was previously and is now ac�vely being adver�sed as for sale (see site images with “For Sale” signs included at the end of this comment leter). Based on these factors, and given that Costco is a mul�-billion dollar corpora�on and a highly sophis�cated developer of property (and likely highly desirable to sellers), it is highly evident that the proponent would readily have the capacity to “reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alterna�ve site.”
Two addi�onal principles of CEQA to keep in mind: Alterna�ves are at the heart of the EIR’s analysis, and CEQA is interpreted broadly, as in “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protec�on to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” While there could ul�mately be jus�fiable reasons to pursue development of the proposed project at the proposed site rather than one of the proposed alterna�ve sites, the analysis and ra�onale presented in the EIR (both the DEIR and FEIR/RTC) to jus�fy excluding alterna�ve sites from the EIR’s more comprehensive alterna�ves analysis is inadequate, arbitrary, and self-serving to a degree that aims to make approval of the project at proposed the site a forgone conclusion.
I want to note that my comment leter was one of 103 comments provided from 102 individuals in response to the DEIR. Of those, 50 comments (49 commentors) were in opposi�on to the project, 32 comments (32 commentors) were in favor of the project, and 21 comments (21 commentors) did not have a clear sen�ment or were highly focused on a specific issue. While many of the comments in favor of the project iden�fy how a new Costco can resolve site-specific issues at the exis�ng Costco (e.g., constrained site capacity, traffic issues, safety issues), these comments offer less discussion and less specific detail about site-specific benefits (the ones that do mostly include comments indica�ng that the roads serving the proposed site will be able to handle traffic much beter than Shaw Avenue, and that having a more northerly site would make it easier to reach for people traveling from places in far northwest Fresno and areas beyond such as Madera). In contrast, many of the comments in opposi�on to the project (including ones that express support for the general idea of a new Costco) iden�fy site-specific issues and problems as the basis for opposing the project (e.g., concerns about things like air quality, noise, and traffic causing dispropor�onately adverse effects to the immediate area and community). Mul�ple comments submited in response to the DEIR (along with comments presented during community mee�ngs) ques�oned why this specific loca�on was selected and offered sugges�ons of alterna�ve sites or specified areas where the project could sensibly be developed and result in less community and environmental conflict.
The sites iden�fied included the vacant areas near Veterans Boulevard as well as areas further to the west, including the site where the former Klein’s Truck Stop was located (southwest corner of Herndon Avenue and Golden State Boulevard).
11 From this informa�on, it legi�mately seems that pursuing development of the project at a nearby alterna�ve site could substan�ally address many of the concerns that are the basis of opposi�on while s�ll providing the changes and outcomes that are the basis of public support for the project.
This further reinforces that as a mater of public concern the Dra� EIR should have included evalua�on of an alterna�ve site such as one of the proposed Veterans Boulevard loca�ons in order to determine if the significant and unavoidable queuing impacts are capable of being mi�gated to a less than significant level or at least substan�ally reduced through developing the site at a different loca�on in the same general vicinity.
Table C-1. Consistency with 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Priority Areas Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Consistency Convert local government fleets to ZEVs and provide EV charging at public sites Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans) Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards
Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements
Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.
Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking
Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing the allowable density of a neighborhood) Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers)
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing) Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings) Abbreviations:
CalGreen - California Green Building Standards Code
CARB - California Air Resources Board
EV - electric vehicle
GHG - greenhouse gas
PG&E - Pacific Gas & Electric
VMT - vehicle miles traveled
ZEV - zero emission vehicle
Transportation Electrification
VMT Reduction
Building Decarbonization
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project. The Project also includes a redesignation from Expressway Area to Superarterial, which allows for multiple modes of travel traffic, including pedestrian and bikes. This could lead to further development of these types of non- vehicular facilities, including bike lanes and sidewalks, which are not currently allowed under the Expressway Area designation.
In addition, the Project plans to encourage employee commute trip reduction through a variety of strategies. The project will provide carpool incentives, partner with local agencies to provide vanpool services, subsidize transit passes and provide bicycle storage and locker rooms for employees who bike to work. This will reduce the employee VMT and provide incentives for employees to commute to work alternative ways.
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project includes an EV parking requirement and includes 45 installed EV spaces.
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project plans to use PG&E's Solar Choice program, which provides 100% solar energy to customers.
In addition, to the extent applicable to the Project, the Project would meet the CalGreen Building Standards Code in effect at the time of building permit application, which would include a number of energy saving requirements.
# Confidential Ramboll
Table C-2. Consistency with Fresno Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
# Goal Policy Consistency Analysis
Encourage and prioritize full, fair, and equitable
participation by all affected communities in transportation decision-making and planning processes.
Actively work to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of transportation projects.
Promote the improvement and expansion of accessible transportation options to serve the needs of all residents, especially those who have historically faced disproportionate transportation burdens.
Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions.
Support investment in and promotion of active transportation and transit to improve public health and mobility, especially in historically underinvested areas.
Encourage sustainable development that focuses growth near activity centers and mobility options that achieve greater location efficiency.
Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize the loss of farmland, environmentally sensitive areas, and natural resources
Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to facilitate the development of diverse housing choices for all income groups.
Facilitate and promote interagency coordination and consistency across planning efforts.
Incentivize and support efforts to improve air quality and minimize pollutants from transportation.
Prioritize investment in and promote multimodal safety measures to reduce traffic fatalities and incidents in the region.
Promote enhanced Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce congestion and vehicle miles traveled.
Encourage improvements in travel connections across all modes to create an integrated, accessible, and seamless transportation network.
Maximize the cost-effectiveness of transportation improvements.
Encourage investments that increase the system’s resilience to extreme weather events, natural disasters, and pandemics.
Preserve and maintain existing multimodal transportation assets in a state of good repair Support local and regional economic development by leveraging planning and transportation funds that foster public and private investment.
Facilitate efficient, reliable, resilient, and sustainable goods movement.
Support innovative mobility solutions that are accessible, affordable, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality.
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project would be located nearby to transit stops and thus would allow for utilization of existing transit facilities to visit the Project. In addition, the Project includes an EV parking requirement and includes 45 installed EV spaces.
Support efforts to expand broadband access throughout the region. Not Applicable.
Abbreviations:
EV - electric vehicle
NW - northwest
TDM - Transportation Demand Management
TSM - Transportation Systems Management
VMT - vehicle miles traveled
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project will facilitate goods movement to the Fresno area and provide approximately 165 to 175 jobs. 1 Improved mobility and accessibility for all
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, it is envisioned that Project's location will provide convenient access for nearby residences for additional retail shopping experiences. In addition, the project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project, and will be located in close proximity to transit stops (e.g., NW Herndon-Hayes transit stop).
Consistent. Per the Transportation Impact Analysis, the Project would be consistent with the applicable plans, policies, and programs and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
The Project plans to encourage commute trip reduction through a variety of strategies. The Project will provide carpool incentives, partner with local agencies to provide vanpool services, subsidize transit passes and provide bicycle storage and locker rooms for employees who bike to work. This will reduce the employee VMT and provide incentives for employees to commute to work alternative ways.
The Project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project. In addition, the Project would be located nearby to transit stops and thus would allow for utilization of existing transit facilities to visit the Project.
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project includes a redesignation from Expressway Area to Superarterial, which allows for multiple modes of travel traffic, including pedestrian and bikes. This could lead to further development of these types of non-vehicular facilities, including bike lanes and sidewalks, which are not currently allowed under the Expressway Area designation.
In addition, the project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project. The Project will be located nearby transit facilities such as the NW Herndon-Hayes transit stop, thus allowing for alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle visits to the Project that would support efforts to improve air quality and minimize pollutants from transportation.
A region embracing clean transportation,
technology, and innovation5
Vibrant communities that are accessible by
sustainable transportation options2
A safe, well-maintained, efficient, and climate-
resilient multimodal transportation network3
A transportation network that supports a
sustainable and vibrant economy4
3. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Update - CEQA Project Consistency Checklist GHG Reduction Plan Update consistency review involves the evaluation of project consistency with the applicable strategies of the GHG Reduction Plan Update. The GHG reduction strategies identified in the GHG Reduction Plan Update relies upon the General Plan and additional local measures as the basis of the development related strategies to reduce GHG emissions. This checklist is developed based on the key local GHG reduction strategies and actions identified in the GHG Reduction Plan Update that are applicable to proposed development projects. Note that not all strategies listed below will apply to all projects. For example, not all projects will meet mixed-use related policies of the General Plan, because not all projects are required to be mixed use.
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Relevant General Plan
Policy Yes No Not Applicable
(NA) Explanation
1: Land Use and Transportation Demand Strategies
a. Does the project include mixed-use, development? For GHG Reduction Plan consistency, mixed-use development is defined as pedestrian-friendly development that blends two or more residential, commercial, cultural, or institutional, uses, one of which must be residential
Policy UF-1-c, LU-3-b,
Objective-UF 12, UF-12-a,
UF-12-b, UF-12-d,
Policy RC-2-a
b. Is the project high density? For GHG Reduction Plan consistency, is the project developed at 12 units per acre or higher?
LU-5-f
c. Is the project infill development, pursuant to the General Plan definition of location within the City limits as of December 31, 2012? LU-2-a, Objective-12,
UF-12-a, UF-12-b, UF-12-d
d. Does the project implement pedestrian bicycle, and transit linkages with surrounding land uses and neighborhoods? For GHG Reduction Plan consistency, the project must include all sidewalks, paths, trails, and facilities required by the General Plan and Active Transportation Plan, as implemented through the Fresno Municipal Code and project conditions of approval.
Policy UF-1-c, UF-12-e,
Policy RC-2-a, Objective
MT-4,5,6, Policy MT-4-c,
Policy MT-6-a, Policy POSS-
7-h Objective MT 8, Policies
MT-8-a, MT-8-b
e. If the project includes mixed-use or high density development, is it located within ½ mile of a High Quality Transit Area as defined in the City’s CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled? Or, is the project located within 500 feet of an existing or planned transit stop?
Policy UF-12-a,
UF-12-b, LU-3-b, Objective
MT 8, Policies MT-8-a,
MT-8-b
f. Will the project accommodate a large employer (over 100 employees) and will it implement trip reduction programs such as increasing transit use, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or other measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled pursuant to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 9410?
See the SJVAPCD website for details: https://www.valleyair.org/rules/ currntrules/r9410.pdf
Policy MT-8-b, Objective
MT-9, Policy MT-10-c, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District Rule 9410
NA
NA
NA The project is not a mixed-use
or high density development
The project is not a mixed-use de-
velopment as it does not include
residential development.
The project is not high density.
yes
The project implements pedes-
trian, bicycle, and transit linkages
to surrounding land uses and
neighborhoods consistent with
Fresno's General Plan and Active
Transportation Plan.
yes
The project will implement trip re-
duction programs to encourage
carpooling and other measures to
reduce employee VMT.
yes
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Relevant General Plan
Policy Yes No Not Applicable
(NA) Explanation
g. If the project includes modifications to the transportation network, do those improvements meet the requirements of the City of Fresno’s Complete Streets Policy, adopted in October 2019? According to the policy, a complete street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users - including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, trucks, and motorists - appropriate to the function and context of the facility while connecting to a larger transportation network.
See City of Fresno website for details: https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wp- content/uploads/sites/17/2019/10/Complete-Streets-091119.pdf MT-1-g, MT-1-h
h. Does the project have a less than significant VMT impact, either through satisfying screening criteria or mitigating VMT impacts, pursuant to the City’s adopted VMT thresholds?
See City of Fresno website for details: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2021/01/CEQA-Guidelines-for-Vehicle-Miles-Traveled- Final-Adopted-Version.pdf
MT-2-b, MT-2-c
2: Electric Vehicle Strategies
a. For new multi-family dwelling units with parking, does the project provide EV charging spaces capable of supporting future EV supply equipment (EV capable) at 10% of the parking spaces per 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part 11), Section 4.106.4 Policy RC-8-j
b. For new commercial buildings, does project provide EV charging spaces capable of supporting EV capable spaces at 4% to 10% of the parking spaces per 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part 11), Section 5.106.5.3
Policy RC-8-j
3: Energy Conservation Strategies
a. Does the project meet or exceed mandatory state building energy codes? If yes, does the project follow any other GreenPoint ratings such as LEED, Energy Star or others? If yes, indicate level of certification-Silver, gold, platinum if applicable?
Policy RC-5-c, Objective
RC-8, Policy RC 8-a
b. For commercial projects, does the project achieve net zero emissions electricity?
Mark NA if project will be permitted before 2030. Mark Yes if voluntary. Add source and capacity in explanation.
Additional Recommended
GHG Plan Measure,
supports Objective RC-8
NA
Of 889 parking spaces, WKHUHZLOOEH
LQVWDOOHG(9VSDFHV which is %
of the parking spaces (in range).
Project buildout is in 2023.
The project meets mandatory build-
ing energy codes; Costco's ware-
house designs are consistent with
the requirements of LEED.
yes
The project does not consist
of multi-family dwelling units.
yes
NA
yes
The project includes modifications
to the transportation network con-
sistent with the City's Complete
Streets Policy. Such improve-
ments include constructing side-
walk along the project frontage,
constructing a multi-use path, and
installing striping to better delin-
eate the roadway cross section for
different users.
no The project has a significant
VMT impact.
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Relevant General Plan
Policy Yes No Not Applicable
(NA) Explanation
4: Water Conservation Strategies
a. Does the project meet or exceed the mandatory outdoor water use measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part 11), Section 4.304?
If the project exceeds CalGreen Code mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation.
Examples include outdoor water conservation measures such as; drought tolerant landscaping plants, compliant irrigation systems, xeriscape, replacing turf etc. Provide the conservation measure that the project will include in the explanation.
Objective RC-7,
Policy RC-7-a, RC-7-h
b. Does the project meet or exceed the mandatory indoor water use measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part 11), Section 4.303?
If the project exceeds CalGreen Code, mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation. Examples may include water conserving devices and systems such as water leak detection system, hot water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, energy efficient appliances such as Energy Star Certified dishwashers, washing machines, dual flush toilets, point of use and/or tankless water heaters.
Objective RC-7,
Policy RC-7-a, RC-7-e
5: Waste Diversion and Recycling Strategies
a. Does the project implement techniques of solid waste segregation, disposal and reduction, such as recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, and/or waste separation, to reduce the volume of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities?
Policy PU-9-a, RC-11-a
b. During construction will the project recycle construction and demolition waste?
Policy RC-11-a
c. Does the project provide recycling canisters in public areas where trashcans are also provided?
Policy RC-11-a
Note: The GHG reduction strategies included in this checklist are based on the GHG reduction strategies identified in the Chapter 5 of the GHG Reduction Plan Update.
yes
yes
The project meets the mandatory
indoor water use measures. High-
efficiency restroom fixtures save
40% more water.
The project meets the
mandatory outdoor water
use measures.
yes
Costco prefers full metal buildings
in order to use the maximum
amount of recycled material.
yes
yes The project will recycle construction
and demolition waste.
The project will provide recycling
canisters.
3/6/24, 4:30 PM x_____x2k7vR3RhJ699wLvFm-6t2A..x_____x_ags_def087f4-dc18-11ee-af47-0e796feb1ea7.png (1123×794) https://utility.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisoutput/Utilities/PrintingTools_GPServer/x_____x2k7vR3RhJ699wLvFm-6t2A..x_____x_ags… 1/1