Fresno City Council
December 5, 2024

3. John Kinsey, Esq. of the law firm Wanger Jones Helsey in Fresno has submitted a comprehensive analysis of the issues associated with the proposed Plan, associated Community Truck Reroute Study: Truck Routing and Implementation Strategies Report and related DEIR. But for my client's reluctant concurrence with the proposed recommended Business Park designation, he agrees with Mr. Kinsey's conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposed onerous and impractical development standards such as setbacks and sees no reason to recite them and incorporates Mr. Kinsey's comments herein by reference.

4. The effort to reduce impacts of industrial land use in the subject area should be placed in context. Much of the area within the Plan was designated for industrial uses for decades due to the proximity to rail, state highways, a work force and raw products.

Most of the objections to industrial uses cite projects that were approved prior to the adoption of stringent environmental regulations that protect communities and the environment. Some of the uses being cited as objectionable existed prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance by the City or County of Fresno. As you are aware, zoning ordinances provide substantial regulatory authority to protect public health, safety and welfare.

The Plan's proposed adoption of special zoning standards is unnecessary in light of the comprehensive review that all projects must undergo as mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Further, modem industrial uses are subject to various land use permits that provide another level of regulatory scrutiny to assure, among other things, compatibility with surrounding properties.

Modem industrial parks are operated by employees who rightfully expect to work in a safe, clean and healthy environment. In fact, specific state and federal agencies are charged with assuring that a safe, clean and healthy environment is maintained at the workplace.

The transportation of goods and materials from a modem industrial park shares few similarities with industrial development of even 30 years ago. Federal, state and local regulations protect the drivers of the transport vehicles and the communities in which the transport vehicles travel. Regular and unannounced inspections by law enforcement also play a key role in assuring the safe transportation of goods. Said monitoring and enforcement includes driver training, special driver and vehicle licensing, materials packaging and handling standards, mandatory fire and prevention measures and materials identification for environmental and fire protection purposes.

Leakage of harmful gaseous and liquid materials is also highly regulated by agencies prepared to address spillage and ruptures and other similar hazardous events in a responsible manner. Liabilities for environmental degradation are severe. 19-4
19-5
19-6
186
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
July 30, 2024
Page3
Modem industrial buildings must adhere to strict building and fire code regulations to assure public and worker safety. Hazardous material must be segregated, rated for toxicity and stored and handled according to various federal and state health and safety protocols.

Obnoxious odors, fugitive dust and other air born emissions are also strictly monitored in a modem industrial park as is storm water with collection and filtration prior to being allowed to enter a drainage basin. These characteristics of a modem industrial park are applicable in any location in California.

Creating unnecessary barriers to economic competition with other parts of the city or region directs the valuable industrial business base out of or away from the city thwarting a decades long effort to expand the area's economy so it is not solely reliant on agriculture. Many urban economists have long argued that residential uses underpay their share of municipal services costs. In fact, the revenue from industrial commercial uses allows municipalities to fund adequate police, fire, parks and other services citizens demand.

An unintended and secondary consequence of this Plan and its unnecessary regulation of industrial uses is the reduced demand of industrial users to operate in the City of Frenso.

This reduced industrial demand will generate lower tax revenues from industrial users creating a larger gap between the city's needs and its ability to fund the services citizens demand. The city's jobs housing balance is also adversely affected as industrial jobs simply go elsewhere.

No attempt was made in the Plan or its EIR to quantify these adverse impacts to the city's economic base from an environmental or cost benefit perspective. The proposed Plan is contrary to the principle goal of the City of Fresno General Plan ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FISCAL SUSTAINABLITY section which begins with this statement:

Fresno's economy plays a crucial role in the physical development of the Planning Area and the City's ability to support implementation of General Plan policies and programs. The City is committed to economic development and fiscal sustainability. In fact, the outcome of many other General Plan initiatives is tied to the city's economic success. More specifically, to further this commitment, this element focuses on improving the business climate, retaining local businesses, developing a high skilled labor force, attracting new industries, supporting the tax base, and sustaining the City's ability to provide public services for current and future residents
Please consider allowing a more reasoned solution to protecting Fresno neighborhoods and its economic base. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan, associated Community Truck Reroute Study: Truck Routing and Implementation 19-6
cont.
19-7
187
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
July 30, 2024
Page4
Strategies Report, and related environmental impact report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Dirk Poeschel, AICP
cc: Mr. Daniel Barandalla
Mr. Amir Dehlan
Ms. Jennifer Clark
John Kinsey, Esq.
https://dplds.shar epoint.com/shared documents/current clients/d & i farms- s cherry ave -23-43/correspondence/deir cornrnents.docx 19-7
cont.
188
LETTER 20
Donaghy Sales, Beverage Distributor
189
20-1
190
2363 S. Cedar Ave
Fresno, CA 93725
T 559.486.0901
F 559.486.2728

A DONAGHY
�SALES
donaghysales.com
Columbus, Central California Women's Conference, and Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce-just to name a few.

Concerns Regarding the South Central Specific Plan and the Draft EIR Donaghy has significant concerns regarding the City's proposal to add "buffers" that restrict or eliminate certain types of development on properties within 1,000 feet of "sensitive uses," defined as "residences, schools, religious institutions, playgrounds, child-care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes."
Areas Affected by Buffer Zone Requirements. Initially, it is unclear how the proposed buffer concept affects prope1ties like Donaghy's headquarters, which is located in the Plan Area within 1,000 feet of a sensitive use located outside the Plan Area. Figure 5-2 of the South Central Specific Plan Public Review Draft appears to suggest Donaghy's prope1ty will not be subject to a buffer zone. Yet, at the same time, the definition of "sensitive uses" on page 68 does not appear to be limited to uses within the Plan Area, suggesting Donaghy's property will be subject to a buffer zone. Adopting the proposed buffer zone concept without providing clear notice to Donaghy how its prope1ty will be impacted is not only unfair, it denies Donaghy a meaningful opp01tunity to comment on the proposed plan, as we are left to guess whether our property will be subjected to the heightened requirements for properties within a buffer area. Making matters worse, Donaghy cannot be the only property owner in this situation. Others may have reasonably relied on Figure 5-2 to conclude that their prope1ties will not be subject to the heightened requirements for buffer areas. The lack of clarity could also lead to inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement of the buffer area requirements among City staff.

To address these issues, the City should decline to adopt the South Central Specific Plan, as proposed. Instead, the City should clarify the definition of "sensitive uses" and confirm that the buffer area requirements do not apply to prope1ties like Donaghy's. To the extent the City does intend to apply the buffer area requirements to properties like Donaghy's, then to avoid depriving Donaghy of a meaningful oppmtunity to comment on the proposed plan, as well as other landowners who may have reasonably relied on Figure 5-2 to conclude they will not be affected by the buffer zone requirements, the City must clarify how it intends to apply the buffer concept with respect to uses located outside the Plan Area and allow for an additional public comment on the proposed plan, as clarified.

Heightened Requirements in Buffer Zones. Assuming Donaghy would be subject to the heightened requirements for buffer zones, contrary to what is indicated in Figure 5-2, Donaghy is concerned that the buffer zone requirements are in many cases excessive or unnecessary and would make new or expanded uses at Donaghy's Fresno facility infeasible. Our understanding is that if the proposed plan is adopted and Donaghy later desires to expand its existing facilities, to engage in a new warehousing, distribution, or storage use, or to construct new facilities for such uses, then it will be required:
• To obtain a conditional use pem1it from the City;
20-2
20-1
cont.
20-3
20-4
20-5
191

IA DONAGHY
�SALES
2363 S. Cedar Ave
Fresno, CA 93725
T 559.486.0901
F 559.486.2728
donaghysales.com
• To meet the California Air Resources Board's criteria for zero or near zero emissions facilities as defined in the July 2016 California Sustainable Freight Action Plan; and
• To comply with a number of other costly and time-consuming requirements, including using the cleanest construction equipment available on the market, ensuring all on-site motorized operational equipment is zero emissions, using only electric fleets during construction, converting truck fleets to all electric vehicles sooner than required by the California Air Resources Board, payment of substantial fees for all emissions above the San Joquin Valley Air Pollution Control District thresholds of significance, prohibitions on use of natural gas, prohibitions against having loading/unloading areas within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, and solar power mandates, among other things.

These requirements would impose a significant financial and procedural burden and would significantly undermine the feasibility and desirability of proceeding with any such projects at Donaghy's Fresno facility. The requirement to obtain a conditional use pennit would inject significant expense and uncertainty into potential projects while also drastically increasing the time needed to complete them and the risks associated with project opponents.

Additionally, while there can be little doubt that compelling compliance with the 2016 Sustainable Freight Action Plan would be costly and time-consuming, it appears the 2016 Sustainable Freight Action Plan does not actually specify many concrete standards. As a result, it is unclear what the requirement to comply with this document actually means and whether it will impose more or less demanding standards than what is required under the California Air Resources Board's existing zero emissions regulations. Complying with more onerous electrification requirements would obviously increase an already-significant financial burden. Moreover, it seems imprudent to mitigate perceived environmental impacts based on as-yet undefined standards and requirements that may ultimately impose a substantial financial burden in exchange for a relatively minor environmental benefit.

The various other construction and operational requirements would be similarly costly and would also likely render many new or expanded uses infeasible at our Fresno location­ independent from the issues described above. In addition to being extremely costly, these requirements are novel. No similar requirements exist in the other jurisdictions where our facilities are located. It is therefore difficult to imagine any circumstances in which a reasonable business case could be made to proceed with new or expanded uses at our Fresno facility rather than at our locations in Stockton, Watsonville, and Sacramento, or in other Central Valley jurisdictions, such as Madera County or the City of Visalia, that lack buffer zones or onerous development standards such as those proposed here.

That the new requirements may not apply to Donaghy's existing operations ultimately does little to improve the situation. Our business is not static. To continue to be competitive, it is imperative that we remain dynamic and adaptable-able to meet new challenges and opportunities as and when they arise, such as expanding or altering our existing operations to meet increased demand or changing market conditions. However, the limitations and uncertainty created by the 20-5
cont.
20-6
20-7
20-8
20-9
192

IA DONAGHY
\Y)SALES
2363 S. Cedar Ave
Fresno, CA 93725
T 559.486.0901
F 559.486.2728
donaghysales.com
buffer zone requirements would make this very difficult. Among other things, our company would struggle to compete with other large distributors, particularly with respect to securing new suppliers and products. This would be very harmful to our business, and could even necessitate downsizing our Fresno operation and instead expanding our existing facilities in Stockton, Watsonville, and Sacramento, or finding new facilities in other business-friendly climates to the north and south of Fresno. Either scenario would of course also have the unintended consequence of transfeJTing many high quality jobs out of Fresno.

In light of the above, the City should decline to adopt the South Central Specific Plan as proposed. The City should instead eliminate or substantially limit the geographic scope of the buffer zone concept, remove the requirement for a conditional use permit for new or expanded warehousing, distribution, or storage uses on properties in a buffer zone, remove the requirement to comply with the 2016 Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and remove or substantially reduce the host of construction and operational requirements for facilities located in a buffer zone.

Conclusion
For all of the reasons mentioned above, Donaghy urges the City not to adopt the South Cenh·al Specific Plan as currently proposed. The proposed plan is unclear in key respects and threatens to make many new or expanded uses infeasible in the Plan Area moving forward without giving appropriate consideration to how the proposed plan will impact businesses or the extent to which it will incentivize businesses to pursue employment-generating projects in other markets rather than the City of Fresno.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan.

Ryan Donaghy
President
Donaghy Sales
20-9
cont.
20-10
193
LETTER 25

JD FOOD
194
fresh.local.honest.food."
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Attention: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

My name is Mark Ford and I am submitting these comments on behalf of JD Food on the South-Central Specific Plan and the related Environmental Impact Report. I am writing to you because we have significant concerns about this report as it is currently drafted.

JD Food is celebrating our 50 Year anniversary this year and we are proud to call Fresno our home. We distribute food and food related products to restaurants, schools, retail stores, hospitals, and camps in Northern California. We are an independent family­owned company that is extremely invested in our community. We take great pride in being part of the solutions to many of the challenges that our community faces by supporting the nonprofits and agencies throughout our city and beyond. Also, many of our employees live in the City of Fresno and specifically South-Central Fresno.

There are several concerns that we have with this report as it is currently drafted. If this were to be approved, it would have devastating effects on our business and our ability to be competitive and grow. Some of these concerns are as follows:
• Downzoning
• Buffers
• Mitigation Requirements for new development
• Solar Infrastructure
• Zero Emission Trucks and Equipment
• Several Infrastructure Improvements
Since we are a distribution company, we are already subject to strict CARB requirements for the state of California. We have invested thousands of dollars in updating our equipment, so it meets the state's requirements. This has certainly resulted in improvements in greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past 10 years we have improved our emission systems by 98.5%. Although this is great news, it has come at a great cost to our business. The EV requirements as stated in the SCSP ask for technologies that either do not exist or that the infrastructure cannot support. The plan puts an undue burden on our company by investing in technologies that do not have the capacity to support our needs at a very high cost.

We are also concerned with this plan causing more stress on the ability to get permits. The permit process in our city is extremely difficult to navigate. This plan could make it almost impossible to move through this process and have a successful development.

This will result in future jobs moving to outlying communities, refusal to upgrade older establishments, and a rise in working outside the boundaries of the process.

It is our desire to continue growing our business in the City of Fresno and calling this our home. We need your help to allow us to operate in a community that supports us and helps us succeed. Thank you for considering our comments and I urge you to not adopt the South-Central Specific Plan as it is currently drafted.

Sincerely,
Mark Ford
CEO
4671 E. Edgar Ave.

Fresno. CA 93725
P.O. Box 12051
Fresno. CA 93776-2051
Phone: (559) 445-1123
Toll Free: (800) 464-6144
Fax: (559) 445-1044 jdfood.com
25-1
25-2
25-3
195
LETTER 27
Penny Newman Grain Company
196
2691 S. Cedar Ave, Fresno, CA 93725 559-448-8800
Date:
7/29/24
Penny Newman Grain Co.

To:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Attention: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Telephone: (559) 621-8062
Email: [email protected]
From:

Penny Newman Grain Co.
2691 S. Cedar Ave, Fresno, CA
David Meeker
Phone: 559-448-8800
[email protected]
Subject:

South Central Specific Plan (SCSP), Environmental Impact Report (EIR)-Concerns Dear Sophia,
Penny Newman Grain Co. has been operating our facility within the SCSP area since 2001. I would like to express concerns with the SCSP and the unintended negative impacts of the EIR as currently drafted.

Our company has been continuously in operation within the Fresno area since 1878. The Fresno facility receives feed products for livestock by rail and truck. These products are stored and shipped by truck out to our customers.

When searching for a location to operate our company was pleased to find an under utilized facility with rail service and near a major highway. An added benefit of having our business in Fresno is the number of employees we have residing within the City, and allowing for a short commute to work.

The SCSP poses substantial
impacts for our company not only for our land use, but to our daily operations as well. - The rezoning map reduces our currently zoned Heavy Industrial property to Light Industrial on the north and west sides. Not only does this reduce the value of the property by limiting the use, it also creates a reduction of possible operational activity and restricted permitting of facility improvements. - The proposal of this reduction in zoning is additionally concerning as it targets “Animal Food Manufacturing” as not allowed in Light Industrial.
- Down zoning of business properties discourages businesses from wanting to invest in Fresno due to the risk of the rules being changed and negatively effecting the investment and commitment made within the City.

The driving away of businesses, in turn results in a loss of employment for the residents of the City. - Our facility has been in the Heavy Industrial category for many years with residential property across the street since the 1950’s.

Environmental Mitigation Goals.
- The SCSP introduces the concept of “buffers,” which restricts or eliminates certain types of developments within the SCSP that are within 1,000 feet of “sensitive uses.” According to the City’s 27-1
27-2
27-3
197
Penny Newman Grain Co.
2691 S. Cedar Ave, Fresno, CA 93725 559-448-8800
maps, these buffers cover nearly half of the entire SCSP area. The City should not consider but decline to incorporate buffers into the SCSP .
- We are also unaware of any city or county near Fresno that has adopted 1,000-foot buffers. Because there is significant demand for industrial development in the City, and few places in the City to build, the adoption of buffers would simply mean that new industrial developments and the jobs they create will go to other nearby municipalities. As a longtime Fresno business, we cannot support any policy that would undermine the success of Fresno as an industrial hub or that would incentivize our workforce to move elsewhere.

Improvements/Mitigation Infeasibility
- The SCSP also seeks to require landowners seeking permits from the City to adopt expensive, unproven, and wasteful mitigation. If applicable, these requirements would apply for new construction. They would likely also apply to future permits and approvals received from the City, potentially requiring the upgrade of the entire facility to the standards below.
- The following are some examples of the more onerous permitting conditions that will add significant cost to new development/improvements requiring discretionary approvals.

1. Solar Infrastructure:
- Buildings over 400,000 square feet must “ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated in such a manner that they will supply 100% of the power needed to operate [the non-refrigerated] portions of the facility including the parking areas.” (SCSP at 75.)
- All other buildings shall have solar-ready roofs, “which includes designing and constructing buildings in a manner that facilitates and optimizes the installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system at some point after the building has been constructed.” (SCSP at 75.) - All other buildings must “demonstrate their capacity to include energy production and storage features on-site, including” on-site solar panels. The amount of renewable energy needed is based on the needs of the
development, serving at a minimum 50% of the energy demand. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d.) a
- All future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses must ensure all Class 7 and 8 trucks are “model year 2014 or later.” After December 31, 2026, all trucks must be transitioned to “zero- emission vehicles,” subject to the Planning Director’s discretion. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1h.) The developer or the business is also responsible for ensuring “that adequate electrical infrastructure is provided to allow for the transition to electric heavy-duty trucks.” (Id.) - This is far more aggressive than CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets (“ACF”) regulation, which allows high- priority fleets to purchase at least some trucks other ZEVs until 2035. - Moreover, unlike the ACF regulation, which only applies to some fleets, the City’s Mitigation Measure applies to all discretionary permits for commercial and industrial land uses within the SCSP. - The City requires an equally aggressive phase-in schedule (more aggressive than CARB’s ACF regulation) for Class 2-6 Trucks, requiring full electrification of the fleet by December 31, 2031. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i.)
- The reality of this proposal is you are asking businesses to purchase new technology that currently cannot operate more than 150 loaded miles. These trucks cost more than twice the amount of a CARB compliant diesel truck and have an operational range of less than half of a diesel truck. If implemented, a business would need to own twice the number of trucks to complete the same amount of work. The truck traffic would double within the city.

3. Promotion of Passenger EVs for Customers/Employees:
- “At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready,” and at “least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging 27-3
cont.
27-4
27-5
27-6
27-7
198
Penny Newman Grain Co.
2691 S. Cedar Ave, Fresno, CA 93725 559-448-8800
stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy,” regardless of employee or customer demand for such spaces. (SCSP at 75.)

4. Zero Emissions Equipment:
- “On-site motorized operational equipment shall be ZE (zero emission).” (SCSP at 75.) - Due to the limitations of cycle times and charging durations this is not feasible for our industry. When and where the operational capacity electric equipment improves and becomes competitively priced it will be entertained as an option. The “free market” should be the determining factor, not by force or rule.

5. Construction Fleets/Equipment/Materials:
- All “construction contractors shall demonstrate that they shall use the cleanest available fleet of heavy-duty equipment” after submitting “Construction Clean Fleet” paperwork to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. And
“on-site yard trucks and forklift shall be powered by electricity.” (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1B.)
- The SCSP requires an applicant to “deploy the highest rated CARB Tier Technology that is available at the time of construction,” subject to discretionary waivers by the Planning Director. (SCSP at 76.) - The required use of “electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers.” (SCSP at 76.) - Prohibition of diesel-powered generators for construction. (SCSP at 76.) - Required to use at least 20% locally sources or recycled materials for construction materials, and wood products used should be certified through a sustained forestry program. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure

4.8-1b.)
- The above items are being forced into the market and may not be suitable for all applications. Although these should be offered as options, the “free market” should be the determining factor, not by force or rule.

6. Other Infrastructure Improvements:
- Unless a property owner records a covenant stating the property prohibiting refrigerated warehouse space, “a conduit shall be installed during construction of the building shell from the electrical room to 100% of the loading dock doors that have the potential to serve refrigerated space.” In addition, all dock doors serving TRU units must include “electric plug-in units.” (SCSP at 75.) - The construction of a secondary electrical room (or sizing one electrical room 25% larger than required) to accommodate additional electrical panels. (SCSP at 76.) - For all industrial land uses that do not
use natural gas as part of a manufacturing process, “no natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted.” (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1k.) - This requirement increases development cost or limits the properties potential, if a building changes use it can be retrofitted with additional utilities once needed.

Please consider the unintended consequences of what is being proposed within the proposed changes. There is a considerable financial burden being forced upon businesses that will cause negative effects to the City, businesses, and the residents. We are the second oldest business in Fresno, and proud to have been a part of the City of Fresno for 146 years, our hope is the City will consider our position as a long-standing partner.

Sincerely,
David Meeker
Penny Newman Grain Co.
27-7
cont.
27-8
27-9
27-10
27-11
199
LETTER 28
Robert V. Jensen, Inc.
200
28-1
201
28-1
cont.
28-2
28-3
28-4
202
28-4
cont.
28-5
203
28-5
cont.
28-6
204
Enclosures
28-6
cont.
28-7
205
LETTER 29
San Joaquin Valley Manufacturing Alliance
206

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ALLIANCE
July 24, 2024
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Attention: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Telephone: (559) 621-8062
Email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
On behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Manufacturing Alliance (SJVMA), I am writing to submit our comments on the South-Central Specific Plan (SCSP) and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As a representative voice of the manufacturing industry in the San Joaquin Valley, we have serious concerns about the potential adverse impacts of the SCSP as currently drafted.

Who We Are and What We Do
The SJVMA is a robust coalition with over
1,450 members, including manufacturers and those that support the industry such as suppliers, educational institutions, government agencies, and nonprofits, making it the strongest organization of its kind in California. Our members have chosen Fresno for its strategic advantages, including access to a skilled workforce, affordable industrial space, and logistical benefits. These factors have enabled our members to provide quality job opportunities, contribute significant tax revenue, and support various community initiatives.

Our manufacturing businesses are integral to the local economy, serving essential industries such as agriculture, construction, and logistics. In Fresno, manufacturing companies employ over 25,000 people, accounting for approximately 10% of the city's total workforce. This diverse workforce includes a significant percentage of minority groups, reflecting the community's demographics. Moreover, the manufacturing sector contributes nearly $4 billion annually to Fresno's economy, highlighting its critical role in sustaining local economic health.

Comments on the SCSP

1. Downzoning Concerns
The SCSP proposes downzoning several properties from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial and from Light Industrial to Business Park or Regional Business Park. This shift is problematic for manufacturers serving critical industries. For example, "Animal Food Manufacturing" and "Chemical Manufacturing," essential for the agricultural sector, are not permitted in the Light Industrial zoning district. This restriction severely limits operational locations for these critical uses.

Additionally, the lack of notification to affected property owners about these zoning changes undermines trust and deters future investment. It is essential for the City to maintain a stable and predictable regulatory environment to encourage economic growth.

2. Buffer Zones
The SCSP introduces 1,000-foot buffer zones from "sensitive uses," covering nearly half of the SCSP area. These buffers prohibit certain industrial activities, convert others to conditional uses, and require extensive Health Risk Assessments. This imposes significant operational and financial burdens on businesses without clear benefits, potentially driving new industrial developments and jobs to neighboring municipalities.

PO Box 26807 • Fresno, CA 93720 T: 559.214.0140 sjvma.org 29-1
29-2
29-3
207

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ALLIANCE
PO Box 26807 • Fresno, CA 93720 T: 559.214.0140 sjvma.org

3. Mitigation Requirements
The SCSP imposes costly and potentially infeasible mitigation measures on landowners seeking permits. These include mandatory rooftop solar installations, zero-emission truck and equipment requirements, and various infrastructure upgrades. These measures add substantial costs and operational challenges, stifling economic development and innovation. For instance, requiring all buildings over 400,000 square feet to install rooftop solar panels to supply 100% of their power needs is economically burdensome and technologically challenging.

4. Generally Applicable Requirements
The SCSP mandates numerous generally applicable requirements, such as zero-emission operational equipment and the use of locally sourced or recycled construction materials. While these goals are commendable, the practical implementation poses significant challenges. For example, transitioning all Class 7 and 8 trucks to zero- emission by 2026 is more aggressive than CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation, imposing an undue burden on businesses.

The proposed SCSP, as currently drafted, imposes numerous onerous and economically infeasible requirements on the manufacturing industry. These measures threaten the viability of existing businesses, deter new investments, and ultimately harm Fresno's economic growth.

We urge the City of Fresno to reconsider the SCSP’s proposed zoning changes, buffer zones, and mitigation requirements. It is crucial to strike a balance between environmental goals and economic sustainability, ensuring that Fresno remains a thriving industrial hub.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,
Genelle Taylor Kumpe Mario Persicone
Chief Executive Officer Chair, SJVMA
President/CEO, Pro Laser Graphics
[email protected] Director of Operations, PNM Company
559.250.0453
29-4
29-5
29-6
208
LETTER 30

VALLEY IRON, INC
209
• ,11 VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Attention: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Telephone: (559) 621-8062
Email: [email protected]
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager,
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
My name is Noel Briscoe and I am submitting comments on behalf of my family business, Valley Iron Inc. and our related entities - VI Properties and Briscoe Land Development Group LP on the South Central Specific Plan (SCSP) and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I am writing because I am very concerned about the SCSP as currently drafted.

Valley Iron Inc. is a metal distribution company that has been in business in the City of Fresno since 1958. We operated at 2717 S. Cherry Ave from 1958-2005 and have been operating at 3114 S. Cherry Ave. from 2005 to the present day. We sell metal products - steel, stainless steel & aluminum to many industries, including OEM manufacturers, construction companies (commercial & residential), food processing plants and the general public. Many of our customers operate in the City of Fresno. Valley Iron Inc. employees approximately 130 people at the Fresno location and approximately 70% of our employees reside in the City of Fresno. Valley Iron has contributed millions in tax dollars to the City of Fresno over the last 65 years and grown from a small company of less than 1 O employees to 130 employees in 2024. Valley Iron Inc. has consistently supported/donated to the following community organizations over the 65 years operating in Fresno:

Fresno State University, State Center Community College District, Fresno Pacific University, Many of the High Schools Robotics Programs, Boys & Girls Club, Big Brother/Big Sisters, Hinds Hospice, Children's Hospital, Terry's House@ Community Regional Medical Center, Fresno Mission/City Center, Catholic Charities, Fresno art Museum, Habitat for Humanity, People's Church, San Joaquin Valley Town Hall, Valley PBS, Youth for Christ, Lighthouse Recovery Center, Poverello House, Building Better Communities and the Fresno Business Council.

My concerns/comments regarding the current draft of the SCSP are as follows:

Downzoning
30-1
30-2
210
• ,� VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
Although the SCSP and the SCSP EIR provide a total inventory of existing and proposed land uses and zoning designations under the SCSP, there is nothing in either document that specifically quantifies how many properties would be affected by these land use and zoning changes (or what the total acreage of land use/zoning changes might be).

This is of particular concern because the SCSP contemplates downzoning numerous properties from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial and other properties from Light Industrial to Business Park or Regional Business Park. This downzoning can have wide­ ranging adverse impacts to landowners who are seeking national manufacturing clients to serve the agricultural and constructions industries.

For example, Downzoning from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial can be extremely problematic for manufactures serving the ag industry. This is because "Animal Food Manufacturing" and "Chemical Manufacturing" are not allowed in the Light industrial zoning district (or any other district in the SCSP, for that matter). These uses are critical to the ag industry, and it makes little sense to artificially limit the locations where manufacturers can engage in these operations, especially given the dearth of Heavy Industrial zoned land in the City.

Downzoning from Light Industrial to Regional Business Park or Business Park is equally troubling. For example, despite the importance of building materials and services uses to the City's construction industry, that use is not permitted in either the Regional Business Park or the Business Park zoning districts. Downzoning from Light Industrial will also result in far more difficult permitting conditions, as most manufacturing (i.e., "General Industrial"), as well as Food and Beverage Processing and Agricultural Processing uses, are allowed in the Light Industrial zoning district, but not in Reginal Business Park or Business Park zoning districts.

The City should be encouraging manufacturers and other businesses that serve the agricultural and construction industries, not artificially limiting the land within which they can locate.

Even though the SCSP contemplates changing the zoning of Valley Iron's property, we never received an}' notice from the City that its property rights were going to be changed. This undoubtedly means numerous other businesses and property owners were likewise not provided notice. It is unfair to property owners to change a landowners' zoning without giving them actual notice. This is especially true given that these changes could disrupt their future plans or result in existing land uses, businesses, or facilities that are inconsistent with the zoning.
30-2
cont.
30-3
30-4
211
,� VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
These proposals also interfere with the investment-backed expectations of persons who have invested in the City over the last 50 years. Equally important, such drastic changes thwart future economic investment because they signal to prospective businesses that the City is an unstable place to invest. Indeed, many manufacturers would think twice about constructing a multi-million dollar facility in a City that actively downzones properties without notifying the underlying landowners.

Valley Iron Inc. operates at 3114 S. Cherry Ave on approximately 23 acres with 250,000 square feet of warehouse and office space. Currently we are zoned Heavy Industrial and we need this designation to stay the same.

We also own approximately 14.5 acres of land directly across Cherry Ave. from Valley iron Inc. This land is in the County, but is included in the SCSP and is slated to be changed to Commercial General, which will not be conducive to our future development. The following parcel numbers make up the property:
329-180-09
329-080-10
329-180-11
329-180-12
329-180-16
329-180-30
329-180-32
329-180-30
Valley Iron Inc. has made significant investments at 3114 S. Cherry since 2005 to develop the property to support our business operation under the Heavy Industrial zoning. The current draft of the SCSP shows our facility being downzoned - we would not have purchased & developed the property had it not been zoned Heavy Industrial. If our current property is downzoned it will negatively impact our ability to further develop our facility to support our future business plans.

Valley Iron Inc. purchased the 14.5 acres on the west side of Cherry Ave. in 2018 with the intent to develop and use it to grow our metal distribution business under the Heavy Industrial Zoning shown in the General Plan. Under the current draft of the SCSP this property would be down zoned to Commercial General, which would not support or allow our future growth plans.

Buffers
The SCSP introduces the concept of "buffers," which restricts or eliminates certain types of developments within the SCSP that are within 1,000 feet of "sensitive uses." According to 30-5
30-6
30-7
212
• 1l� VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
the City's maps, these buffers cover nearly half of the entire SCSP area. The City should decline to incorporate buffers into the SCSP.

We are very concerned about the buffer concept. The buffers would prohibit certain warehousing and distribution uses (chemical and mineral storage; freight/truck terminals), and convert other uses ("Limited Industrial " and most warehouse and distribution uses) to conditional uses. In addition Health Risk Assessments must be prepared for any and all industrial processes, construction, and operations, regardless of the intensity of the land use or the likelihood of adverse health impacts. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a,

4.3-3b, 4.3-3c.)
All land uses within the buffer must also "meet CARB criteria for zero or near zero emissions facilities," imposing a significant burden on local businesses, without actually describing or alerting the public what that actually means.

We are also concerned about the size of the proposed buffers. If buffers are incorporated, they should be the exception, not the rule. According to the maps, however, the proposed buffers would take up nearly half the space of the SCSP. Moreover, the buffers appear to have been artificially inflated because the SCSP contemplates changing the zoning of numerous properties from Light Industrial to Residential (simply due to the presence of an isolated house). For example, an entire buffer area has been created in the center of the industrial triangle due to 1-2 isolated residences on Annadale Avenue. It is unclear how the City could spot zone a small number of isolated parcels to residential and then use that rezoning to impose restrictions on a much larger group of landowners.

We are also unaware of any city or county near Fresno that has adopted 1,000-foot buffers.

Because there is significant demand for industrial development in the City, and few places in the City to actually build, the adoption of buffers would simply mean that new industrial developments-and the jobs they create-go to other nearby municipalities. As a longtime Fresno business, we cannot support any policy that would undermine the success of Fresno as an industrial hub or that would incentivize our workforce to move elsewhere.

The buffers proposed in the current draft of the SCSP would have a negative impact on Valley Iron's operation and future growth. There are 6 residential houses directly across the street (west) from Valley Iron, 2 of which we already own and could demolish once the tenants have been properly vacated. The other 4 houses could be purchased by us and be demolished, so the residences that might impact us could go away and neutralize the buffering requirement. Other businesses in the SCSP may not have the ability to remove the residences around them, but they should not be affected by a buffer. The City of Fresno allowed all the businesses in the SCSP to start up and grow with the residences in place - changing the rules now is not acceptable.
30-7
cont.
30-8
30-9
213
,11 VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
There is also a religious Sikh temple on the corner of North & Cherry Ave. that could potentially impact Valley Iron Inc because of the potential buffering. The City of Fresno has approved the Sikh temple to expand their facility several times over the last couple decades knowing that the temple is surrounded by Heavy Industrial businesses. To now penalize the neighboring businesses for the temple's location is just wrong. The temple chose their location, Valley Iron and other businesses chose their location -the City approved ALL (businesses & the Temple) of the facilities, operations and growth projects, therefore the current draft of the SCSP regarding a buffer around the Temple to the north of Valley Iron is unjust and should not be allowed. Changing the rules after development has been completed is unacceptable.

Improvements/Mitigation that May Be Practically Infeasible.

Solar Infrastructure:
• Buildings over 400,000 square feet must "ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated in such a manner that they will supply 100% of the power needed to operate [the non-refrigerated] portions of the facility including the parking areas." (SCSP at 75.)
o All other buildings shall have solar-ready roofs, "which includes designing and constructing buildings in a manner that facilitates and optimizes the installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system at some point after the building has been constructed." (SCSP at 75.)
o All other buildings must "demonstrate their capacity to include energy production and storage features on-site, including " on-site solar panels. The amount of renewable energy needed is based on the needs of the development, serving at a minimum 50% of the energy demand. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 d.)
This part of the current draft of the SCSP is complete overreach -Adding solar equipment to a facility/project is strictly the developer's choice, not something that should be mandated by the City of Fresno. Valley Iron has solar equipment on top of it's warehouses because we analyzed it and it made financial sense for us to install. The City of Fresno has 30-10
30-11
214
,� VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
no business mandating solar equipment for commercial development as solar does not always make financial sense to a business.

Required Transition to Zero Emissions Trucks:
• All future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses must ensure all Class 7 and 8 trucks are "model year 2014 or later ... . " After December 31, 2026, all trucks must be transitioned to "zero-emission vehicles," subject to the Planning Director's discretion. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 h.) The developer or the business is also responsible for ensuring "that adequate electrical infrastructure is provided to allow for the transition to electric heavy-duty trucks." (Id.)
• This is far more aggressive than CARB's Advanced Clean Fleets ("ACF ") regulation, which allows high-priority fleets to purchase at least some trucks other ZEVs until 2035.
• Moreover, unlike the ACF regulation, which only applies to some fleets, the City's Mitigation Measure applies to all discretionary permits for commercial and industrial land uses within the SCSP.
• The City requires an equally aggressive phase-in schedule (more aggressive than CARB's ACF regulation) for Class 2-6 Trucks, requiring full electrification of the fleet by December 31, 2031. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 i.) This part of the current draft of the SCSP is complete overreach. This type of regulation is already handled by CARB- The City of Fresno has no business getting involved in this type of regulation and attempting to adopt stricter regulation than what the State of California is mandating.

Promotion of Passenger EVs for Customers/Employees:
• "At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready," and at "least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy," regardless of employee or customer demand for such spaces. (SCSP at 75.)
30-11
cont.
30-12
30-13
215
• ,11 VAllEY IRON INC. W SINCE 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
This part of the current draft of the SCSP is overreach. The% of EV parking is way too aggressive and will drive cost up significantly on the developer. Technology is changing quickly and it is not The City of Fresno's place to mandate EV charging stations for private businesses -what if Hydrogen turns out to be the fuel of the future and we have millions of dollars of EV charging stations going unused? Zero Emissions Equipment:
• "On-site motorized operational equipment shall be ZE (zero emission)." (SCSP at

75.)
Again -SCSP draft overreach. This is CAR B's decision, NOT the City of Fresno.

Construction Fleets/Equipment/Materials:
• All "construction contractors shall demonstrate that they shall use the cleanest available fleet of heavy-duty equipment" after submitting "Construction Clean Fleet" paperwork to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. And "[a]ll on-site yard trucks and forklift shall be powered by electricity." (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 B.)
• The SCSP requires an applicant to "deploy the highest rated CARB Tier Technology that is available at the time of construction," subject to discretionary waivers by the Planning Director. (SCSP at 76.)
• The required use of "electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers. " (SCSP at 76. )
• Prohibition of diesel-powered generators for construction. (SCSP at 76.) • Required to use at least 20% locally sources or recycled materials for construction materials, and wood products used should be certified through a sustained forestry program. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 b.)
ALL the above is overreach as currently drafted in the SCSP. CARB/State of CA & SJVAPCD already regulates all the trucks, powered equipment and tools, etc.

The City of Fresno has no business attempting to enforce stricter regulation than the State level.

The last bullet point regarding sourcing of materials and sustainability would create added cost and more unnecessary paperwork to prove sourcing and sustainability. The 30-13
cont.
30-14
30-15
30-16
216
,� VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
State of CA already has programs in place to govern construction materials depending on public vs private nature of the project.

Other Infrastructure Improvements:
• Unless a property owner records a covenant stating the property prohibiting refrigerated warehouse space, "a conduit shall be installed during construction of the building shell from the electrical room to 100% of the loading dock doors that have the potential to serve refrigerated space." In addition, all dock doors serving TRU units must include "electric plug-in units." (SCSP at 75.) • The construction of a secondary electrical room (or sizing one electrical room 25% larger than required) to accommodate additional electrical panels. (SCSP at 76.) • For all industrial land uses that do not use natural gas as part of a manufacturing process, "no natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted." (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 k.)
This is overreach as currently drafted in the SCSP. The City of Fresno has no business mandating the scope of the electrical plans and or the use of natural gas for every new building being constructed. The owners/developers/engineers & architects design the building for their intended use - NOT The City of Fresno.

Further Studies:
• Business owners and/or their consultants must perform noise studies for any new development, regardless of how close they are to sensitive receptors. (SCSP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.12-2a.)
This part of the current draft of the SCSP is unnecessary. If there is no sensitive receptor
near the project, the City of Fresno is simply mandating the developer to waste money on a noise study that is not going to result in any mitigation needs.

The current draft of the SCSP should be scrapped and completely reworked. My family has built Valley Iron Inc into one of the largest metal distributors in California over many decades and we have invested heavily in the City of Fresno. We pay our taxes, we have increased the number of jobs we provide, and we give back to the community in many, many ways throughout every year. The SCSP as drafted would have a negative impact on our ability to continue to operate and grow our business in the City of Fresno.
30-16
cont.
30-17
30-18
30-19
217
,� VALLEY IRON INC. W SINCf 1958
Valley Iron Inc.
3114 S. Cherry Ave
Fresno, CA 93706
The City of Fresno must create and implement a version of the SCSP that firmly supports existing businesses, as well as attracts new businesses. As currently drafted, the SCSP is full of overreach and will penalize many of the existing businesses that have been investing in Fresno for decades and it will certainly make the City of Fresno very unattractive to new investors/developers. There are several other Cities along the 99 corridor that are competing for new business, and they are not implementing plans like the current draft of the SCSP.

Thank you for your consideration,
���
�
Pr esident & CEO
Valley Iron Inc
30-19
cont.
218
LETTER 31

WAGNER JONES HELSEY
219
O L I V E R W . W A N G E R
T I M O T H Y J O N E S *
M I C H A E L S . H E L S L E Y
R I L E Y C . W A L T E R
P A T R I C K D . T O O L E
S C O T T D . L A I R D
J O H N P. K I N S E Y
K U R T F . V O T E
T R O Y T . E W E L L
J A Y A . C H R I S T O F F E R S O N
M A R I S A L . B A L C H
A M A N D A G . H E B E S H A * *
P E T E R M . J O N E S†
J E F F R E Y B . P A P E†
D E B O R A H K . B O Y E T T
S T E V E N K . V O T E
N I C O L A S R . C A R D E L L A
G I U L I O A . S A N C H E Z
K A T H L E E N D . D E V A N E Y
E T H A N E . M O R A†
B E N J A M I N C . W E S T
H U N T E R C . C A S T R O
S T E P H A N I E M . H O S M A N
I A N J . Q U I N N††
R A C H E L L . P O M B O
N A T H A N J . M A R T I N
C O L T E N D . B A L L I N G E R
C O L L E E N E . B U S B Y
D A N I K A E . J O N E S
J E S S I C A L . V I V E D
* A l s o a d m i t t e d i n W a s h i n g t o n
** A l s o a d m i t t e d i n I d a h o
† O f C o u n s e l
†† A l s o a d m i t t e d i n T e x a s

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC

A T T O R N E Y S
265 E. RIVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720

M A I L I N G A D D R E S S
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 2 8 3 4 0
F R E S N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 7 2 9

T E L E P H O N E
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 4 8 0 0
FAX
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 9 3 3 0
July 30, 2024
C L O V I S O F F I C E :
6 4 2 P o l l a s k y A v e n u e
S u i t e 1 0 0
C l o v i s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 3 6 1 2

O F F I C E A D M I N I S T R A T O R
L Y N N M . H O F F M A N
W r i t e r ’ s E- M a i l A d d r e s s :
j k i n s e y @ w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
W e b s i t e :
w w w . w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
VIA EMAIL [[email protected]] & UNITED STATES MAIL
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department

CITY OF FRESNO
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: Comments on South Central Specific Plan
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

Thank you for providing the opportunity to submit comments on the City of Fresno’s (the “City”) Draft South Central Specific Plan (the “SCSP”) and the related Draft Environmental Impact Deport (the “DEIR”). As you are aware, my law firm represents numerous businesses and landowners located within the boundaries of the South Central Specific Plan (the “SCSP”).

In short, the SCSP and the DEIR would downzone numerous industrial properties—even though the SCSP area has been an industrial reserve for over a century;1 impose onerous, infeasible, and unusual requirements on property owners and tenants unlike those of any other city in the Central Valley; effectuate impermissible spot zoning by rezoning isolated properties to residential districts; create restrictive 1,000-foot buffers from sensitive receptors that 1 SCSP, 2 [“Beginning as early as 1918, the City of Fresno has recognized the area’s economic importance and from 1956 onward has planned for industrial development through several iterations of the Fresno General Plan . . . .”].) 31-1
31-2
220

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
would apply to roughly half the properties within the SCSP; and continue the practice of reducing and eliminating employment-generating industrial zoning across the City.

Due to its central location and proximity to transportation corridors, the City has long been the preferred destination in the Central Valley for economic investment. Over the past several years, howe ver, developers, investors, and national tenants have instead chosen other communities—primarily the City of Visalia, the City of Madera, and the County of Tulare . As explained in the accompanying expert report prepared by Ethan H. Smith of Newmark, this shift has largely been driven by the perception of the City as an exceptionally challenging permitting and business environment. (See generally Attachment A.) The SCSP will only reinforce these trends, and it should not be adopted as currently envisioned. The City should instead seek to build consensus with its job creators. The City should reach out to landowners to determine whether they want their properties downzoned. The City should meaningfully engage with industry regarding feasible mitigation measures. And it certainly should not consider policies or practices that will drive jobs and investment away from the City.

A. The City Should Not Downzone Properties Without Notice to , or Approval of, Affected Landowners and Businesses
For over a century, the area within the SCSP (“Plan Area”) has been designated primarily for industrial land uses , reflecting sound planning principles. The area is adjacent to transportation corridors and is located on the southmost, sparsely populated periphery of the City.

The residents within the Plan Area “are located primarily in pockets of development along the outer edges of the area.” (DEIR, 5-12.) This longstanding vision of the Plan Area as an industrial reserve has allowed it to thrive as the City’s primary economic engine. 2 While it comprises less than 7.5% of land in the City , and includes only 0.34% of the City’s population, it contributes roughly 21% of the City’s tax revenue: $102.7 million annually. The area’s 440 businesses, representing 124 different sectors of the economy, account for approximately 25% of the City’s jobs and more than $13 billion in annual economic activity.

Despite this, one of the primary planned consequences of the SCSP is to downzone properties away from heavy and light industrial land uses. These efforts are especially prevalent in the undeveloped eastern, western, and southern peripheries of the S CSP—exactly where new development would occur. (See SCSP, Figures 4-3, 4-7.) The City should not limit potential uses in exactly those areas where development is likely to occur.

In addition to the adverse consequences for economic development, the City should also decline to authorize any rezones in the SCSP because the City declined to provide affected landowners with notice that the zoning of their properties would be changing. It is unclear why this did not occur. I frequently attend City Council, P lanning Commission, and Project Review Committee meetings. At virtually every one of those meetings, the elected and appointed 2 https://www.investfresnoca.com/economicimpact
31-2
cont.
31-3
31-4
31-5
221

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
representatives of the City stress the importance of early and persistent outreach by both the City and project applicants to the community. Here, however, although the SCSP contemplates the rezoning of numerous properties within the Plan Area, I am unaware of a single affected landowner or business that received notice directly from the City regarding the publication of the draft SCSP, the circulation of the DEIR, or the public comment period on the DEIR —much less a communicating stating their underlying zoning and land use designation would change.

Landowners should not be required to hire a land use specialist, such as an attorney, to learn about a potential action that could directly affect their property. The City should instead directly advise landowners that their zoning will change. And this notice should not simply be a one-page document providing notice of a plan amendment. Rather, since most lay people are not familiar with technical planning principles, or understand that such a plan amendment could affect their property rights, the City should instead directly advise landowners and businesses —in plain language that a lay person can understand—that the City’s actions would impact their zoning.

Direct notice in plain language is critically important. Downzoning can have a devastating impact on landowners and employers whose properties are rendered inconsistent with the underlying zoning. (Attachment A, p. 4.) Downzoning diminishes the ability to attract the reputable, responsible, and well-capitalized businesses. (Id.) It can likewise result in an event of default on existing loans. (Id.) Moreover, rezoning that results in non-conformities makes it nearly impossible to receive conventional financing (including capital improvements necessary for ongoing maintenance, beautification, and clean energy improvements) . (Id.) And it is far more difficult to sell properties with legal non-conforming uses.) (Id.) Although the Legal Non -Conforming Use provisions of the City’s Development Code provide some limited protections for legal non -conforming uses, those protections are exceptionally limited for industrial landowner s. For example, if an industrial legal non - conforming use ceases for more than 90 days, the use is no longer legal. This is insufficient for a landowner to change tenants even under the best of circumstances; during an economic downturn, however, it virtually ensures the legal non -conforming status will be lost. (See City of Fresno, Development Code, § 15-404(F)(2); Attachment A, p. 4.) Similarly, a landowner cannot change from one legal non -conforming use to another (such as converting manufacturi ng space to warehouse space). (See id. at § 15-404(D).) Further, enlargement of a legal non-conforming use can only occur subject to a conditional use permit (“CUP”), which eliminates the ability to attract reputable, national , industrial tenants and fur ther diminish es the ability to re -let industrial properties. (See id. at § 15-404(B); Attachment A, p. 4.) This issue is not limited to developed properties or nonconformities. Landowners acquire land with an investment -backed expectation based largely on the property’s zoning. By eliminating potential uses, or changing the possible uses, for a property , or making certain uses subject to a CUP, rezoning property carries a strong likelihood of interfering with landowners’ investment-backed expectations, especially when the rezone is against their will. (See Attachment A, p. 4.) Further, by changing the zoning of a property without landowner/business approval, the City sends the message to all those seeking to invest in Fresno that the City’s zoning proc ess is 31-5
cont.
31-6
222

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
unstable and their investments are not safe. (Id.) Because California’s unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation, 3 and the County of Fresno’s rate is among the highest in California,4 the City should be encouraging—not discouraging—investment and job creation.

B. Because the City Has Been Eliminating Light and Heavy Industrial Zoning Across the City, Very Little Land Remains Available for Industrial Development
Over the past several years, the City has been gradually eliminating industrial zoning districts throughout the City and its planning area . For example, the 2017 Southwest Specific Plan (“SWSP”) eliminated all industrially -zoned property from the plan area .5 The Central South Area Specific Plan (“CSASP”) likewise does not include any properties zoned industrial within the relevant plan area.6 The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use map shows less than five small properties —all adjacent to S.R. 99 and containing existing development—as zoned light industrial, wi th no heavy industrial zoning. 7 The Southeast Development Area Specific Plan includes no proposed industrially -zoned properties.8 And aside from a small handful of properties along the S.R. 180 corridor in West Fresno, along Golden State Boulevard in Nor thwest Fresno, and within the Palm Bluffs area, there are no undeveloped industrial-zoned properties elsewhere in the City. There is currently little room for industrial growth or expansion within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. The only land avail able for industrial development is within the SCS P. Yet the SCSP now contemplates downzoning most undeveloped land within the Plan Area. The dearth of land available for heavy and light industrial development in the City will not only reduce economic inv estment in the City, it will steer economic investment elsewhere. (See Attachment A, pp. 4–8.) 3 https://apnews.com/article/california-highest-unemployment-slower-job-growth- b1e4c822b33f29f819dbb024103cc843
4 https://edd.ca.gov/en/about_edd/news_releases_and_announcements/unemployment- may-2024/
5 https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20200624-Southwest_Fresno_Plan-case-study.pdf [“Key outcomes of the SWSP development process i nclude a new zoning map that prohibits further industrial development in the community”].
6 https://www.fresno.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno_Central_Southeast_Area_Subsequent_MND_signed.pdf 7 https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-Planned-Land-Use-Map.pdf 8 https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/03/SEDA-Landuse- Map.pdf
31-6
cont.
31-7
223

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
C. Further Assessment of the SCSP’s Impacts on Local Businesses is Required

1. The City’s Market Demand Assumptions Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
The City retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”) to prepare a nonresidential real estate market analysis (the “Market Analysis”) to support planning efforts and environmental review. (DEIR, Appx. A , p. 1.) The Market Analysis was intended to “prov ide context for the EIR related to the scale and type of land uses that can be supported through the study horizon (2040),” thereby “ensuring that development totals allow for appropriate environmental analysis and mitigation measures, as necessary,” and t o “inform land use regulations” so that the Project could “develop according to the vision described in the Specific Plan while aligned with market demand.” ( Id. at 2.) The Market Analysis relied on projected employment growth and long -term historical growth of non -residential development to estimate development demand over the planning horizon, ( id. at 35), assuming that “foundational market conditions fall within normal parameters ” during that time . ( Id. at 38 fn. 41.) Based on this methodology, the M arket Analysis estimated “demand for approximately 350 acres (about 6.0 million square feet of new [nonresidential] development) through 2040” within the Plan Area. (Id. at 45.)
In reaching this conclusion, the Market Analysis acknowledged that develop ment in the Project Area would be “heavily influenced” by “individual landowner decisions and investor objectives” and therefore “there is every possibility that the specific actions of one or more development interests may contribute to outcomes that vary from the land use demand estimates in th[e] [Market] Analysis.” ( Id. at 35.) To account for this uncertainty, EPS recommended application of a 30% contingency factor to the base non-residential demand estimate, finding this “would be appropriate to allo w for a conservative evaluation of environmental impacts and identification of mitigation measures.” ( Id.) This resulted in estimated non -residential development demand in the Project Area “for about 456 acres (about 7.8 million square feet of new development) through 2040.” (Id. at 45.) The City, however, declined to use this figure, and instead directed its environmental consultant “ to recalibrate a target buildout to reflect twice the market demand estimated by EPS in order to capture the level of demand the City anticipates could happen with the adoption of this Plan.” (SCSP, p. 10 [emphasis added].) Nor did the City take into consideration the challenging permitting conditions industrial applicants face in the City.

There is no substantial evidence to support the City’s assumed market demand. It is important that the estimate be correct. If too high, it could overstate the potential environmental effects of the SCSP, resulting in unnecessary mitigation without a nexus or substantial relation to any environmental impact. (See DEIR, Appx. A , p. 45 [“EPS recommends a 30 percent contingency factor would be appropriate to allow for a conservative evaluation of environmental impacts and identification of mitigation measures.”].) If too low, it could understate the environmental and economic consequences of employment generating land uses moving outside the City, as explained below . Under any circumstance, the City should endeavor to use a figure 31-8
31-9
224

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
for market demand that is supported by the evidence. Because that did not occur, the DEIR is flawed. (See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197 [ “[An] EIR must contain facts and an alysis, not just the bare conclusions of the agency.”].)

2. The SCSP if Adopted Will Frustrate the City’s Ability to Capture Market Demand
Although the City has long been the preferred destination in the Central Valley for investment in new industrial land uses, the last several years have seen the City’s industrial inventory stagnate and the inventories in other nearby cities skyrocket. According to the Market Analysis, the inventory of industrial space in the Plan Area has remained static since 2018. (See DEIR, Appx. A, p. 28, Table 9; see also DEIR , p. 4-2 [“conditions in the Plan Area have not changed substantially since” the NOP was cir culated in 2019 ].) This is not due to a lack of demand; to the contrary, the vacancy rate for industrial properties has been less than 5% since 2018, and it was only 1% in 2021. (See id.) It is likewise not due to a dearth of land zoned for industrial uses; rather, Figure 4 -3 in the SCSP shows a large number of undeveloped properties within the City zoned industrial.

The simple truth is the City is a difficult permitting environment for employment - generating land uses. (See Attachment A, pp. 5–6.) The Market Analysis directly acknowledges the causal connection between land use policie s and demand absorption , finding the City’s “policies and strategies also affect the types of industries that locate in the City and the real estate they demand.” (DEIR, Appx. A, p. 22.) The Market Study likewise finds “land demand estimates” are “informed by land use regulations that support desired development,” as well as “streamlined permitting requirements, the availability of ‘shovel -ready’ land, and, in the case of l arge-scale office and industrial users, an interest among corporate decision makers in the area to locate in the Project (as opposed to the competitive markets discussed previously) . . . .” (Id. at 35.) Both internal and external issues unique to the City directly affect its ability to absorb demand for industrial uses . For example, there is little to no “shovel -ready” land in the City, as the City characterizes virtually any development permit as “discretionary” and thus subject to both CEQA and appeal to the City Council. (See Fresno Municipal Code, §§ 15-5206, 15-5207, 15-5208.) Even for land uses that are technically “permitted,” those land uses are not “by right.” (See id. at § 15-5207.) This attracts project opponents, and this requires industrial applicants to be overly conservative with respect to their choice of environmental documents. The result has been that, over the past decade, most industrial projects within the City result in the preparation of an environmental impact report.9
9 See https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/Search?StartRange=2014-07-18&EndRange=2024-07- 18&LeadAgency=Fresno%2c+City+of&City=Fresno&DevelopmentType=Industrial; see also https://fresnochamber.com/news/unraveling-fresnos-industrial-development-from-warm- welcome-to-present-challenges-economic-growth-expansion-businesses-operational- 31-9
cont.
31-10
225

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
Further, the California Attorney General’s office has appointed counsel to oversee the City’s land use decision s, objected to existing industrial developments, 10 and hired local advocates who previously objected to industrial development in the City.11 Since 2018, virtually any land use decision perceived as furthering the interests of industrial development has attracted litigation by a wide range of interests.12 And the City has recently made zoning decisions to convert new industrial developments into legal nonconforming uses.13 comparative-advantages-fresno-fresnocounty/ [observing that “[f]rom the early 2000s to the mid- 2010s, developers encountered no problem in obtaining city approval for building projects in areas appropriately zoned to accommodate spaces for light to heavy industrial”].) 10 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2022-10-12-ago-ltr-southwest-fresno-rezone- project.pdf
11 https://gvwire.com/2024/02/07/leading-fresno-environmental-justice-attorney-joins-state- ags-office/
12 The following links provide just a handful of examples:
https://leadershipcounsel.org/south-fresno-residents-take-historic-action-against-caltrans- and-federal-highway-administration-over-toxic-highway-interchange-expansions/ https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article203120414.html https://sjvsun.com/news/fresno/100mil-southwest-fresno-warehouse-development-faces- environmental-lawsuit/
https://fresnochamber.com/news/industrial-zoning-dispute-continues-for-some-elm- avenue-properties/
https://fresnoland.org/2022/10/13/city-council-approves-location-of-busseto-food-plant- in-southwest-fresno/
https://leadershipcounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Verified-Petition- Complaint_South-Fresno-Community-Alliance-v.-City-of-Fresno.pdf https://leadershipcounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/MC3-Draft-Plans-Comment- Letter-1.pdf
https://leadershipcounsel.org/city-of-fresno-remove-light-industrial-zoning-in-the- proposed-plan-amendment/
https://leadershipcounsel.org/press-release-south-fresno-residents-fight-back-against- warehouse-development-secure-
protections/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=press-release-south-fresno- residents-fight-back-against-warehouse-development-secure-protections 13 https://thebusinessjournal.com/southwest-fresno-industrial-rezone-project-pushed-back/ 31-10
cont.
226

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
The City’s competitors have directly benefitted from the City’s inability to entitle additional industrial projects—all of whom have enjoyed rapid growth in available industrial space since 2018. (See, e.g., DEIR, Appx. A, p. 30 [“Since 2018, development in the area [of the Visalia Industrial Park] has intensified rapidly, with several developments each containing more than 1 million square feet currently under construction or seeking p lanning entitlements, largely consisting of logistics and distribution hubs for national firms such as Amazon and UPS.”]; id. [“As of May 2022, existing industrial buildings in the [Madera Industrial District] area contained approximately 2.5 million squar e feet of floor area.”] ; Attachment B [finding “tenant and buyer demand has slowed” in Fresno whereas Visalia has become “the development capital of Central California” with “fi[ve] consecutive year[s] of over 1 million square feet of commercial space constructed, most of it industrial ” and “Madera County’s industrial momentum remains positive”].)14 As the Market Analysis explains:

Within approximately 30 miles or less of the SCSP area, there is at least

27.4 million square feet of industrial development, with an estimated 49.6 million square feet of industrial development capacity in these areas.

Including developments over 30 miles from the SCSP along SR-99, there is at least 43.5 million square feet of existing industrial development with capacity for 103.9 [million] further square feet. With [one] exception . . . , all of these developments are within close proximity to SR-99, and all allow a variety of office and industrial uses, enabling them to compete with the SCSP for a wide variety of business, i ncluding manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics and distribution centers.
(DEIR, Appx. A, p. 27.)
In the comment period on the Notice of Preparation for the DEIR, the City received comments demonstrating that, to be an adequate document, the DEIR should evaluate the potential impacts associated with industrial businesses locating outside the City. 15 Despite (i) having received these comments, (ii) the Market Study’s acknowledgement that the City’s ability to absorb demand is directly affected by adverse permitting conditions, and (iii) the fact that the City’s industrial inventory has stagnated during a time of one percent vacancy rates while other https://gvwire.com/2023/06/01/fresno-companies-say-theyve-been-left-out-of-citys- rezoning-discussions/
14 See also https://fresnochamber.com/news/unraveling-fresnos-industrial-development- from-warm-welcome-to-present-challenges-economic-growth-expansion-businesses-operational- comparative-advantages-fresno-fresnocounty/ [stating that “rec ent opportunities that could have greatly benefited Fresno’s economy instead found their way to the cities of Madera and Visalia”]. 15 https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Comments-Received-SCSP-EIR- Scoping-Period-20210324-20210514.pdf
31-10
cont.
31-11
227

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
cities have admittedly captured that demand, neither the DEIR nor the Market Study endeavor to assess the likelihood that the City’s competitors will continue to capture that demand.

This is of significant concern because the SC SP and the DEIR interfere with the investment-backed expectations of industrial landowners and businesses, and seek to impose unusual and infeasible requirements on industrial land uses that are far more onerous than those applied by the City’s competitors, as shown below:

SCSP & DEIR Requirements City of Madera City of Visalia County of Tulare The SCSP contemplates the
downzoning of properties from
IH/IL to more restrictive zoning
districts. (SCSP, Figure 4-7.)

N/A N/A N/A
The SCSP contemplates the
creation of buffers for
approximately half the plan area
that would restrict certain land
uses, and make others subject to
CUPs. (SCSP, Figure 5-2; see
also Attachment C
No buffers; just
10 foot setbacks
No buffers; just
10 to 20 foot
setbacks and 7 to
8 foot solid wall
for industrial
properties
adjoining
residential uses
No buffers; just 5
to 20 foot setbacks
and six foot solid
wall for industrial
properties
adjoining
residential uses
In buffer areas, compliance with
CARB “zero or near zero emission
facility” requirements in the
California Sustainable Freight
Action Plan

N/A N/A N/A
Buildings over 400,000 square feet
must have a truck operator lounge
with amenities. (SCSP, Policy
(m).)

N/A N/A N/A
Building over 400,000 squar e feet
must install rooftop solar sufficient
top power 100% of the non -
refrigerated areas of the facility,
including parking areas. (SCSP
Policy (q).

For other buildings, inclusion of
on-site clean energy commensurate

N/A N/A N/A
31-11
cont.
228

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
with at least 50% of the demand
needed for future development.
(DEIR, Mit igation Measure
(“MM”) 4.6-1d.)
All motorized operational
equipment must be zero emissions.
(SCSP, Policy (n).)

N/A N/A N/A
All rooftops must be designed to be
capable of accommodating rooftop
solar. (SCSP, Policy (o).)

N/A N/A N/A
Cool/Low VOC surfaces are
required for new construction.
(SCSP, Policies (u), (w).)

N/A N/A N/A
Construction of redundant
warehouse electrical rooms.
(SCSP, Policy (v).)

N/A N/A N/A
Requires highest available CARB
tier technology for construction
equipment. (SCSP, Policy (y).)
Requirement to use cleanest
available construction equipment.
(DEIR, MM 4.3-1b.)

N/A N/A N/A
Obligation to reduce emissions
through Voluntary Emissions
Reduction Agreements (VERAs)
with the SJVA PCD. (DEIR, M M

4.3-1a.)

N/A N/A N/A
Class 7 -8 vehicles domiciled on
property must be fully electrified
by December 31, 2026. (DEIR,
MM 4.3-1h.)
Infrastructure to support ZEVs
must also be installed. (Id.)

N/A N/A N/A
31-11
cont.
229

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
Landowners must begin to convert
Class 2 -6 vehicles domiciled on
property to ZEVs at the start of
operations, and transition the entire
fleet to ZEVs by December 31,
2031. (DEIR, MM 4.3-1i.)

N/A N/A N/A
Prohibition of natural gas except
for processing. (DEIR, MM 4.3-
1k.)

N/A N/A N/A
Mandatory Health Risk
Assessments within buffer areas.
(DEIR, MM 4.3-3a, 3b.)
Prohibition of loading/unloading
within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors, depending on the results
of the HRA. (DEIR, MM 4.3-1c.)

N/A N/A N/A
Mandated use of low -carbon
concrete. (DEIR, MM 4.8-1a.)

N/A N/A N/A
Mandated use of locally sources or
recycled construction materials.
(DEIR, MM 4.8-1b.)

N/A N/A N/A
Site characterization, investigation,
and remediation as a condition of
development. (DEIR, MM 4.9-1d,
1e, 1i.)

N/A N/A N/A
Mandatory noise studies,
regardless of likelihood of potential
impacts. (DEIR, MM 4.12-2a.)

N/A N/A N/A
Individually and cumulatively, these measures will continue the outward drift of businesses and jobs to other communities. From a policy perspective, the City should not allow this to occur. At the very least, however, the DEIR must assess the impacts as sociated with the City’s market demand being captured by other nearby cities so that decision makers can make an informed decision regarding the tradeoffs inherent in the proposed project. 31-11
cont.
31-12
230

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5

3. The DEIR Fails to Assess the Environmental Consequences of Other Cities Capturing the City’s Market Demand
“The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which 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 a lternatives to such a project.” ( Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 937; see Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21061, 21002.1(a).) Th us, “CEQA procedures ‘are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such signifi cant effects.’” (Id. [quoting Pub. Res. Code, § 21002]; see also CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, 15126.6, 15131(c).) The downzoning of numerous properties and the imposition of infeasible requirements far more onerous than those of the City’s competitors makes it highly likely that other local communities will not only continue to capture the demand for industrial development within the Central Valley but do so at an increasing rate. (See Attachment A, pp. 5–8.) This would not only have permanent and severe economic consequences , it would also have serious environmental consequences. For instance:

Vehicle Miles Traveled. The Market Study concludes that the “City is projected to add up to 216,000 residents and nearly 70,000 employees by 2040,” and th at the demand for industrial land uses in the Plan Area would account for over 10% of those jobs: approximately 7,100 additional jobs. (DEIR, Appx. A, pp. 4–5.)16 If the City remains unable to entitle industrial projects and does not increase its availabl e inventory of industrial space —which is reasonably foreseeable, and highly likely, given the SCSP plans to make development even more difficult than it already is—those jobs will go elsewhere. (See Attachment A, pp. 3–8.) That means City residents who w ould have otherwise enjoyed a short commute to South Central Fresno would instead be required to drive an additional 30 miles each way to Madera, Visalia, or Goshen. This 16 Notably, the projected population growth assumed in the Market Analysis and DEIR is inconsistent with positions the City has prev iously taken on this issue. (See https://gvwire.com/2024/01/29/is-fresno-done-growing-mayor-dyer-calls-for-halt-to-city- support-of-southeast-expansion/ [reporting that City officials put approval of Southeast Development Area Plan on hold, citing “lagging population forecasts [that] don’t justify the outward growth”]; see also
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article287210260.html; https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article284875172.html.) 31-13
231

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
would result in an additional 426,000 daily vehicle miles traveled and, assuming 260 work days/year, over 110 million additional vehicle miles traveled annually . Despite this, there is no analysis of this potential impact in the DEIR.

Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impacts. Employees being required to travel daily from Fresno to communitie s such as Madera, Visalia, and Goshen for work would likewise increase criteria pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, there is no analysis of the impacts associated with Fresno residents being required to drive to these locations.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources. Impact 4.2-1 concludes that development within the Plan Area would “likely . . . result in conversion of existing Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non -agricultural uses” and that this would res ult in a significant impact. (DEIR, 4.2-7.) While there are some agricultural uses in the Plan Area, many of the undeveloped properties are not active farms. This is in contrast to the land available for industrial development by the City’s competitors—virtually all of which are comprised of existing agricultural uses. In other words, by driving industrial development elsewhere, the City will actually increase the conversion of farmland at a regional and particularly a cumulative level .

Despite this, there is no analysis of this potential impact in the DEIR.17

4. The SCSP Does Not Meet the Project Objectives and the Project Description is Inadequate
“Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal and weigh other alternatives in the balance.” ( South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Franci sco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 332.) Thus, “[a]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185; see Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1154, 1173 [same]. ) “A project description that gives conflicting signals to decision makers and the public about the nature of the project is fundamentally inadequate and misleading.” (South of Market, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 321.) Similarly, “[a] curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project decription draws a red herring across the path of public input.” ( County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 198.) A project description must include, among other things, “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project.” (Id.; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15124, subds. (b), (c).) A clear statement of objectives is crucial to “develop a reasonable range of alternatives” and to “aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding 17 The fact that some of the requirements that would continue the outward migration of industry is “mitigation” identified in the DEIR is immaterial. CEQA requires the discussion and evaluation of po tentially significant environmental effects caused by mitigation measures themselves. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(D); Stevens v. City of Glendale (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 986.)
31-13
cont.
31-14
232

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
considerations.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15124(b); see also id. at §§ 15126.6(a), 15021(d); Pub.

Res. Code, § 21081.)
The DEIR includes several Project Objectives, most of which concern the stimulation of economic development and the creation of jobs. (See DEIR, pp. 2-1–2-2 [objectives include to “[s]timulate economic development . . . [by] attract[ing] development, ” to “provide diverse employment,” to “[p]reserve the viabi lity of existing industrial and manufacturing operations in the Plan Area,” and to “improve Plan Area infrastructure . . . [by] expand[ing] the supply of ‘shovel-ready’ sites”] .) The SCSP , however, does not meet the Project Objectives for the following reasons:
 Because the SCSP and the DEIR impose requirements that are far more drastic and unlike any requirements adopted by any local governments that compete with the City for industrial development, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion th at the SCSP would stimulate economic development. In fact, the SCSP would continue and exacerbate existing low vacancy rates and stagnated industrial development.  Because the SCSP and the DEIR impose requirements that are far more drastic and unlike any requirements adopted by any local governments that compete with the City for industrial development, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the SCSP would provide diverse employment opportunities for local workers.
 Because the SCSP and the DEIR will drive business to nearby communities, and the ZEV mandate will create its own environmental impacts, substantial evidence does not support the finding that the SCSP will minimize environmental impacts.
 Because the SCSP and the DEIR impose a b uffer requirement that will restrict existing uses and create nonconformities, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the SCSP will preserve existing operations.  Because the SCSP contemplates the creation of new, isolated residential zoning districts, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the SCSP would protect against incompatible uses ; rather, it would exacerbate such conflicts.
 Because the SCSP and the DEIR impose requirements that are far more drastic and unlike any requirements adopted by any local governments that competes with the City for industrial development, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the SCSP would “expand the supply of ‘shovel-ready’ sites.”
31-14
cont.
233

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
Because the SCSP does not meet the Project Objectives, it should not be considered for approval. In fact, a comparison of the SCSP with the Business Plan Option (“BPO”) shows that the BPO would likely better promote the Project’s Objectives than the SCSP while actually reducing significant potential impacts. (Compare DEIR, pp. 6-11–6-14 [analyzing SCSP impacts relative to no -project alternative] with 6 -39–6-41 [analyzing BPO impacts relative to SCSP impacts].) According to the DEIR, the BPO would have “less” impact with respect to population and housing and “similar” impacts with respect to most other categories. (See id.) While the DEIR finds the BPO would have a “slightly greater” impact with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, substantial evidence does not support these findings.18 To the extent the SCSP may be argued to meet the Project Objectives, it is only because the DEIR employs an enigmatic and unstable project description that sends conflicting signals to d ecision makers and the public about the nature of the proposed project, effectively treating the SCSP’s adoption as a foregone conclusion. The DEIR identifies eight Project Objectives.19 While n o explicit prioritization is assigned to the Project Objectiv es, the focus appears to be on promoting economic development, as five of the eight objectives relate to that goal. In contrast , the DEIR devotes comparatively l ittle attention to the Project’s other 18 The DEIR finds a supposedly “greater” impact to air quality because operational emissions would be “slightly greater” but also incongruously finds that, “unlike the [SCSP], the [BPO] would not place sensitive receptors near high -volume roadways or other substantial sources of TACs.” (DEIR, p. 6-39.) Similarly, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions the DEIR finds operational emissions would be “slightly greater” due to higher industrial development even though it acknowledges “the same mitigation measures [might] apply” to industrial development as other types. (Id. at 6-40.) As to transportation, both the SCSP and the BPO would reduce impacts relative to existing conditions, according to the DEIR, but the BPO’s reduction would be approximately 4% less than the SCSP’s. This indicates the transportation impacts of the BPO are “similar” to those of the SCSP, not “greater.” (See id. at 6-41.) Thus, substantial evidence does not support these findings. (See also supra at § C.3.) 19 Five are directed at promoting or preserving economic growth and development in the Plan Area: (i) to “[p]romote inclusive and sustainable economic growth and attract development that focuses on emerging markets and new technologies;” (ii) to “[c]reate diverse employment opportunities, inclu ding an accessible and resilient employment zone;” (iii) to “[p]reserve the viability of existing industrial and manufacturing operations in the Plan Area;” (iv) to “[p]rotect existing and future development from adverse impacts associated with incompatible uses;” and (v) to “[i]mprove Plan Area infrastructure . . . to expand the supply of ‘shovel -ready’ sites.” (See DEIR, p p. 2-1–2-2.) Two are focused on enhancing residential uses in the Plan Area: (i) to “[c]onsider project-specific environmental effec ts . . . on existing and potential future sensitive receptors and impose measures to minimize such impacts” and (ii) to “provide residents with clear and transparent access to information regarding community development and assist in addressing disputes an d concerns.” ( Id.) And one is focused on improving visual character —i.e., to “[t]ransform State Routes 99 and 41 as Gateways into the City . . . to improve visual quality when entering the Plan Area.” (Id.)
31-15
234

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
objectives—i.e., enhancing visual quality and residential uses—which together account for just three objectives. The DEIR appears to acknowledge this at times, stating, for instance , that the “primary impetus for the SCSP is economic development and job growth.” (Id. at 2-2; see also id. at 6-6 [“[O]ne of the primary project objectives is to create diverse employment opportunities.”] ) Yet, elsewhere the various objectives are described as though they are all equal. (See id. at 2-1 [stating that the Project’s “overarching vision . . . is to improve the City’s overall economic competitiveness, support employment opportunities for residents, and maintain and improve community livability”], 3-5 [describing “vision and guiding principles centered around balancing the needs of industrial users, ensuring a diverse employment base, and minimizing impacts on the environment and neighborhoods”] .) Complicating matters further, the SCSP contains an entire chapter titled “Vision, Guiding Principles, & Policies” and, while there is overlap with the Project Objectives, in many cases t he SCSP’s stated objectives are different than the Project Objectives described in the DEIR. (Compare id. at 2-1–2-2 with SCSP, pp. 38–42.) Despite this, the DEIR does not address the relationship between the SCSP’s objectives and th e Project Objectives nor explain the role, if any, the SCSP’s objectives play with respect to environmental review. Rather, the DEIR appears to pick and choose as necessary to support the desired outcome: adoption of the SCSP.

The lack of a clear, accurate, and stable project description in the DEIR as well as the conflicting signals arising from inconsistencies between the objectives set forth in the DEIR and those described in the SCSP undermine the DEIR’s e nvironmental impact analyses a nd mitigation measures, foreclose a meaningful alternatives analysis, and inhibit the DEIR’s use as an informational document, contrary to CEQA.

5. The City Must Perform a Holistic Evaluation of its Efforts Across the City to Downzone or Rezone Industrial Properties “CEQA contemplates consideration of environmental consequences at the ‘earliest possible stage, even though more detailed environmental review may be necessary later.’” ( Rio Vista Farm Bureau v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.Ap p.4th 351, 370 [quoting Leonoff v.

Monterey County Bd. of Supers. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1346].) CEQA therefore prohibits the piecemealing—or segmentation—of environmental review. In other words, the “requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal review which results from chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” ( Envt’l Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Calif. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 503; Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1208-09; Bozung v. LAFCo (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84.) As explained above, the SCSP is one of many actions where the City has limited or downzoned industrial properties within the City. These actions are all related since they concern the same subject matter (industrial zoning), the same location (the City), and achieve the same result (less industrial zoning in the City ). Further, such actions have, and will con tinue to, incentivize industrial development in other Central Valley jurisdictions, such as the City of Visalia, the County of Madera, and the County of Tulare, rather than the City. (See Attachment A, pp. 4– 31-15
cont.
31-16
235

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5

8.) This has the potential to cause significant impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, agricultural resources, and transportation. (See supra at § C.3.) Therefore, until the City addresses its reduction of industrial zoned property as a whole, the City will not comply with CEQA.

At the very least, the City should assess this impact as a cumulative impact. CEQA “require[s] a finding that a project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment’ if . . . [t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumula tively considerable.” (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21083.) A project’s cumulative impacts are significant if the project’s incremental contribution to the impact is “cumulative ly considerable.” (CEQA Guidelines , § 15130(a).) A Project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the project are significant “when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Id. at § 15065(a)(3).) The fact that a particular project’s incremental impact is not alone significant, or is relatively small when compared to the greater overall problem, does not mean the project does not have significant cumulative impacts. The courts have rejected this theory because it would allow “the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720-21.) The proper sta ndard for a cumulative impacts analysis is therefore whether the impacts are “collectively significant.” ( Id. at 721 [citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15355].) An EIR must also “establish the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative impacts.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.Ap p.5th 63, 148.) “The geographic scope to be analyzed must be reasonably defined.” ( Id.) It “cannot be so narrowly defined that it necessarily eliminates a portion of the affected environmental setting.” (Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1216.) “Nor may it be defined so broadly as to dilute the significance of a project’s cumulative impact.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 148.) If a project’s incremental contribution to the impact is “cumulative ly considerable”—i.e., if the project’s impacts, taken together with those of similar projects, are “collectively significant,” (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 721)—the lead agency mu st examine reasonable, feasible options for reducing or avoiding the project’s contribution to those significant impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b)(5) ; see also Pub. Res.

Code, §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(2), 15070(b).) “If the lead agency finds either that the combined impact is insignificant or the project ’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable, the EIR must briefly explain the basis for the agency ’s finding and, where the impact is found to be insignificant, identif y facts and analysis supporting the agency ’s conclusion.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 148.) Substantial evidence shows the ongoing reduction of industrial zoned property in the City has caused, and will continue to cause, increased industrial development in other Central Valley markets. (See Attachment A, p p. 4–8; Market Analysis at 22 –23, 27 –31, 35 –38; Attachment B; Attachment D.) Further, increased industrial development in other Central Valley markets has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, among other things. (See, e.g., DEIR, §§ 31-16
cont.
236

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5

4.2.2, 4.3.3, 4.8.3, 4.15.3 .) While specific details regarding the exact location and e xtent of development in other Central Valley markets may be uncertain to some extent, a general trend of increased development in competitive Central Valley markets is reasonably foreseeable and historical data regarding general market trends in the Centra l Valley provides sufficient information for meaningful environmental review. Under these circumstances, CEQA requires a proper cumulative impact analysis be performed to enable the public and decision makers to understand and consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.

Accordingly, the DEIR must assess the impacts resulting from the City’s ongoing efforts to reduce industrial zoned property in the City, determine whether the Project makes a “cumulatively considerable” incremental cont ribution to those impacts, and if so, examine reasonable, feasible options for reducing or avoiding the Project’s contribution to those significant impacts.

D. Several Proposed Mitigation Measures Are Infeasible
When imposing mitigation, lead agencies must ensure there is a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the measure and the significant impacts of the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(4)(A)–(B) [citing Nollan v. Calif. Coastal Comm’n (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374].) Mitigation measures must also be feasible to be effective. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15041.) Several of the mitigation measures described in the DEIR are infeasible and/or bear no rough proportionality to development within the SCSP area:
 The DEIR requires that Class 7 -8 vehicles domiciled on property must be fully electrified by December 31, 2026. (DEIR, MM 4.3-1h.). The DEIR likewise requires that businesses must begin to convert Class 2 -6 vehicles domiciled on property to ZEVs at the start of operations, and transition the entire fleet to ZEVs by December 31, 2031. (Id. at MM 4.3-1i.) In addition, new projects will require the installation of infrastructure to support ZEVs.

Heavy duty ZEVs are a nascent technology that are generally unreliable, over twice as expensive as combustion engines, and not widely available.

Due to this reality, stakeholders have argued CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets and Advanced Clean Truck regulations are infeasible. Yet the DEIR seeks to impose requirements that are v astly more aggressive than those regulations. There is simply no evidence the ZEV purchase mandate is feasible as a general matter —let alone feasible consistent with the Project Objectives related to stimulating economic development and creating employment opportunities, and preserving the viability of industrial operations.
 Mitigation Measure 4.6 -1d requires the installation of solar sufficient to power at least 50% of the amount of energy needed for future development.

This is not only an expensive inve stment, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest this requirement is feasibl e, generally or consistent with 31-16
cont.
31-17
31-18
237

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
the Project Objectives . Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to have enough rooftop solar to offset 50% of the demand of many types of manufacturing, which is the most frequently cited type of industrial job that qualifies as a “good job.”
 Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1b requires the use of clean fleets during construction. The problem is that the cleanest levels of construction equipment are not widely available, and developers often must wait several months before they can be used on a project site.
 Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a contemplates that applicants would be required to fund Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements (VERA) with the SJVAPCD. There is no evidence this requirement is feasible. Under a VERA, an applicant must pay $9,350/ton for construction NOx/VOC emissions and $93,500/ton for operational NOx/VOC emissions, and similar amounts for particulate matter, plus a 4% administrat ive fee. This is a generally applicable requirement, and there is simply no evidence to suggest this mitigation measure is generally feasible or would not obstruct the Project Objectives.

The DEIR’s failure to properly analyze the feasibility of mitigatio n measures is exacerbated by the lack of any analysis regarding the economic and social impacts of the SCSP’s adoption. As the Guidelines explain, “[e]conomic, social, and [] housing factors shall be considered by public agencies together with technological and environmental factors in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15131(c) [emphasis added].) Thus, if such information is not included in the DEIR, it “must be added to the record in some other manner to allow the agency to consider the factors in reaching a decision on the project.” (Id. [emphasis added].) The DEIR, however, fails to analyze economic and social factors arising from SCSP’s adoption and therefore such information cannot be accounted for when evaluating the feasibility of proposed mitigation measures, contrary to the requirements of CEQA. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21081(a)(3); see also Rialto Citizens for Res ponsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 948 .) This deficiency not only compromises the development of adequate mitigation measures as a general matter, it also renders ineffective, unenforceable, and/or improperly deferred mitigation measures that expressly incorporate the concept of feasibility, as many do. (See, e.g., MM 4.2-1, 4.3-1a, 4.3-1m, 4.3-3d, 4.5-2b-c, 4.6-1d.) E. The DEIR Fails to Assess Environmental Effects Associated with the Requirement to Transition to Electric Vehicles
An environmental impact report is not only required to assess the potential impacts of the Project. To be adequate under CEQA, the DEIR must also discuss and evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects caused by mitigation measures themselves. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(D); Stevens v. City of Glendale (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 986.) Here, 31-18
cont.
31-19
31-20
31-21
31-22
238

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
the DEIR includes purchase mandates for ZEVs at a rate far exceedi ng that imposed by CARB.

The DEIR, however, includes no discussion of the potential impacts that the early transition to ZEVs might create:
 The DEIR does not address increased electricity demand associated with the accelerated transition to electric vehicles. This is particularly important due to the unreliability of PG&E and the fact that many neighborhoods within the City regularly experience power outages.20 The lack of electrical infrastructure to support the anticipated increases in the Plan Area is a major near- and medium -term issue because it will increase energy demands, complicate PG&E approvals, necessitate locking down tenants much earlier in the development process, and require them to wait even longer before commencing operations. (See Atta chment A, p p. 7–8.) This means additional risk and longer delays for both developers and tenants, and further reduces the City’s competitiveness relative to other markets. (Id.)  The DEIR does not analyze the emissions associated with the operation of ZEVs. For example, the DEIR does not analyze or include an assessment of the impacts on ZEV weight on particular PM emissions from tire wear and entrained road dust, even though it is reasonably foreseeable that ZEVs will be heavier than the internal combusti on engine vehicles (ICEVs) currently on the road. (See Attachment E, pp. 24–25.)
 ZEVs have a smaller hauling capacity than trucks with internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The performance of ZEVs also degrades in the heat. Despite this, the DEIR contains no discussion of the additional vehicle miles traveled that would result from the early transition to ZEVs.  The transition to electric vehicles at a rate far exceeding that imposed by CARB would accelerate the recognized environmental impacts ass ociated with the need to develop electric infrastructure and new/modified facilities to meet the demand for ZEVs. In the environmental analysis performed for the ACF Regulation, CARB found the construction of infrastructure and the new/modified facilities would result in significant and unavoidable environmental effects. (See generally Attachment F.) The SCSP would accelerate the need for this infrastructure and new/modified facilities , 20 See https://data.usatoday.com/national-power-outage-map-tracker/area/fresno-county- ca/06019/;
https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-news/pge-may-shut-off-power-to-areas- of-fresno-county-merced-county-this-weekend/.
31-22
cont.
239

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
exacerbating those effects. The DEIR should therefore be augmented to include an analysis of these impacts and recirculated for public review.

F. The SCSP is Inconsistent with the Goals and Policies of the City’s General Plan
California’s Planning and Zoning Law (“PZL”) requires that all municipalities adopt a general plan. (Govt. Code, § 65300.) While charter cities are not subject to some of the PZL’s consistency requirements, the Government Code expressly requires that a charter city’s general plan to be internally consistent. (See id. at § 65300.5; see also Fresno General Plan (“FGP”), pp. 1-3–1-4.)
Moreover, a subsequent project that is not consistent with a charter city’s general plan gives rise to a presumption that the project approval constitutes an abuse of discretion. (See, e.g., City of Del Mar v. City of S an Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 414–415.) A “project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” ( Corona-Norco, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at 994.) While perfect conformity may not be required, “a project must be compatible with the objectives and policies of the general plan.” (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782 [emphasis added] [citing Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supers. (1998) 62 Cal.Ap p.4th 1332, 1336].) “A project is inconsistent if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear.” (Id. at 782.)
The SCSP conflic ts with several objectives and policies of the City of Fresno’s General Plan. For instance, ED-1 emphasizes the need to support economic development by “maintaining a strong working relationship with the business community and improving the business clima te for current and future business .” ( FGP, p. 2-21.)21 Indeed, expanding and retaining industrial industries wit hin the City of Fresno is the “ ‘bread and butter’ of a solid economic development program. . .” (Id. at 2-13.)
To implement this objective, ED -1-d directs the City to “[e]xplore increasing the amount of land properly zoned, consistent with the General Plan , and ready to be expeditiously developed, redeveloped, and/or revitalized for economic development and job cre ation purposes.” (Id. at 2-21 [emphasis added].) Not only is the SCSP inconsistent with the general plan it requires the City to concurrently amend the general plan if it is adopted.22 (See, e.g., SCSP, 21 The existence of this letter, authored on behalf of several business and landowners within the SCSP, demonstrates the lack of a strong working relationship with the business community as envisioned by the FGP.
22 In addition to foreseen amendments to the general plan, the SCSP also acknowledges that the City will need to adopt concurrent amendments to the Development Code, repeal the existing 31-22
cont.
31-23
31-24
240

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
p. 134; DEIR, p p. 2-46, 2 -47 [“Implementing the proposed plan would require a general plan amendment to allow for the proposed land use changes, as some of the proposed land uses differ from the general plan. With the approval of the amendment, the SCSP would be consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan.”][emphasis added].)
Instead of increasing land zoned for economic development and job creation purposes the SCSP reduces it . As discussed above, the downzoning of properties away from heavy and light industrial land uses within the peripheries of the SCSP combined with the City’s limited opportunities for industrial growth or expansion will steer existing and potential economic investment elsewhere. (See Attachment A, pp. 5–8; supra at § C.3.) Such results conflict with other General Plan po licies and objectives as well, including:
 ED-3: “Attract and recruit businesses and offer incentives for economic development.” (FGP p. 2-23.) To implement this objective, ED-3-a directs the City to adopt and implement programs to expand existing businesses and attract new businesses. Downzoning, buffers, and limited protection from Legal Non-Conforming Use provisions will cause existing businesses to abandon the City and repel new businesses from entering the City.  LU-7 “Plan and support industrial development to promote job growth.” (Id. at 3-54.) The City is intended to “[p]romote industrial land use clusters to maximize the operational efficiency of similar activities.” (Id. at LU-7- c.) The General Plan notes a need to provide relatively high-income jobs to promote economic development. Several industrial businesses, including manufacturing, provide generally high paying jobs and opportunities for advancement. (Id. at Table 2.5.) To foster these job opportunities, industrial development is critical. The only planning area within the City that includes land available for industrial development is the area within the SCSP, yet with the SCSP’s intended downzoning, opportunities for industrial development further wane. If industrial development dissipates, the opportunities for job growth also disappear. Most manufacturing uses require Heavy Industrial zoning, which is virtually eliminated from the parts of the Plan area that are undeveloped.

G. The SCSP Effectuates Spot Zoning
“Spot zoning occurs where a small parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than the surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of a business or commercial district is limited to uses for residential purposes thereby creating an “island” in the middle of a larger area devoted North Avenue Industrial Triangle Specific Plan and replace the overlapping portion of the Roosevelt Community Plan to “allow for consistency.” (SCSP at pp. 16, 68.) 31-24
cont.
31-25
31-26
241

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
to other uses. ” ( Foothill Communities Coal. v. Cnty. of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1311 [citing Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2011) 197 Cal.Ap p.4th 1526, 1536].) The SCSP would cause spot zoning by creating small, isolated clusters of properties that are zoned residential, even though they are surrounded by industrial properties and the owners of the clusters of property intend to develop those properties to industrial land uses. While the City may assert that the residential zoning is necessary to avoid nonconformities , this assumes the individual landowners want their properties zoned residential. Moreover, the creation of small, isolated clusters of residential zoned properties is not in the public interest, especially since those properties will result in a buffer area where adjacent land uses will be severely restricted, and the buffers themselves will create an even greater number of nonconformities than an isolated residence.

H. The AB 617 Truck Reroute Study is Deeply Flawed
The conclusions in the SCSP and the DEIR appear to be based in part on the South Central Fresno AB 617 Community Truck Reroute Study: Truck Routing and Implementation Strategies Report (April 2024) (the “Reroute Study”). For the reasons stated in my May 22, 2024, letter on the Reroute Study, the City should not take action on that document or use it in connection with either the SCSP or the DEIR. (See Attachment G.)
I. The SCSP Is Preempted by the Clean Air Act
Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7543(a), provides that states and their political subdivisions are preempted from adopting or attempting to enforce “any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles . . . .” (See Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S.

Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2004) 541 U.S. 246 (“ EMA”); Jensen Family Farms i, Inc. v.

Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control Dist. (2011) 644 F.3d 934, 938; In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liabil ity Litigation (9th Cir. 2020) 959 F.3d 1201, 1217 [“Volkswagen”] [“Section 209(a) precludes a local government from enforcing ‘any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles. ”].) Likewise, Section 209(e) preempts states and the ir political subdivisions from adopting or attempting to enforce standards or requirements related to non -road mobile sources. (42 U.S.C. § 7543(e); see Jensen Family Farms, supra, 644 F.3d at 938.)
The SCSP proposes mitigation measures preempted by the CAA, including Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1h and 4.3 -1i. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1h requires, in pertinent part, future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses to ensure that all heavy- duty trucks (Class 7 and 8 vehicles) domiciled on the project site are model year 2014 or later from start of operations and to expedite a transition to zero-emission vehicles, with the fleet fully zero- emission by December 31, 2026 or when commercially available for the intended application, whichever date is later. It also requires that all heavy-duty truck fleets associated with operational activities for industrial uses or uses that require deliveries to and from the site to utilize the cleanest available heavy -duty trucks, including zero and near -zero that meet 0.02 gram per brake 31-26
cont.
31-27
31-28
242

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
horsepower-hour NOx technologies. Finally, a ll operational on -site equipment, including cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts and pallet jacks, must be zero-emission.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i in turn mandates future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses within the SCSP to use a “clean fleet” of vehicles, delivery vans, and trucks (Class 2 through 6 vehicles) in their business operations pursuant to the following schedule:
 33 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission at the start of operations;
 65 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2027;
 80 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2029; and
 100 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2031.

Mitigation Measures 4.3-1h and 4.3 -1i create a generally -applicable requirement that fleet operators expedite transition to zero -emission vehicles and zero -emission on -site equipment, including forklifts, cargo -handling vehicles, and yard hostlers. (SCSP, MM 4.3-1h,

4.3-1l.) In effect, these measures essentially operate as purchase mandates.

A standard broadly includes that which was “established by authority, custom, or general consent, as a model or example; criterion; test.” (EMA, supra, 541 U.S. at 252 –253 [opinion by Justice Scalia striking down as preempted a rule that effectively required the purchase of lower emission vehicles ].) Standards may denote “not only ‘numerical emission levels with which vehicles or engines must comply…’ but also ‘emission-control technology with which they must be equipped…’” (Volkswagen, supra, 959 F.3d 1201 at 1218, [quoting EMA, supra, 541 U.S. 246 at 253].)
In EMA, the United States Supreme Court determined that a series of regulations promulgated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which contained detailed prescriptions regarding the types of vehicles that fleet operators must purchase or lease whe n adding or replacing fleet vehicles qualified as standards under the meaning of Section 209. (EMA, supra, 541 U.S. at 252–255.) Because the proposed mitigation measures require certain emission- control technology ( i.e., zero-emissions technology) be used amongst fleet operators’ motor vehicles, these measures effectively operate as a purchase mandate which constitute emissions standards under the CAA. (EMA, supra, 541 U.S. at 255–256.) These standards, therefore, require a waiver. (See 42 U.S.C. § 7543(b), (c)(2).)
31-28
cont.
31-29
31-30
243

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
Although CARB has received various waivers for certain regulations, including the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, Mitigation Measures 4.3-1h and 4.3-1i propose more stringent regulations of vehicle fleets and non-road vehicles. No waiver issued to date authorizes the adoption or enforcement of the regulations proposed by the SCSP as they are even more onerous than CARB’s own regulations. Further, EPA cannot grant a waiver to the City of Fresno because the City of Fresno has no authority to request a waiver under either § 209(b) or § 209(e). (See U.S.C. § 7543(b), (c).) Accordingly, the Mitigation Measures, to the extent the proposed regulations are more stringent than those CARB currently has received waivers to adopt and enforce, are preempted under section 209 of the CAA.

J. Several Mitigation Measures Are Preempted By the California Health & Safety Code

1. SCSP Mitigation Measures Are Preempted Because the
California Legislature Has Fully Occupied the Field
Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution provides that “a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general law.” However, if an “otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void. ’” (Chevron v. U.S.A. Inc. v. County of Monterey (2023) 15 Cal.5th 135, 140 [quoting Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897].) A conflict with general law arises when local legislation enters an area that is “fully occupied” by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to “fully occupy” an area [citation], or when it has impliedly done so in light of on e of the following indicia of intent: (1) the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by gener al law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. (Id. [some internal quotations omitted].)
California’s air resources are governed by Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code and regulations implemented by CARB. In Division 26, the Legislature expressed its intent to fully occupy the field of air pollution control and preempted local and regional authorities from regulating air pollution related to vehicular sources. Section 39002 of the Health and Safety Code provides that “[l]ocal and regional authorities have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. The control of vehicular sources, except 31-31
31-32
244

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
as otherwise provided in this division, shall be the responsibility of the State Air Resources Board.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 39002 [emphasis added].) The Legislature further indicated its intent to occupy the field by providing CARB the exclusive authority to “adopt standards, rules, and regulations…necessary for the proper execution of the powers granted and imposed upon, [CARB] by [Division 26] and by any other provision of law.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 39601 (a); see also id. at § 39602 [“The state board is designated as the state agency responsible for the preparation of the state implementation plan required by the Clean Air Act . . . and, to this end, shall coordinate the activities of all districts necessary to comply with the act.”].) Amongst its promulgated responsibilities, CARB is charged with preparing the state implementation plan required by the Clean Air Act, (id. at § 39602); providing summaries of actions taken by CARB or the air quality districts , (see id. at § 39604); and, in some instances, adopting a market-based incentive program as an element of an air quality districts’ attainment plan for state or federal ambient air quality standards, provided that the program “will not result in a greater loss of jobs or more significant shifts from higher to lower skilled jobs . . . .” (Id. at §§ 39616(b)(1), 39616(b)(4).) Conspicuously absent from the relevant air quality statutes is the inclusion or grant of any authority to localities, like the City of Fresno, to regulate air quality, again evidencing the Legislature’s intent to fully occupy this area of law. (See Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 898; see also Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th 135 at 145–146.)
California law also fully occupies the more narrow field of vehicular air pollution control, including motor vehicles emissions, for “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that the State Air Resources Board shall have the responsibility, except as otherwise provided in this division, for control of emissions from motor vehicles…” (Health & Saf. Code, § 39500; see also id. at §§ 43000.5 [“The state board should take immediate action to implement both short- and long-range programs of across-the-board reductions in vehicle emissions and smoke, including smoke from heavy-duty diesel vehicles …”], 43101 [“The state board shall adopt and implement emissions standards for new motor vehicles for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles that the state board finds to be necessary and technologically feasible to carry out the purposes of this division.”], 43013(a) [“The state board shall adopt or implement motor vehicle emission standards, in-use performance standards, and motor vehicle fuel specifications for the control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution], 43013(b) [“The state board shall… adopt standards and regulations for light -duty and hea vy-duty vehicles…and off -road or nonvehicle engine categories…”], 43013(h) [“It is the intent of the Legislature that the state board act as expeditiously as is feasibly to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel vehicles… and other categories of vehicular or mobile sources which significantly contribute to air pollution problems.”].) It is clear the Legislature intended for CARB’s standards to occupy the motor vehicle emissions field to promote consistency. (See id. at § 43000 [“The state has a responsibility to establish uniform procedures for compliance with standards which control or eliminate those air pollutants [from motor vehicles].” [emphasis added].) Implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.3-1h and 4.3-1i would directly affect emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicles, threatening 31-32
cont.
245

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
the very uniformity the Legislature sought in adopting Part 5 of Health and Safety Code Division

26. Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1h and 4.3 -1i require fleet vehicle operators of motor vehicles, including non-road motor vehicles, to purchase zero-emission vehicles within the SCSP.

However, even if the Legislature did not intend to fully occupy the entire field of motor vehicle emissions, it plainly intended to occupy the area covered by these Mitigation Measures. The Health and Safety Code requires CARB to “adopt standards and regulations including but not limited to . . . requiring the purchase of low-emission vehicles by state fleet operators.” (Id. at § 43018(c)(3).) Pursuant to its authority under this provi sion CARB promulgated a series of regulations, including Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, and the Zero -Emission Forklift regulations, which set forth standards requiring fleet vehicle operators to transition their fleets to zero-emission. The Mitigation Measures regulate the same motor vehicles and, in some cases, apply more stringent standards. Therefore, the Mitigation Measures Encroach on an area of law the Legislature intended to occupy and do so in a manner that prohibits conduct that wo uld otherwise be permitted under state law. (See infra § J.2.)

2. SCSP Mitigation Measures Are Preempted Because they
Contradict General Law
A conflict with general law also arises when local legislation local legislation is contradictory to general law. (Sherwin-Williams Co., supra, (1993) 4 Cal.4th at 897.) A law is contradictory to general law where it is inimical thereto. (Id. at 898; see also Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th at 142.) A local law is inimical to —and therefore conflicts with —a state law in tw o situations: where the local law directly prohibits what the state enactment demands or the local ordinance prohibits what the state enactment permits or authorizes. (See AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024) 101 Cal.Ap p.5th 73, 86 –87; City of River side v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 743; Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th at 149.) The latter situation is applicable here.

The Mitigation Measures are generally applicable requirements providing that no internal combustion engine vehicles (“ICEVs”) may be added to a fleet after a certain date and requiring ICEVs’ complete replacement by 2031. These provisions prohibit acts permitted by Section 43021 of the Health & Safety Code.

Section 43021 was enacted “to provide owners of self-proposed commercial motor vehicles . . . certainty about the useful like of engines certified by” CARB and other agencies “to meet required environmental standards for sale in the state.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 43021 (d).).

As the Senate Bill Analysis for S.B. 1 explains, Section 43021 “[s]ets a ‘useful life’ period where truckers subject to future, undefined regulations can get a return on their investment before being asked to replace or modify the vehicle. Thus, if CARB adopts future in-use regulations, trucks will not be required to turnover until they have reached 13 years from the model year the engine and emission control systems are first certified or until they reach 800,000 vehicle miles traveled. 31-32
cont.
31-33
246

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
July 30, 2024

4865-0527-7652, v. 5
(California Bill Analysis, S.B. 1 Sen., 4/3/2017.)23 Accordingly, Section 43021 provides that, with limited exceptions inapplicable here, “the retirement, replacement, retrofit, or repower of a self - propelled commercial motor vehicle . . . shall not be required until the later of . . . [t]hirteen years from the model year the engine and emission control system are first certified” or when “the vehicle reaches the earlier of either 800,000 vehicle miles traveled or 18 years” from the certification of the engine a nd emission control system. ( Health & Saf. Code, § 43021(a) [emphasis added].)
Mitigation Measures 4.3-1h requires the use of Class 7 and 8 ZEVs by December 31, 2026 and 4.3-1i requires the complete use of Class 2 through 6 ZEVs by December 31, 2031.

In effect, both measures prohibit the use of any ICEVs by December 31, 2031. These measures therefore foreclose business owners’ ability to operate newer model ICEVs which would otherwise be permissible under Section 43021 for 13 years from the model yea r the engine and emission control systems are first certified within the SCSP. Accordingly, both Mitigation Measures directly contradict Section 43021 of the Health & Safety Code and are preempted. (See AIDS Foundation, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at 87.)
K. Conclusion
The SCSP and the DEIR are deeply flawed documents. At a foundational level, if adopted they would undermine the City’s ability to compete with nearby communities for industrial development. They likewise seek to impose infeasible requirements not found in other competitor cities, while at the same time declining to evaluate the impacts of those requirements.

Due to these and other concerns, the SCSP should not be adopted as currently proposed. The City should instead decline to adopt the SCSP , and direct staff to work with industrial stakeholders in good faith to strike a meaningful and achievable balance between industrial development and nearby communities that does not undermine the City’s competitiveness.

Respectfully submitted,
Enclosures
23 As noted in Section J(2) of this letter, the Legislature has expressly and impliedly occupied the field of vehicular emissions. CARB, not the City, has the express authority to adopt future in- use regulations which would be directly affected by Section 43021. As a result, the mitigation measures are preempted by Section 43021.
31-33
cont.
31-34
247
LETTER 32
ROSA DePEW
248
South Central Specific Plan and Environment Impact Report Comments DePew, Rosa@EDD <[email protected]>
Tue 7/30/2024 3:09 PM
To: SCSP <[email protected]>
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To whom it may concern:

Thank you for accepting comments on the South Central Specific Plan and Environment Impact Report. Below is my list of comments/concerns.
• Wat Brahmacariyakaram, located on Orange Ave between Central Ave and American Ave is not listed on the report
• Orange Center Elementary School is listed as being built in 1980. The school has been located on Cherry Ave for decades. Maybe even a century. • Transformative Climate Communities Program is listed on a map and legend. No explanation of it’s purpose.
• No explanation of the changes made to areas now zoned as Regional Business Park and Neighborhood Mixed Use (what are the changes?, what will be able to be built in these zones)
• No explanation of the proposed round abouts planned on North Ave and American Ave • A simpler explanation of the truck study and what it means is needed • No mention of the Cherry Auction. Although the Cherry Auction is located in Fresno County, the majority of traffic crosses Central Ave and Cherry Ave every Tuesday and Saturday.

This traffic affects all four stops. The streets are jammed with cars and trucks.

The reports were too long and too complicated to truly understand. The residents of the area want less traffic, less pollution, less growth, or if growth is unavoidable then growth where the residents’ health and safety and well-being are a top priority. The residents deserve to be taken into account without their health and safety being collateral damage to the City of Fresno and to people who don’t live in the area.

Thank You!
Sincerely,
Rosa DePew
521 E.Britten Ave
Fresno CA 93706
(559) 790-3233
8/9/24, 10:14 AM South Central Specific Plan and Environment Impact Report Comments - Kathie Washington - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane5 1/1
32-1
32-2
32-3
32-4
32-5
32-6
32-7
32-8
249
LETTER 33

OPEN HOUSE COMMENT CARDS
250
Public Comment from the SCSP and EIR Open House - July 23, 2024 Name Phone # Email Address and Nearest Cross Street Comment Pertains to Kyle Ridderling
I have concerns about the spot zoning and the effect it will have on development feasibility of surrounding parcel. SCSP
The truck study needs to include zoning recommendations. The Regulated Areas need to have lower uses of NMX not BP or regional BP. Truck Route Study Alma
The dynamic impact and look interesting but we need to see how it affects the community and area around. SCSP
Terry Hirschfield t
Everything along Cherry and Central should be zoned neighborhood mixed-use. Not BP or RBP. No trucks on Cherry between North and Central Avenues SCSP Tyler Kelly
Residential buffer zones should have to meet certain density requirements to exist. Future development in the Angus and Annadale area could be hindered due to just two small houses that are already surrounded by existing industrial. SCSP 251