Exhibit P
June 17th, 2025 Fresno City Planning Commission City Hall Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721 Sent via email [email protected] Dear Planning Commission, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (“LCJA”) submits this letter in opposition
to
the
annexation
application
No.
P21-005778,
prezone
application
P21-05870,
and
development
permit
No.
P23-00149,
all
three
hereby
referred
to
as
“Project”.
LCJA
works
alongside
residents
from
South
Central
Fresno
and
other
disadvantaged
communities
throughout
the
City
bearing
the
brunt
of
the
City’s
land
use
decisions
of
siting
industrial
development
near
residential
communities.
Alongside
residents
of
Southcentral,
we
have
engaged
extensively
for
more
than
five
years
in
efforts
to
improve
air
quality,
traffic
concerns,
and
infrastructure
development
through
the
City’s
land
use
planning
processes
including
the
development
of
the
Southcentral
Fresno
Specific
Plan.
Residents
of
Southcentral
Fresno
are
also
part
of
the
AB
617
Community
Steering
Committee
working
to
address
heavy
truck
traffic
in
their
neighborhoods
by
identifying
truck
routes
away
from
sensitive
receptors
such
as
Orange
Central
Elementary
and
places
of
worship.
We
strongly
oppose
this
Project
as
approval
of
the
Project
will
lead
to
an
exacerbation
of
air
quality
impacts,
traffic
congestion
and
emissions
from
heavy
truck
traffic,
and
further
strain
on
public
infrastructure.
Furthermore,
we
are
concerned
the
Project
description
and
Impact
Analysis
violates
CEQA
due
to
inconsistencies
in
the
mitigated
negative
declaration.
We
urge
the
Commission
to
deny
or
delay
the
Project
until
the
Project
has
undergone
a
full
environmental
review.
1. The Project Description and Impact Analysis Violate CEQA The MND fails to meet the requirements of CEQA because it includes inconsistencies that
make
the
project
description
unstable
and
render
its
conclusions
of
impact
significance
indefensible.
The project description is unstable and inaccurate The MND for the proposed project includes contradictory descriptions of the expected heavy
truck
trips
rate,
rendering
the
project
description
unstable
and
inaccurate.
An
initial
study
is
required
to
include
a
project
description.
An
“accurate,
stable
and
finite”
project
description
is
the
“sine
qua
non”
of
an
environmental
review
document.
(
County
of
Inyo
v.
City
of
Los
Angeles
(1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192.) A project description that meets these standards is necessary for
evaluation
of
potential
environmental
impacts.
Here, inconsistencies within the environmental document mean that the included project description
fails
to
meet
the
informational
standard
required
under
CEQA.
The
project
description
included
in
the
environmental
checklist
form
for
the
project
states
“[t]he
Project
includes
a
total
of
approximately
84 truck
trips
per
day
(42
entering
and
42 exiting)
and
120
passenger
vehicle
trips
per
day
(60
entering
and
60 exiting).”
(MND
Appendix
G,
p.3.)
This
data
appears
to
be
consistent
with
the
analysis
included
in
the
discussion
of
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
impacts.
(Appendix
G,
Checklist
Item
IX.)
However,
in
the
discussion
of
transportation
impacts,
the
truck
trips
are
projected
to
be
"approximately
126
per
day”
and
the
passenger
vehicle
trips
as
“approximately
180
per
day.”
(Appendix
G,
Checklist
Item
XVI(a).)
These
figures
are
in
line
with
the
technical
data
included
to
support
the
environmental
review.
(Emily
Bowen,
Air
Quality,
Health
Risk,
Greenhouse
Gas,
and
Energy
Technical
Memorandum,
November
13,
2024,
p.2.)
Thus,
the
vehicle
trip
estimates
included
in
the
project
description
vary
substantially
from
figures
included
elsewhere
in
the
document.
The project description includes unsupported estimates of vehicle trips that are inconsistent
with
the
included
technical
analysis,
such
that
the
document
provides
two
possible
estimates
of
vehicle
trips,
with
the
upper
estimate
1.5 times
the
lower
estimate.
Because
of
the
ambiguity
that
results
from
these
inconsistencies,
the
project
description
is
unstable
and
inaccurate.
Without
a
stable,
accurate
project
description
of
the
vehicle
trips
associated
with
the
buildout
of
the
trucking
facility,
the
IS/MND
fails
as
an
informational
document
and
is
in
violation
of
CEQA
requirements.
Where,
as
in
this
case,
an
environmental
document
“precludes
informed
decisionmaking
and
public
participation,
the
goals
of
CEQA
are
thwarted
and
a
prejudicial
abuse
of
discretion
has
occurred.”
(
Save
Our
Peninsula
Committee
v.
Monterey
County
Bd.
of
Supervisors
(2001)
87 Cal.App.4th
99 at
128.)
Significance determinations are unsupported by the impact analysis As described above, the environmental document includes multiple estimates of projected project
vehicle
traffic.
In
addition
to
rendering
the
Project
Description
unstable
and
inaccurate,
these
inconsistencies
undermine
the
conclusion
of
the
environmental
document
that
project
impacts
will
be
less
than
significant
with
mitigation
implemented.
A
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
allows
a
lead
agency
to
avoid
the
need
to
complete
a
full
environmental
impact
report
when
the
Initial
Study
prepared
for
the
project
“identifies
potentially
significant
effects
on
the
environment”
but
also
identifies
revisions
to
the
project
to
“mitigate
the
effects
to
a
point
where
clearly
no
significant
effect
on
the
environment
would
occur”
and
“there
is
no
substantial
evidence…that
the
project,
as
revised,
may
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment.”
(Pub.
Res.
Code
§
21080(c)(2).)
Here, the environmental document provides multiple estimates for the trip traffic that will result
from
the
proposed
project.
The
number
of
trips
varies
between
sections
of
the
Initial
Study.
In
addition,
the
discussion
of
potential
air
quality
impacts
does
not
specify
what
daily
rate
of
trips
is
employed
in
the
analysis
of
health
impacts
to
support
its
conclusions.
This
is
despite
the
fact
that
the
Initial
Study
concludes
that
there
would
be
a
significant
impact
under
Checklist
Item
III(c),
due
to
exposure
of
sensitive
receptors
to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations.
(Appendix
G,
Checklist
Item
III.)
The
Initial
Study
states
that
implementation
of
MM
AIR-1
would
reduce
this
impact
to
less
than
significant
level,
but
MM
AIR-1
only
pertains
to
construction
emissions,
not
operational
emissions.
Because
of
the
ambiguity
surrounding
the
vehicle
trips
per
day,
it
is
possible
that
the
operational
emissions
of
the
project
are
greater
than
what
is
reflected
in
the
discussion
of
Item
III(c).
As
a
result,
it
is
not
certain
that
MM
AIR-1
would
actually
mitigate
the
significant
impact
under
Checklist
Item
III(c)
to
a
less
than
significant
impact.
Therefore,
the
MND
cannot
be
shown
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
21080(c)(2).
Further, the Transportation section of the Initial Study references an Institute of Transportation
Engineers
(ITE)
trip
generation
manual
for
the
estimated
daily
truck
trip
rate.
The
ITE
code
used
is
30,
for
an
“intermodal
truck
terminal.”
(Appendix
G,
Table
20.)
The
analysis
does
not
specify
why
this
code
was
selected
as
opposed
to
other
possibly
relevant
ITE
codes,
like
those
for
warehouses
or
parcel
fulfillment
centers.
The
discussion
also
fails
to
support
the
inclusion
of
the
rate
selected
for
ITE
code
30 (1.97)
as
opposed
to
other
possible
rates
included
in
ITE
data
sources.
(See
ITE
Trip
Generation
Data
Plots
-
Modal,
000s
-
Port
and
Terminal
-
Modal
Data
Plots
1 ,
showing
average
rate
2.14 for
ITE
code
30,
available
at:
https://www.ite.org/tripgenappendices/.) This section also references that trip estimates were based on “information provided by the Project applicant,” without further specificity. (Appendix G,
Checklist
Item
XVII(a).)
Despite
the
ambiguities
included
in
this
section
of
the
checklist
as
to
the
assumptions
of
truck
traffic,
the
Initial
Study
finds
that
there
would
be
no
significant
impact
with
mitigation
incorporated.
Because
the
assumptions
underlying
the
analysis
are
ambiguous,
it
is
not
clear
that
the
mitigation
would
be
sufficient
to
reduce
the
effect
of
the
project
on
the
environment.
Other inconsistencies In addition to the above inconsistencies, which result in substantial ambiguity about the assumptions
that
underlie
the
impact
analysis
and
thus
make
it
unclear
whether
the
identified
mitigation
measures
will
actually
achieve
a
reduction
in
the
project’s
effect
on
the
environment,
the
environmental
document
also
includes
contradictory
statements
under
Checklist
Item
X
-
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality.
For
Checklist
Item
X(b),
it
describes
the
impact
as
less
than
significant
with
mitigation
incorporated.
However,
the
discussion
of
that
item
states
the
impact
would
just
be
less
than
significant,
and
does
not
describe
any
mitigation.
For
Checklist
Item
X(c), there is no impact indicated in the table at the start of the section. Lastly, the analysis should
include
an
analysis
of
impacts
on
sensitive
receptors
including
Orange
Central
Elementary,
places
of
worship,
and
adjacent
disadvantaged
unincorporated
community
as
directed
to
by
the
District
3 Project
Review
Committee
in
2023.
2. Findings For Annexation Approval is Inaccurate According to the Fresno Municipal Code, annexations shall not be approved unless all criteria
as
listed
in
Section
15-6104
are
met.
Staff
finds
that
“No
Disadvantaged
Unincorporated
Communities
are
identified
adjacent
or
within
the
vicinity
of
the
proposed
annexation
boundary”
for
Section
15-6104
Annexation
Criteria
D
1 .
The
finding
is
inaccurate
as
the
proposed
annexation
site
is
within
the
City
of
Fresno’s
sphere
of
influence
and
is
adjacent
and
contiguous
to
the
disadvantaged
unincorporated
community
(“DUC”)
on
Cherry
Ave
and
E.
Central
Ave.
The
DUC
begins
with
a
small
cluster
of
homes
directly
adjacent
to
the
Project
site
and
in
front
of
the
Orange
Central
Elementary
which
are
in
close
proximity
to
homes
on
E.
Daleville
Ave
and
E.
Central
Ave
2 .
See
exhibit
A.
The
DUC
will
be
heavily
impacted
as
Cherry
Ave
is
used
by
truck
traffic
to
enter
the
facilities.
Before
moving
forward
with
the
Project,
staff
should
comply
with
Section
15-6104
of
the
City’s
municipal
code
and
partner
with
the
community
to
determine
support
for
annexation
and
coordinate
terms
for
a
potential
annexation
process.
Exhibit A
2 Addresses
for
small
cluster
of
residential
parcels
include:
3081
S.
Chery
Ave,
3085
S.
Cherry
Ave.,
3097
S.
Cherry
Ave.
3103
.
Cherry
Ave.,
3121
S.
Cherry
Ave.,
and
3133
S.
Cherry
Ave.
1 Fresno City Municipal Code Section 15-6104 https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOFR_CH15CIDECOINRE_PTVA DPE_ART61COPLPNIAN_S15-6104ANCR .
3. The City Must Engage the Community of Southcentral Fresno and Adopt the Southcentral
Fresno
Specific
Plan
Before
Continuing
with
Project
consideration.
The City of Fresno must ensure to communicate and collaborate with the community of Southcentral
Fresno
for
the
Project.
The
community
of
Southcentral
Fresno
was
not
informed
about
the
consideration
of
the
Project
despite
its
introduction
in
2021
and
despite
direction
from
the
District
3 Project
Review
Committee
to
have
better
stakeholder
engagement
notice
with
a
3,000-foot
radius
buffer
3 .
According
to
Exhibit
J
the
last
time
the
Project
was
discussed
with
the
community
was
February
18th
2021,
four
years
from
now.
The
Staff
report
does
not
indicate
if
Staff
followed
through
with
the
3,000-foot
radius
buffer.
We
urge
the
Commission
to
delay
consideration
of
the
Project
until
notification
with
a
3,000-foot
radius
buffer
for
the
Project
has
been
completed
and
the
community
has
had
an
opportunity
to
raise
concerns
and
guide
mitigation.
Since the introduction of the project the community of Southcentral Fresno and the AB 617
Community
Steering
Committee
has
worked
on
the
development
of
the
Southcentral
Specific
Plan
(SCSP)
and
the
Southcentral
Truck
Reroute
Study.
The
City
should
delay
the
Project
until
the
adoption
of
the
SCSP
to
ensure
future
development
reduces
impacts
on
the
environment
and
improves
the
quality
of
life
for
residents.
Moreover,
the
Project
should
be
delayed
until
the
SCSP
“Good
Neighbor”
policies
and
buffering
requirements
are
established
to
ensure
neighboring
uses
collaborate
with
residents
and
impacts
are
mitigated
through
buffering.
4. Adoption of the Project is inconsistent with the City’s duty to Affirmatively Further fair
Fair
Housing
and
the
Fair
Employment
and
Housing
Act.
The impacts of industrialization and polluting land uses in Southcentral are extensively documented
and
known
by
the
City
of
Fresno.
It
is
very
clear
that
the
City’s
land
use
decisions
have
detrimentally
impacted
the
community
leading
to
high
cumulative
pollution
burden.
In
approving
this
Project,
the
City
may
violate
their
duty
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing
which
includes
avoiding
land
use
patterns
which
continue
to
negatively
impact
disadvantaged
communities
and
communities
of
color.
Given
the
Project’s
location
and
likely
significant
adverse
impacts
in
disproportionately
pollution
burden
community
of
color,
it
is
essential
not
only
from
a
CEQA
perspective
that
the
City
analyze
and
fully
mitigate
the
Project’s
impacts
on
housing,
but
it
is
also
necessary
in
order
for
the
City
to
comply
with
its
duty
to
affirmatively
furthering
fair
housing
and
not
take
any
action
that
is
materially
inconsistent
with
that
duty.
Gov.
Code
§
8899.50.
3 Fresno District 3 Project Review Committee Minutes, March 28th, 2023.
Moreover, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits any public or private
land
use
practices,
which
include
any
single
act
or
omission,
that
intentionally
discriminate
or
that
has
a
discriminatory
effect
without
a
legally
sufficient
justification.
2 C.C.R.§
12161.
A
legally
sufficient
justification
exists
for
a
discriminatory
effect
resulting
from
a
public
agency’s
land
use
practice
only
when
there
is
no
feasible
alternative
practice
that
would
equally
or
better
accomplish
a
substantial,
legitimate
non-discriminatory
purpose,
and
other
factors
are
met.
2 C.C.R.
§
12062(b).
Land
use
practices
that
may
result
in
unlawful
discriminatory
effect
under
FEHA
may
include
the
siting
of
toxic,
polluting
or
hazardous
land
uses
in
a
manner
that
adversely
impacts
housing
opportunities.
2 C.C.R.
§
12161.
In
approving
the
Project,
the
City
is
at
risk
of
violating
the
Fair
Employment
and
Housing
Act
as
its
land
use
decisions
continue
to
create
disparate
and
discriminatory
effects
on
protected
classes.
We strongly urge the Commission to oppose or deny the Project until the Project has undergone
a
full
environmental
analysis
and
until
the
Southcentral
Specific
Plan
has
been
adopted.
Respectfully, Seth Alston Staff Attorney Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability