920 AM ID 26-428 - Supplemental Packet - Public Comment_Redacted

From:

To:

Subject: Costco Commercial Center Proposal
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 2:27:23 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Fresno City Councilmembers and City Clerk,
I am writing in support of the Costco Commercial Center proposal at Herndon Avenue and Riverside Drive in northwest Fresno.

I support this project because it would keep Costco invested in Fresno, improve access for northwest Fresno residents, create construction and permanent jobs, generate local tax revenue, and redevelop vacant land with a major retail use. I also support requiring appropriate traffic, infrastructure, and environmental mitigation so the project works well for surrounding neighborhoods.

Please approve the Costco Commercial Center proposal.
--
Respectfully,

Marvin Baker

From:

To:

Subject: Re: Electronic Comments for City Council Meeting 5/21/26 (Item ID 26-428) - Costco Commercial Center Project Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 10:26:59 AM
Attachments:

External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hi, just following up from my comment letter submission earlier this morning. I consolidated my (Daniel's) comment letter and the attachments into a single document to help better clarify that they all should go together. If the comments haven't already been distributed, I'm hoping you can use this file instead of the earlier 2 files to help keep things a bit more organized. Not a huge deal if they've already been distributed with the earlier files though.

Thanks,
Daniel
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:15 AM Clerk <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you, your email has been received and will be distributed by the Office of the City Clerk.

Best,
Office of the City Clerk

From: Daniel Brannick
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 9:07 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Babak Naficy >; Steven Martinez >;
Phillip Siegrist
Subject: Electronic Comments for City Council Meeting 5/21/26 (Item ID 26-428) - Costco Commercial Center Project

External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Hello, please find attached comments for Item ID 26-428 scheduled at 9:20am on 5/21/26, which is listed on the Agenda as follows:

HEARING to Consider Plan Amendment and Rezone Application No. P21-01960, Conditional Use Permit Application No. P21-01959, Conditional Use Permit Application No. P21-03251, Planned Development Permit Application No. P21- 03252 and related 2026 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2021100443 pertaining to ±22.4 acres of property located on the northeast corner of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive (Council District 2) - Planning & Development Department.

Please note there are two separate comment letters attached:

1) Comments from Daniel Brannick
2) Comments from Babak Naficy
It would be appreciated if you could provide me with confirmation that these comments have been received. Please let me know if you need any information in addition to what has been provided.

Thank you,

Daniel Brannick
Herndon-Riverside Coalition for
Responsible Community Development
Fresno, CA 93704

May 19, 2026

Dear Fresno City Councilmembers,

Presented here are comments regarding the 2026 Final EIR, Findings of Fact, and other documents associated with the proposed Costco Commercial Center Project located at the northeast corner of Herndon Avenue and Riverside Drive (CEQA State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443).

As described herein, the issues which led to the project being invalidated by court order have not been resolved.

It is frustrating because there are readily identifiable ways for both the Zoning/General Plan consistency and CEQA issues to be resolved, yet City administration and/or Costco have insisted on proceeding as if the mistakes are merely clerical or procedural.

All prior comments and information should be considered incorporated by reference.

Daniel Brannick
Herndon-Riverside Coalition for
Responsible Planning and Development

1 Zoning and General Plan Inconsistency of the MDO Distribution Facility

Although the Final EIR states that the planning and zoning consistency issues concerning the MDO Distribution Facility do not require discussion under CEQA, FEIR Responses O3-1 through O3-6 are devoted to addressing the issue. In these responses, the City and Costco have essentially taken the position that they neglected to follow a procedural formality but that there was nothing substantively wrong with finding that the MDO Distribution Facility is an allowed land use within the proposed zoning, either as “fully integrated” with the large-format commercial retail use or as an accessory use. For reasons previously discussed and which are still applicable, neither approach complies with the City's Development Code due to the prohibition of Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution (“WSD”) uses in Commercial zones such as General Commercial (“CG”) and Community Commercial (“CC”).

The responses and findings continue to peddle the phrase “fully integrated” - a self-serving term of art which appears to have been reflexively invented on the fly; regardless of its origins, it does not resolve the zoning consistency issue. For instance, even if the car wash was “fully integrated” into the structure of the warehouse building, it would still require a rezone because the car wash use does not become something different just because of proximity to (or “integration with”) another structure - the “use” is still the use. This same principle holds true for the MDO Distribution Facility. The operational activities represent a fundamentally different form of physical and economic activity than public-facing retail sales that take place in CG and CC zone districts (among other reasons, because of the more intensive truck traffic that will be entailed).

A cursory review of the zoning ordinances of other cities (e.g., Sacramento, San Jose, Long Beach, Madera, Visalia - plus Costco’s corporate headquarters location of Issaquah, WA) appears to corroborate the general practice of treating WSD uses as “light industrial” or similar designation and keeping such uses separate from more community oriented, public facing commercial uses. Attached is an excerpt from The Regional City by Peter Calthorpe and Bill Fulton, which speaks to the compatibility (or lack thereof) of light industrial uses in areas of mixed residential and commercial use.

Again, the MDO’s actual use is a use that is already defined in the City’s zoning ordinance. It would be like if I tried to convince the City to allow me to operate a commercial automotive repair business out of my house by calling it an “accessory garage operation” - whatever euphemistic name I might want to call it, the use is still the use. While locating warehousing/distribution activities in the same building as large-format retail is not per se bad as a concept, it is just clearly and simply not permitted under the City’s Development Code in the CG zone.

Response O3-3 attempts to discredit the Car Wash comparison, albeit poorly. Something else that should be mentioned: If the rezone was truly only needed for the Car Wash, and the Car Wash will be constructed on a to-be-created separate parcel, then why not simply rezone just that parcel and leave the larger remaining parcel as Community Commercial? It is further 2 evidence that the City and Proponents are scrambling to back in any way they might see possible to justify a colossal oversight about the zoning.

Response O3-4 takes a fear-mongering approach to the possibility of rezoning the parcel to Light Industrial. Response O3-4 ignores the possibility of placing Conditions of Zoning on the site (“cz”), which is a common local practice for Industrially-zoned sites in the City of Fresno to ensure the sites are not converted to uncontemplated, incompatible uses. As an example, the rezoning for project-as-proposed includes Conditions of Zoning.

Response O3-5 states, among other things, that “the MDO is less than 20 percent of the entire retail warehouse.” This is incorrect. Based on numbers presented in Exhibit C-1, the MDO is approximately 21.4 percent of total building footprint square footage. It is noted that the project was revised to reduce square footage, it was the retail warehouse portion of the store that was reduced in size; on the other hand, the MDO’s square footage stayed the same.

Response O3-6 mischaracterizes the comparison between the physical characteristics of the existing Costco MDO facility located in an industrial area on Central Avenue near Malaga as a matter of aesthetic differences. The architectural features at the existing facility (clearly viewed in pictures or in person) depict the clear differences in function and operational utilization that would occur as part of the proposed MDO Distribution Facility versus a “normal” Costco Wholesale retail warehouse store.

In Responses O3-2 and O3-5, an attempt is made to analogize the MDO’s operations with delivery activities associated with other local large-format retail stores ‒ specifically the Walmart Supercenter on West Shaw Avenue as well as Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Lowes, and Home Depot. To begin with, while the responses imply that many of these home deliveries are originating directly from retail store locations, it is likely they are originating from distribution centers. However, the number of truck bays at each of these stores (not to mention all other CG-zoned and CC-zoned areas of the City) is a fraction of what is proposed for the Costco project to accommodate shipping and receiving activities. Based on a Google query and review of Street View imagery of existing big-box stores in Fresno along Shaw Avenue and Blackstone Avenue, the average big-box store has 2 to 4 loading docks. In contrast, the project as proposed includes 24 loading docks. Based on a separate Google query, this number of loading docks is more consistent with building specifications for a 250,000 square-foot distribution center. (See attachments for reference.)

In that context, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Costco could effectively operate the project as a “shadow distribution center”. Given that Costco designs its stores in a “warehouse” format to begin with, it would not be out of the question for the 219,000+ square feet “retail” space to be surreptitiously modified to function in practice as distribution center space. This is why the number of truck bays is such a distinct, significant, and alarming feature of the project as proposed.

3 As a reminder, the planning and zoning consistency issues raised here are not limited specifically to the proposed Costco project. If approval of the project goes through, it effectively sets a precedent that applies to every property zoned CG and CC in the City. The rationale employed here, if applied elsewhere in the City, could function as an end-around to dodge emerging restrictions on the development of distribution centers - restrictions enacted to curb the adverse effects on communities and the environment . If a commercial retail building could suddenly be permitted by-right to have dozens of truck bays, under Fresno’s local regulatory framework there appears to be essentially no mechanism to limit the “retail” space from being effectively converted to “WSD” space.

How and Why Did This Happen?

What became clear from reviewing hearing testimony by Costco’s representatives and the project’s Administrative Record is not only that the project has been in the works since 2017-18 but just how that early-in-time commitment appears to have led us to where we are today: They initially settled on a site, and the site selection decision made a greater level of sense at the moment in time (i.e., pre-Veterans Boulevard) and based on the initial design and mix of uses for the project (i.e., a large-format retail store and a gas station - no car wash, and more importantly no MDO Distribution Facility). But then not long afterward, multiple significant revisions were made to the project (a series of revisions to the site layout, then adding the car wash, more site layout revisions, and then adding the MDO). These revisions were at tension with the already stressed adequacy of the proposed site to accommodate such a project. It appears at some point, however, that the City and/or Costco decided the project was simply too far along to turn back.

Attached are comments from Planning staff which provide some further context regarding the early project review stages and decision-making processes.

How Might the Zoning and General Plan Consistency Issue be Resolved?

There appears to be at least three ways to resolve the consistency issue other than the current approach of essentially ignoring the Development Code as written and pushing through the project in a way that amounts to a de facto text amendment. These options are:

1) Rezone the project site to “IL”- Light Industrial zoning. More specifically, rezone to “IL/UGM/CZ”, and amend the corresponding General Plan designation to light industrial. 2) Remove the MDO Distribution Facility from the project. In practice, this could consist of eliminating the 18 truck bays specific to the MDO and repurposing the “MDO” square footage as additional large-format retail space.
3) Prepare and adopt a Citywide Text Amendment to update the Development Code and Use Table to allow for at least some limited form of WSD uses in Commercial General zoning. If pursued, the revised zoning should require a CUP and have strict limitations on storage space square footage (both in total and as a percentage of non-storage 4 building space) as well as a limit on the number of truck bays. Additionally, the Text Amendment would occur via a proper local legislative process.

In an effort to better illustrate the relative simplicity of these options, attached are exhibits which visually demonstrate the changes that would be entailed.

Unresolved Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Issues

As a preliminary note regarding instances where the FEIR/RTC says that comments on the PR-DEIR “provide no support” or are unsubstantiated, it bears mentioning that numerous prior comments on the DEIR and FEIR provide additional support and elaboration regarding issues with the GHG impact analysis that remain relevant and applicable. While the City and the report writers are undoubtedly aware of these comments, and those prior comments should already be automatically incorporated as part of the record, for posterity’s sake a copy of prior comments from the 2024 DEIR and FEIR related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions is included as an attachment to this letter.

The EIR’s revised analysis of GHG Emissions and Climate Change Impacts remains inadequate because its analysis is fundamentally flawed, materially misleading, and the significance determination reached is not supported by substantial evidence.

The revised EIR purports to have complied with court order by removing references to the City's invalidated 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan1, switching to new significance thresholds that align with the questions in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, presenting updated/revised quantitative emissions estimates for the project (plus estimates for the city and state), and then qualitatively analyzing in comparison to the City of Fresno’s 2014 GHGRP (the plan which the City reverted back to after the 2021 GHGRP was invalidated) and other GHG-related plans – specifically the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, Fresno COG RTP/SCS, and Fresno COG Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP).

Although updated quantitative data is included, the determination that the project will have less than significant GHG impacts is reached by using a qualitative approach to show consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Once again though, the determination of “less than significant, no mitigation required” is fundamentally incompatible with the EIR’s significance determination regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and not supported by substantial evidence.

The revised analysis uses data in part derived from the 2014 GHGRP and also presents a qualitative consistency analysis with policies from the 2014 GHGRP. Similar to what is discussed more below, the qualitative analysis is self-serving and cherry-picked, but the bigger 1 As a side note, while the litigation concerning City’s GP PEIR Update and 2021 GHGRP litigation was ongoing during original Costco review, it was never mentioned in EIR or elsewhere as part of the project’s initial environmental review process.
5 issue here is that the 2014 GHGRP is simply too dated to be validly relied upon. Much like calling something “on fleek”, the policies are no longer sufficiently in step in 2026. In California, local plans must account for updated, aggressive legislation (such as SB 32 and AB 1279, not to mention SB 743), requiring newer blueprints like the CARB Scoping Plan to achieve carbon neutrality. Since the 2014 GHGRP predates major updates in GHG-related legislation and the CARB Scoping Plan, it is too old and stale to be definitively relied upon.

The PR-DEIR acknowledges that to a degree, which is why it also includes a qualitative evaluation of other documents to substantiate its evaluation of impacts. However, the other documents cited in the PR-DEIR all include VMT reduction as part of the major goals, strategies, and/or measures related to GHG reduction:

2022 CARB Scoping Plan: VMT Reduction is one of the Scoping Plan’s three main priority strategies.

Fresno COG RTP/SCS: Key component is to encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions.

Fresno COG PCAP: Sets GHG Emission Reduction Targets (including Sector-Specific Targets, among them being Transportation) and therein discusses VMT in context of SB 375 and the necessity of reducing VMT to meet the requirements/targets.

Instead of acknowledging the fundamental and significant effect of the project’s excessive VMT on the ability to meet GHG- and climate-related goals and mandates, the EIR’s “consistency analysis” is marked by a self-serving, cherry-picked narrative to reach a desired outcome rather than a good-faith, reasoned, and candid consistency review. For example:

[T]he VMT analysis does not take into account the Costco trips “replacing” existing trips currently going to other retailers. Furthermore, the project would allow customers to have multiple needs served in one trip, including but not limited to: eye exams, purchase of household goods and groceries, furniture store, appliance store, liquor store, car washes, and refueling at a gas station.

Given these factors, it is possible that Costco members make fewer total retail shopping trips in a month or a year when they have the option of shopping at the proposed expanded Costco than they would make if they did not have a Costco nearby. The VMT modeling does not measure the benefit of one Costco trip potentially replacing multiple trips, which makes the quantified inventory conservative. (2026 FEIR p. 2-4)

Not only is this statement clearly misrepresentative of the project’s consistency (or lack thereof) with GHG- and climate change-related policies and regulations which mandate reductions in VMT, it (along with other statements like it) effectively obscures and undermines the VMT significance determination reached in the Transportation section of the EIR. Statements like these are demonstrative of deeply flawed reasoning and/or bad faith – to such a degree that it 6 violates CEQA’s requirements for informed decisionmaking and meaningful public participation.

Under CEQA, even if decisionmakers ultimately want to go forward with the project, the environmental effects associated with the project need to be adequately disclosed so that the decisionmakers are able to weigh in on an informed basis and that the public can meaningfully participate and readily hold accountable the decisionmakers for their decisions.

Response O3-8 asserts that the comments critiquing the lack of requisite evidentiary support fail “to acknowledge the evidence, the detailed impact evaluation, or the substantial evidence included throughout Section 3.7 of the PR-DEIR and its technical appendices that supports the City’s conclusion that the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.”

Like the DEIR before it, the PR-DEIR ends up only having the “aesthetic” of substantial evidence (i.e., a report that looks comprehensive but is analytically flawed). The analysis departs from logic and reason and contorts itself to reach the preferred outcome (i.e., declaring the GHG and Climate Change impacts to be less than significant, with no mitigation required).

While substantial evidence is deferential to agency decisionmaking, mere “incantation” is not sufficient, nor is evidence that is “outside the bounds of reason.”

Response 03-11 states: “A finding that a particular project is consistent with applicable plans and policies requires only that the proposed project be in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with every detail of it.” Here, the problem is that the effects of threshold-exceeding VMT effects are so fundamentally and materially incompatible that it amounts to outright conflict with said plans and policies.

VMT is not merely a component of determining project-specific mobile source emissions; it is an important proxy for how auto-dependent a given land use project is going to be compared to existing conditions, and it is indicative of how easy or difficult it will be for other future projects (both land use projects and transportation projects) to be designed or incorporate features to reduce VMT. The proposed Costco project’s VMT is so significant, both as a raw VMT number and the degree to which it exceeds its applicable threshold, that it “locks in” inefficiencies and “locks out” opportunities for future growth and development to incorporate VMT-reducing features - e.g., by deterring co-location of VMT-efficient land uses, and/or by deterring development and implementation of VMT-efficient (i.e., non-automotive) infrastructure improvements), and/or by detrimentally impacting the efficacy of future VMT-reducing infrastructure improvements. Despite what is proffered in Response O3-12, no technical expertise is necessary to readily and accurately observe that shopping at Costco is one of the most car-dependent activities in American culture. That type of response, in addition to being insufficient to show GHG-related consistency, once again functions to undermine the VMT significance determination made in the Transportation section of the EIR.

Response O3-14 states: “As set forth in SB 743, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) directs lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold of significance to evaluate transportation impacts (and only transportation impacts).” The parenthetical part of this sentence is again extremely 7 misleading because VMT significance is essentially an implied threshold in determining whether a project will or will not conflict with the body of plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted to address GHG emissions and climate change. While the VMT threshold appears in the Transportation section, the basis for the threshold is entirely derived from state GHG and climate change policies and regulations.

The following content from the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines explains how the VMT thresholds that have been set for the City (as well as the region), i.e. why they are essentially also measures of GHG significance:

The TA is intended as a reference document; it does not have the weight of law. Yet, deviating from the TA is best undertaken with substantial evidence to support the agency action.

The State of California is committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving long‐term climate change goals. To achieve these climate change goals, California needs to reduce VMT. As illustrated in Figure 1, over the last 40 years, with increase in statewide population, the overall VMT has also increased…. [T]ransportation is the single largest sector contributing to the State’s GHG emissions. More than 40 percent of the GHG emissions come from the transportation sector, primarily passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. Reducing the number of vehicle trips and reducing the length of trips are expected to result in reduced VMT and reduced GHG emissions. The new State CEQA Guidelines and the establishment of VMT thresholds for CEQA analyses is linked to GHG reduction strategies and overall statewide climate change goals.

City of Fresno VMT Guidelines p. 1 and 2

[...]
8 The TA therefore recommends:

A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.

A similar threshold would apply to office projects (15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee).

VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT.

CARB establishes GHG targets for each of the 18 MPOs in the State, reviews the SCSs and makes a determination whether the SCS would be able to achieve GHG reduction targets if implemented… CARB established a 13 percent GHG reduction target for 2035 for the Fresno region’s third RTP/SCS…. [R]eduction in GHG directly corresponds to reduction in VMT. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction goal of 15 percent, the City must reduce GHG by 13 percent. The method of reducing GHG by 13 percent is to reduce VMT by 13 percent as well.

City of Fresno VMT Guidelines p. 23

[Note: Pages cited above from the City’s VMT Guidelines are also attached to this letter]

While exceeding the VMT threshold can arguably, in and of itself, be treated as a conflict with a GHG/Climate Change plan, policy, and/or regulation, it most definitely amounts to essentially irrefutable evidence of a material conflict with the entire plan, policy, and regulation framework for GHG emissions and Climate Change.

While implications related to the City’s adoption of a VMT Reduction Fee Program are discussed in greater detail later on, some information provided as part of that documentation bears discussing here. Response O3-13 includes the following: "[T]he comment incorrectly asserts that the City of Fresno needs a reduction of 67,429 average daily VMT to meet its citywide reduction target.” The VMT Reduction Program describes 67,429 units of VMT associated with future development that are projected to be unmitigated, as calculated by the Fresno COG Activity Based Model."

See the quote below and pages attached from Fresno VMT Reduction Program which explain the source of the value of 67,429 units of daily VMT:

"Total citywide unmitigated VMT from the City's General Plan scenario was obtained from the Fresno COG Activity Based Model (ABM) and was used as the VMT to be mitigated by the VMT reducing projects. The total unmitigated VMT was estimated from 9 the growth of origin-destination (OD) VMT between General Plan and existing (base year) conditions after considering the population and employment growth in the region."

If it means something different, the City should clarify beyond "that's not the right number" without providing the right number.

Either way, the proposed Costco project’s VMT has not been accounted for in the Fresno COG ABM. Moreover, this information further puts into context just how massive the project's VMT increase will be in relation to VMT occurring in the entire City, which further demonstrates how and why it amounts to a significant GHG impact. This response does nothing to discount the magnitude of the Costco project’s impacts are nearly double that of the City’s entire VMT reduction target.

Allowing this project to skirt by under a determination of “less than significant (without mitigation)” unfairly shifts the burden of meeting and complying with GHG-related mandates onto future projects and development. Allowing the Costco project to go forward, unmitigated, may lead to a larger gap on progress towards meeting mandated reductions, which in turn could lead to even more stringent VMT reduction thresholds or other measures necessary to meet the mandates. For instance, a future housing project could end up having to mitigate 20-25 percent of its VMT rather than 13 percent because the City falls off pace with meeting its GHG reduction targets (a cause of which could be the Costco project’s outsized unmitigated impact).

It is only incorrect in the sense that the City may actually need greater than the 67,429 average daily VMT to meet its GHG reduction goals. (Note: If the City is capable of meeting VMT reduction goals with a lesser number, the City should clarify what that number is as part of its response.)

VMT reduction is so fundamental to the entire GHG regulatory and policy framework that having a significant and unavoidable VMT impact (i.e., exceeding the established ) necessarily results in conflict with that framework.

The project’s VMT threshold exceedance is either in its own right a conflict with plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions, or it is irrefutable evidence of a broad and fundamental conflict with the regulatory and policy framework for GHG emissions.

10 The Availability of the City’s VMT Mitigation Fee Program Constitutes a CEQA Mitigation Measure for Project’s Significant Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Impacts

Attached for reference are pages from the City’s VMT Mitigation Fee Program as well as excerpts from City of Fresno staff during City Council hearings leading up to the adoption of the VMT Mitigation Fee Program

The EIR and Responses to Comments fail to adequately address the significance of the City’s newly adopted VMT Mitigation Fee Program as a feasible mitigation measure for the project’s significant GHG Emissions and Climate Change impacts.

The City’s adoption of the VMT Mitigation Fee Program and supporting nexus study constitutes significant new information and a materially changed circumstance relevant to CEQA review.

During 2023 and 2024 when the earlier iterations of the EIR were prepared and certified no such adopted program existed. Now however, the City has formally adopted a VMT mitigation framework supported by technical analysis and findings establishing a nexus between project-generated VMT and the need for mitigation measures intended to reduce associated environmental impacts, including impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change.

Under CEQA, agencies are required to adopt all feasible mitigation measures capable of substantially lessening significant environmental impacts. (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15126.4.) Where substantial evidence demonstrates that a mitigation measure is feasible and capable of reducing a significant impact, the agency must either adopt the measure or provide substantial evidence demonstrating why the measure is infeasible.

Here, it is undisputed that the project’s excessively high level of VMT would result in significant VMT-related impacts, which are directly connected to significant GHG emissions and climate change impacts. The relationship between VMT and GHG emissions is foundational to California’s climate regulatory framework, including SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. As previously noted, the PR-DEIR itself relies extensively on VMT-related plans, policies, and regulations in its discussion of GHG consistency and climate-related impacts.

The Responses to Comments incorrectly attempt to compartmentalize VMT as solely a “Transportation” issue on the basis that VMT analysis appears within the Transportation section of Appendix G and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. That position is inconsistent with both CEQA and the underlying policy basis for SB 743. VMT is not exclusively a transportation metric; it is also a core indicator of climate-related environmental impacts because increased vehicle travel directly contributes to increased GHG emissions.

The placement of VMT analysis within the Transportation section of CEQA was intended, in substantial part, to replace outdated Level of Service (“LOS”) methodologies and promote transportation and land use patterns that reduce vehicle travel and associated emissions. SB 743 was expressly intended to encourage low-VMT development patterns and discourage 11 projects that substantially increase VMT and associated emissions. Accordingly, the fact that VMT is discussed in the Transportation section does not preclude its consideration as part of the Project’s GHG and Climate Change analysis.

The FEIR and responses focus primarily on the assertion that the City’s VMT fee ordinance may not automatically apply to this project as a matter of local ordinance because the project application predates adoption of the fee program. However, this does not resolve the relevant CEQA question.

A distinction exists between whether a local ordinance independently requires payment of a fee as a matter of municipal code administration versus whether CEQA independently requires implementation of a feasible mitigation measure to reduce a significant environmental impact.

Even assuming that the City’s ordinance does not require payment of the fee for this project, that does not establish that payment of equivalent VMT mitigation fees is legally prohibited, infeasible, or unavailable as CEQA mitigation. The City’s VMT Mitigation Fee Program, nexus study, and supporting findings provide substantial evidence demonstrating that such mitigation is feasible and environmentally justified.

Nor does the record support any conclusion that payment of VMT mitigation fees would be legally infeasible. The Responses to Comments identify no provision of state law or local ordinance prohibiting the City from imposing equivalent mitigation requirements pursuant to CEQA. At most, the City appears to argue only that the ordinance itself may not automatically compel payment. That is not the same as a prohibition on imposing mitigation pursuant to CEQA’s independent statutory mandates.

This distinction is especially important given the procedural posture of the project. The original EIR and approvals were invalidated and set aside pursuant to court order. As a result, the recirculated EIR must evaluate the project based on current environmental conditions, current regulatory frameworks, and currently available mitigation measures at the time of recertification and project approval. CEQA review following decertification cannot ignore subsequently adopted mitigation programs that bear directly on the significance and mitigation of the project’s impacts.

The City’s newly adopted VMT Mitigation Fee Program therefore constitutes significant new information and a substantially changed circumstance relevant to the project’s GHG Emissions and Climate Change analysis and mitigation framework. The City must evaluate whether payment into the VMT mitigation program would reduce the project’s significant GHG and climate-related impacts and, if so, either adopt the mitigation or provide substantial evidence demonstrating that such mitigation is infeasible.

If the City intends to conclude that payment of the VMT mitigation fee would be partially or wholly infeasible, CEQA requires that conclusion to be supported by substantial evidence. As indicated by the Planning Director during City Council hearings for the , such evidence would 12 require project-specific economic or financial analysis demonstrating why implementation of the mitigation measure cannot feasibly occur. A conclusory assertion that the fee is “not applicable” under the ordinance does not satisfy CEQA’s separate and independent feasibility requirements.

Finally, the City and applicant cannot avoid reconsideration of VMT-related mitigation merely because portions of the original Transportation analysis were not specifically ordered recirculated. VMT is directly relevant to the recirculated GHG Emissions and Climate Change section itself. The PR-DEIR repeatedly relies upon VMT-related plans, policies, regulations, and thresholds in evaluating climate impacts and consistency with statewide emissions-reduction objectives. Because VMT is intertwined with the Project’s climate impacts, mitigation measures addressing VMT remain squarely within the scope of the recirculated CEQA review.

13 AR037739

AR037740

AR037741

AR037742

AR037743

Google AI Overview response to the question “How many loading docks does the average big box store have?”

Google AI Overview response to the question “How many loading docks does the average distribution center have?” (Note: changing “distribution center” to “logistics facility” results in the same response.)

References:

https://www.buildcentral.com/the-big-box-retailer-construction-economy-2/

https://www.linklogistics.com/news-insights/industrial-real-estate-101/how-to-choose-industrial-w arehouse-space-essential-features-to-consider/

https://www.linklogistics.com/news-insights/industrial-real-estate-101/warehouse-storage-capaci ty-guide-to-maximizing-space/

https://www.warehousesmarket.com/post/docks-and-doors-your-industrial-building-s-exterior-ex plained

https://www.workplacepub.com/material-handling/loading-dock-equipment/designing-the-right-lo ading-dock-for-your-operation/

Fresno, CA Code of Ordinances
A.

SEC. 15-1202. - USE REGULATIONS.

Table 15-1202 prescribes the proposed land use regulations for Commercial Districts. The regulations for the districts are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
"P" designates permitted uses.
"C" designates uses that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. "(#)" numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. "-" designates uses that are not permitted.

Land uses are defined in Article 67, Use Classifications.

In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Director shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character per Section 15-5020,
Director's Determination.

All permitted uses are allowed either alone or in combination with other permitted uses unless otherwise stated in this Code.

Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below are not permitted.

The table also notes additional regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right hand column refer to other sections of this Code.

TABLE 15-1202: LAND USE REGULATIONS - COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Classifications CMS CC CR CG CH CRC Additional Regulations …

INDUSTRIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS
…
Warehousing,
Storage,
and Distribution

Indoor
Warehousing and
Storage
- - - C C - *Limits on max. SF

*Limits on max. # of Truck
bays
Personal Storage C C C C C C § 15-2747, Personal (Mini) Storage
Wholesaling and
Distribution
- - - C C - *Limits on max. SF

*Limits on max. # of Truck
bays

1 Jose Valenzuela
Supervising Planner
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Co
stco Commercial Center Dra� EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2021100443) Dear Mr. V
alenzuela,
Presented in this leter are my comments on the Costco Commercial Center Dra� EIR. The comments are organized into the following three overarching topic areas:
1) Comments regarding poten�al inconsistency between the opera�onal characteris�cs iden�ﬁed in the proposed project descrip�on and the uses allowed by the proposed General Plan Amendment/Rezone.
2) Comments addressing issues and deﬁciencies in the analysis of speciﬁc categories of environmental eﬀects – including Aesthe�cs, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transporta�on impacts.
3) Comments on the Dra� EIR’s Alterna�ves analysis.

As a brief prologue to these comments, I want to note that I am generally in favor of the development of a new Costco in northwest Fresno, but I have major reserva�ons with the proposed project site loca�on due to adverse environmental impacts that are speciﬁcally atributable to the site. My hope is that it is within the realm of possibility for Costco, the City, and community stakeholders to collaborate and ﬁnd a viable alterna�ve loca�on that would substan�ally fulﬁll the objec�ves of the project while avoiding the signiﬁcant costs (environmental and otherwise) that would result from development of the project at the subject loca�on.

Sincerely,
Daniel Brannick
7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The determina�on presented in the Dra� EIR that the project will result in less than signiﬁcant impacts involving GHG emissions is fundamentally inconsistent with the Dra� EIR’s determina�on that the project will result in signiﬁcant and unavoidable transporta�on impacts resul�ng from the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associate with the project.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes the following ques�on for evalua�ng the signiﬁcance of GHG emissions: “Would the project conﬂict with an applicable plan, policy or regula�on adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?” There is an abundance of informa�on explaining the linkages between GHG emissions and VMT, and even more of an abundance of informa�on available discussing the eﬀects of GHG emissions on climate change and world-wide adverse environmental impacts. While GHG emissions associated with VMT are probably most o�en thought of as emissions resul�ng from gas-powered vehicular travel, signiﬁcant amounts of GHG emissions are also directly and indirectly generated through buildout and ongoing maintenance of the roadway transporta�on network.

Sec�on 3.7.1 of the Dra� EIR (Regulatory Se�ng for GHG Emissions and Climate Change) includes a list of plans, policies, and regula�ons concerning GHG emissions and climate change that are applicable to the proposed project. Other GHG-relevant plans, policies, and regula�ons appear in the Regulatory Se�ng for the Energy sec�on (Sec�on 3.6.1).

Below is a non-exhaus�ve list of applicable plans, policies, and regula�ons plus page references and excerpts with relevant and applicable content regarding the connec�ons between GHG emissions and VMT:
• 2022 CARB SCOPING PLAN
htps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf (see discussion of VMT on p. 71-72, 192-195, and 270-271) • FRESNO COG 2022 RTP/SCS
htps://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communi�es-strategies-fall-outreach/ • CITY OF FRESNO VMT GUIDELINES
htps://www.fresno.gov/wp-conten t/uploads/2023/03/CEQA-Guidelines-for-Vehicle-Miles- Traveled-Final-Adopted-Version.pdf
“The impact of transporta�on has shi�ed from conges�on to climate change, and the purpose of the CEQA analysis is to disclose and ul�mately reduce GHG emissions by reducing the number and length of automobile trips.” (City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, p. 23) (See addi�onal discussion of GHG emissions in rela�on VMT on p. 2, 9, 13)

8 While the text of the Dra� EIR directly men�ons or references a number of applicable GHG-related plans, policies, and regula�ons, the actual analysis in the GHG Emissions sec�on of the Dra� EIR is essen�ally en�rely limited to discussion and evalua�on of the City of Fresno’s Greenhouse Gas Reduc�on Plan (GHGRP). The City GHGRP
That can allow for analysis, including streamlined GHG analysis in some cases.

On p. 3.7-10, the DEIR correctly explains that streamlining is not available for this project because of the general plan and rezone involved:
“The City has an adopted GHGRP with a checklist available for use in CEQA analyses; however, the project is amending the general plan such that the project would, by a comparative worst-case scenario analysis, have greater emissions than the land use type included in the general plan.”
The DEIR then goes on to state that the signiﬁcance analysis can use the GHGRP’s same BAU approach to substan�ate the determina�ons for not one but both Appendix G ques�ons:
“Nevertheless, the city has applied the GHGRP’s BAU approach to substantiate the signiﬁcance determination of the project. The use of the GHGRP in determining the project’s signiﬁcance answers both the Appendix G questions of whether the project would directly or indirectly generate substantial GHG emissions as well as conﬂict with a local or statewide plan to reduce GHG emissions (in this case, the city’s GHGRP).” There are two big issues here. First, the phrasing of this statement could lead one to believe that showing consistency with the GHGRP is the only step needed or the only applicable plan for this project. While the City’s GHGRP is informed by and related to a variety of other GHG plans, policies, and regula�ons, it is not so fully overlapping or authorita�ve (especially in a non-streamlining scenario as is the case with this project) that consistency with the GHGRP equates to or supersedes consistency determina�ons for all other applicable GHG plans, policies, and regula�ons.

Second, there is language in the Dra� EIR itself that appears to directly state or infer conﬂicts and/or inconsistencies between the project (par�cularly because of its VMT) and applicable GHG plans, policies, and regula�ons (see Dra� EIR excerpts below, with underlining added for emphasis by me):

On p. 3.7-12:

The 2022 Scoping Plan provides the framework for achieving these aggressive targets, and includes language that can be interpreted as revising the goal for 2030 to 48 percent reduction from 1990 levels as compared to the 40 percent reduction legislated in SB 32 (CARB 2022: 71).

The goals established in the GHGRP were designed to adhere to the, then, most current GHG reductio
n target mandated by SB 32 (i.e., 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2030). It is therefore foreseeable that the GHGRP’s existing targets could be interpreted as inconsistent with the state’s current long-term GHG reduction goals for 2030 (i.e., 48 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and 2045 (i.e., 85 percent reduction from 1990 levels and carbon neutrality).
9 On p. 3.7-13:

In Appendix B, Table B-1 of the DEIR’s Energy technical subreport (included as Appendix E of the Dra� EIR; p. 905 of the DEIR PDF) states the following:

The Project would not conﬂict with the implementation of SB 375. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the goals of the Fresno Council of Government's (Fresno COG's) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which demonstrates how the Fresno region under Fresno COG's jurisdiction will meet the emission reduction targets of SB 375.

By exceeding the VMT threshold, the project is absolutely at odds with SB 375’s GHG reduc�on goals and the means of achieving those goals as well as the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, the RTP/SCS, the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, and numerous other comprehensive GHG emissions-related pieces of policymaking and regula�on that involve considera�on of VMT.

Also see the project’s GHG Emissions Technical Report (Appendix F of the Dra� EIR; p. 1085 of the DEIR PDF). In that document, while the consistency analysis seemingly hand-waives away the project’s GHG impacts resul�ng from its VMT because “the [VMT reduc�on] goal is not applicable to an individual commercial project” (a statement which warrants calling out that this proposal entails even more than that – it is a GPA/rezone along with a uniquely outsized project that can eﬀect VMT and GHG on a citywide if not regionwide basis), the analysis goes on tout how project-speciﬁc measures to help mi�gate VMT will also help reduce GHG and thus demonstrate consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and Fresno COG RTP/SCS goals and policies to reduce VMT. This double- standard where project-speciﬁc adverse impacts seemingly do not count but project-speciﬁc beneﬁts do count is a very problema�c form of reasoning.

The concluding ra�onale state in part that because “the GHGRP is designed to be updated periodically, […] it is assumed that such updates would account for the state’s most recent long-term GHG reduc�on goals of AB 1279.” (p. 3.7-13 of the Dra� EIR). Future updates would not magically retroac�vely address signiﬁcant GHG eﬀects of this project that will be largely irreversibly set in mo�on upon approval of the project. It sets back eﬀorts and shi�s the reduc�on burdens to future projects and plans.

While GHG analyses might be the most technically-heavy and complex topics of environmental eﬀect covered in CEQA, and VMT is a similarly esoteric topic for most people, the VMT-GHT cause-eﬀect 10 rela�onship is unequivocally clear. There are some speciﬁc situa�ons where it may somehow be jus�ﬁable to determine that a project with VMT exceeding the applicable threshold would not also be considered to have a signiﬁcant and unavoidable (and generally there are screening criteria or other exemp�ons available to iden�fy and address these situa�ons). However, large retail/employment projects constructed in suburban edge loca�ons like the subject project site are among the poster children for highly-impac�ul high-VMT projects with high GHG emissions that are squarely targeted to be addressed through GHG-reduc�on policymaking and regula�on. It cannot be pretended that a project of this nature and this scale (“the largest Costco in the world”) – both at the project-speciﬁc and cumula�ve level – does not unequivocally conﬂict with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, the RTP/SCS, SB 743, and other plans, policies, and regula�ons that have been adopted to address GHG emissions and climate change.

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (a.k.a. the “Friant Ranch” case), a key part of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in that case is that an EIR must include “suﬃcient detail to enable those who did not par�cipate in its prepara�on to understand and consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises.” An addi�onal key part of the ruling, which was related to the adequacy of an EIR’s air quality analysis, is that an EIR must show a “reasonable eﬀort to substan�vely connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” Under the same line of reasoning that follows from Friant Ranch, the CEQA document here is required to make reasonable eﬀort to substan�ally connect the project’s VMT impacts to GHG emissions impacts and consequences; based on the foregoing informa�on presented in these comments, it has not done so.

CEQA Guidelines sec�on 15088.5 require a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when signiﬁcant new informa�on is added to the EIR a�er public no�ce is given of the availability of the dra� EIR. Per 15088.5, “signiﬁcant new informa�on” requiring recircula�on includes:
(1) A new signiﬁcant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insigniﬁcance.

The Dra� EIR’s failure to iden�fy policy and regulatory conﬂicts and inconsistencies resul�ng from the project’s GHG-related impacts (which stem from its acknowledged threshold-exceeding VMT levels) as being signiﬁcant and unavoidable impact is a major analy�cal and informa�onal deﬁciency.

Since recircula�on is required in situa�ons involving subsequent iden�ﬁca�on of a signiﬁcant and unavoidable impact which was not previously iden�ﬁed as such, recircula�on of this EIR with the necessary updated informa�on should be required in order for the environmental review process to comply with CEQA.

As a general reminder, CEQA does not ban projects with signiﬁcant and unavoidable impacts from ul�mately being carried out when there are compelling reasons to do so (and those reasons, presented in a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considera�ons, can be prety broad and be for legi�mate and non-environmentally-centric reasons). What CEQA does require is disclosure of informa�on in order to allow informed understanding and meaningful public par�cipa�on. 1 City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: C
ostco Commercial Center Project (CEQA State Clearinghouse # 2021100443) Response to Final EIR Informa�on and Comments
Dear Counc
ilmembers,
Presented in this leter are comments addressing the Response to Comments and other informa�on provided as part of the Final EIR for the proposed Costco Commercial Center Project. I originally emailed these comments to the City’s Planning Department and the City Clerk’s Oﬃce for considera�on at the March 7th City Council mee�ng but did not see them included as part of the Agenda packet for the April 18th mee�ng, so I am resubmi�ng them to ensure they are included in the record. (Note: This leter includes some minor updates from the prior leter submited in March.) The comments are organized into what are essen�ally the same three topic areas from my DEIR comment leter:
1) Comments regarding inconsistency between the operational characteristics identiﬁed in the proposed project description and the uses allowed by the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone.
2) Comments addressing issues and deﬁciencies in the analysis of speciﬁc categories of environmental eﬀects (For this letter, the comments are particularly focused on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation impacts).
3) Comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR’s Alternatives analysis.

I appreciate that th e Final EIR provided at least some informa�on which helped provide clarity on the content and analysis from the DEIR. However, as I stated during my public comments in opposi�on to the proposed project at its Planning Commission hearing, “Responses are not always answers.” The zoning consistency issue has not been resolved, and inadequacies in the environmental analysis persist.

Some of these issues and inadequacies pertain to environmental planning and CEQA topics that are par�cularly technical in nature, while others involve issues that are plainly recognized – such as those related to the transporta�on and safety concerns expressed in numerous DEIR comments.

The comments presented in this leter are primarily intended to refer back to issues that have already been raised where addi�onal discussion is appropriate, but a por�on of the comments also address informa�on that was discovered months a�er the DEIR review and comment period was completed. [. . .]
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissio ns
Response I103-5 addresses comments regarding GHG emissions and in par�cular purports to jus�fy the EIR’s diﬀering signiﬁcance determina�ons regarding the project’s VMT-related transporta�on eﬀects and its GHG emissions eﬀects. This response here along with the determina�on regarding GHG Emissions impacts in the DEIR is simply baﬄing and infuria�ng. For reasons previously discussed in my DEIR comments, the determina�on that the project will have signiﬁcant and unavoidable VMT-related impacts while having no signiﬁcant impact regarding GHG emissions is irreconcilable.

The following addi�onal comments are intended to further clarify the comments previously presented in my DEIR comment leter:
1) Conﬂicts and inconsistencies atributable to the project’s VMT in excess of established thresholds are already iden�ﬁed in the EIR and its GHG Appendix (see atached pages at the end of this leter). In addi�on to the very direct inconsistency with Item 1(h) in the GHGRP checklist, the overall amount of references made to VMT in the consistency checklists is very demonstra�ve at a holis�c level of how signiﬁcant and important reducing VMT is to reducing GHG emissions and achieving climate goals. It is also noted that the consistency analysis seems to arbitrarily imply that the consistency items are all of equal weight and that inconsistency/conﬂict with an item can be oﬀset simply by demonstra�ng consistency with a majority of other items. This line of apples-to-oranges reasoning is improper. 2) While the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist is organized such that 15061.4(b) (which was implemented by SB 743) is directly presented in the list of ques�ons for Transporta�on impacts, SB 743 and the policies and regula�ons implemented via its adop�on are absolutely about GHG emissions. This is demonstrated by the fact that SB 743 is speciﬁcally iden�ﬁed and discussed in the DEIR’s Regulatory Se�ng for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions sec�on as well as in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (DEIR Appendix F). This should be viewed as a complete refuta�on of the narrow-minded asser�on in the FEIR/Response to Comments that VMT in excess of threshold levels referenced by 15061.4(b) is somehow not also in conﬂict/inconsistent with applicable policy and regula�ons intended to reduce GHG emissions, and/or that this impact should only be looked at or called out as a “Transporta�on” impact because of how the Appendix G Checklist is organized. This project – a large-format Costco retail store featuring 36 gas pumps that largely deters or precludes low-VMT development in its proximity due to its inherent physical and opera�onal characteris�cs – is an extremely apt example of the type of project which the enactment of SB 743 sought to target through its mul�faced aim which includes reducing GHG emissions through encouragement of inﬁll development and a diversity of uses instead of sprawl.
3) In addi�on to failing to appropriately iden�fy the signiﬁcant and unavoidable impact as required by CEQA, the ra�onale and comments demonstrate what arguably amounts to an atempt to willfully confuse the meaning of and/or downplay the signiﬁcance of the EIR’s own signiﬁcant- and-unavoidable determina�on regarding the project’s threshold-exceeding VMT levels. The approach being taken in the EIR func�onally serves to keep the project’s VMT impacts in the realm of “technical minu�ae” and cuts against the provision of adequate informa�on to the public and fostering of meaningful public par�cipa�on.
9 4) The comment below is meant to clean up a typo/omission from my DEIR comments, speciﬁcally in the parenthe�cal part of the comment.

On p. 3.7-13:

Additionally, the use of CAP consistency for CEQA determinations is still supported by CARB in Appendi
x D of the 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022: 7-10). The 2022 Scoping Plan does not explicitly state that the new reduction goals of AB 1279 disqualify existing CAPs that align with the state’s previous target of reducing emissions by 40 percent from the 1990 inventory.
(Note: The appearance of this statement leads me to believe it is strongly suggested by the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan that older plans not accoun�ng for AB 1279 such as the City’s GHGRP are actually now out of compliance.)
Again, CEQA does not ban projects with signiﬁcant and unavoidable impacts from ul�mately being carried out when there are compelling reasons to do so, and the range of legi�mate reasons is broad and can be for non-environmentally-centric reasons. What CEQA does require though is suﬃcient disclosure of informa�on in order to allow informed understanding and meaningful public par�cipa�on, and that has not happened here.

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. For development projects, VMT is simply the product of the daily trips generated by a new development and the distance those trips travel to their des
tinations. For capital projects, impacts are identified as the new VMT attributable to the added capital project, both from the installation of the facility and the induced growth—a new term in the CEQA lexicon—generated as a result of induced land use.

In January 2019,
the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) codified SB 743 into the Public Resources Code (PRC) and the State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) states:

1. Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a si
gnificant impact. Generally, projects within one‐half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existin
g conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

2. Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact con
sistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

3. Qualitative Analysis
. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

4. Meth
odology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agen cy may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The OPR provides a T
echnical Advisory (TA) as a guidance document to establish thresholds for this new VMT metric. The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute 2 (PRC Section 21000 and following), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures. The TA is intended as a reference document; it does not have the weight of law. Yet, deviating from the TA is best undertaken with substantial evidence to support the agency action .

The State of California is committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving long‐term climate change goals. To achieve these climate change goals, California needs to reduce VMT. As illustrated in Figure 1, over the last 40 years, with increase in statewide population, the overall VMT has also increa
sed. As illustrated in Figure 2, transportation is the single largest sector contributing to the State’s GHG emissions. More than 40 percent of the GHG emissions come from the transportation sector, primarily passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. Reducing the number of vehicle trips and reducing the length of trips are expec ted to result in reduced VMT and reduced
GHG emissions. The new State CEQA Guidelines and the establishment of VMT thresholds for CEQA analyses is linked to GHG reduction strategies and overall statewide climate change goals.

Source: https://ca50million.ca.gov/transportation/
Figure 1: VMT Per Capita Compared to Population in California

23 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The TA states that SB 743 and all CEQA VMT transportation analyses refer to automobiles. Here, the term automobile refers to on‐road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light duty trucks (page. 4). Heavy‐duty trucks can be addressed in other CEQA sections (air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and health risk assessment analysis) and are subject to regulation in a separate collection of rules under CARB ju
risdiction. This approach was amplified by Chris Ganson, Senior Advisor for Transportation at OPR, in a recent presentation at the Fresno COG (October 23, 2019) and by Ellen Greenberg, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Deputy Director for Sustainability, at the San Joaquin Valley Regi
onal Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee meeting
(January 9, 2020).

The OPR has identified the subject of the thresholds as the primary trips in the home‐based typology: specifically, home‐based work tours. This includes residential uses, office uses, and retail uses. The home‐based work tour type is the primary tourmaking during the peak hours of commuter traffic in the morning
and evening periods.

The impact of transportation has shifted from congestion to climate change, and the purpose of the CEQA analysis is to disclose and ultimately reduce GHG emissions by reducing the number and length of automobile trips. As part of the SB 375
land use/transportation integration process and the
GHG goal setting, the State and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) have agreed to reduce GHG through integrated land use and transportation planning by a statewide average of approximately 15 percent by 2035. Figure 8 illustrates the SB 375 re gional GHG emission reduction targets for all the 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California that was established by the CARB in 2018. Furthermore, in its 2017 Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, the CARB recommends total VMT per capita rates approximately 15 percen
t below existing conditions.

The TA therefore recommends:

A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.

A similar threshold would apply to office projects (15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee).

VMT generated by retail projects would indic
ate a significant impact for any net
increase in total VMT.

V E H I C L E M I L E S T R A V E L E D R E D U C T I O N P R O G R A M A N D N E X U S S T U D Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 F R E S N O, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/09/25)

553247v1
30 VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM COSTS
As previously indicated, VMT-reducing projects from the City’s plan documents that had funding gaps were included in the VMT Reduction Program. Several variables were identified in coordination with the stakeholders to evaluate and prioritize the VMT-reducing projects. The goal of the project evaluation and prioritization process was to maximize VMT reduction while being cost effective and meeting the needs of the community.

FISCAL FRAMEWORK
Based on coordination with the City and stakeholders, the VMT Reduction Program will be based on a VMT Mitigation Bank Framework in terms of establishing the method of calculating the VMT mitigation fee within the traditional structure of an impact fee program where the costs of impacts for development projects are assessed and the VMT Reduction Program will act as a clearinghouse for mitigations and acceptance of payments according to established transactional terms. The VMT Reduction Program will implement prioritized VMT-reducing projects once enough funds are collected. In that regard, the program should incorporate two key capacities:
 VMT Pricing: The program should establish a price for VMT impacts that can be linked to mitigation investments.
 Enabling Transactions: the program should establish a means of exchange (e.g., dollars or credits) to facilitate the mitigation obligations.

The bank would require units of VMT pricing for ease of implementation. In coordination with the City and stakeholders, the cost ($) to reduce one vehicle mile traveled was selected as the unit of VMT mitigation bank credit or VMT pricing.

Determination of VMT Fee
In order to determine the cost to reduce one vehicle mile traveled, total costs of all the VMT- reducing projects and the amount of required VMT reduction were estimated.

The VMT reduction project costs were obtained from planning documents, and City staff estimated project costs where project costs were not readily available. The initial VMT-reducing project list consisted of over 100 projects (transit, non-motorized, and travel demand management). For each of the VMT-reducing projects, the stakeholders identified the source type and funding available from the primary funding source. It should be noted that while primary funding sources are available for these projects, they were not fully funded. For example, 80 percent of the funding was identified through various sources for most of the transit projects, which required 20 percent local match. The funding gap that was required to make the project funding complete was included in the VMT Reduction Program costs. The VMT mitigation bank only included costs for construction / implementation of the projects and does not include costs for operation and maintenance of the projects or monitoring of their performance.

V E H I C L E M I L E S T R A V E L E D R E D U C T I O N P R O G R A M A N D N E X U S S T U D Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 F R E S N O, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/09/25)

553247v1
31 Total citywide unmitigated VMT from the City’s General Plan scenario was obtained from the Fresno COG Activity Based Model (ABM) and was used as the VMT to be mitigated by the VMT reducing projects. The total unmitigated VMT was estimated from the growth of origin-destination (OD) VMT between General Plan and existing (base year) conditions after considering the population and employment growth in the region. The following steps describe the estimation process in detail:

1. Citywide OD VMT per service population (population + employment) was estimated for the existing conditions.

2. Horizon year (General Plan scenario) service population and existing OD VMT per service population were used to estimate desired citywide OD VMT for the horizon year. This is the target VMT that the City needed to achieve to avoid a significant VMT impact for the City’s General Plan.

3. Citywide OD VMT from the ABM was calculated for the General Plan scenario.

4. Difference in OD VMT between steps 3 and 2 resulted in the total unmitigated OD VMT, which was used in the development of unit VMT pricing.

Based on the VMT reducing project costs and unmitigated citywide OD VMT, the cost for reducing one VMT/VMT reduction credit was estimated to be $295. This fee was estimated using the total unfunded cost of projects from the project list and the total unmitigated VMT as shown below.

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑠𝑡 ($19,891,686)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑀𝑇 (67,429)
≈ $295
As previously indicated, the VMT Reduction Program will be implemented as an impact fee program.

The fee would apply to new residential and non-residential developments in the city that are subject to VMT analysis under CEQA and are shown to generate VMT over the City’s threshold of significance. If a project screens out of VMT analysis, the impact fee would not be applicable.

Similarly, if the project can demonstrate less than significant VMT impact using the ABM, the impact fee would not be applicable. For development projects that have a significant VMT impact, these projects can reduce VMT through utilizing the UDC and implementing project design features. If a development project still demonstrates significant VMT impact after utilization of the UDC, the project will be required to mitigate the VMT overage (amount of VMT that is over the City’s thresholds). The development projects can estimate their total fees as a product of cost to reduce one VMT ($295) and the amount of VMT overage. Because the VMT mitigation fee is tied to a project’s impact, the fee is by design proportionate, therefore smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

The cost per VMT mitigation/VMT reduction credit is the same across the entire City of Fresno.

However, the approach indirectly considers a development project’s geographic location. For example, development projects that are closer to other developments or developments that provide complementary land use types to the surrounding land uses will demonstrate a lower magnitude of impact and thus will pay a lower mitigation fee. Similarly, development projects that are in the less urban areas may have higher VMT overage, thereby paying higher VMT mitigation fees. A fee-based

V E H I C L E M I L E S T R A V E L E D R E D U C T I O N P R O G R A M A N D N E X U S S T U D Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 F R E S N O, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/09/25)

553247v1
32 approach is the most straightforward to administer and efficient in terms of investment, as it allows bank administrators and/or exchange participating parties to select the highest level of VMT mitigation per dollar of impact (controlling for other project prioritization factors) based on a transparent price per VMT. The VMT Reduction Program should review and update VMT pricing to account for variables such as inflation.

CALCULATION OF PROJECT MITIGATION FEE
Steps to Calculate VMT Mitigation Fee
Figure 4 illustrates the estimation of VMT mitigation fees for a development project that demonstrates a significant VMT impact after inclusion of project design improvements from the City’s UDC. The steps are described in detail below:

1. Estimate the total project land use quantities (e.g., dwelling units, employees). This information is available from the project description. For non-residential projects, typically thousand square feet (TSF) information is available which would be converted to the number of employees for conducting the project’s VMT analysis using the Fresno COG ABM.

2. Calculate the appropriate project VMT metric (e.g., VMT per capita, VMT per employee, total regional VMT) based on the project land use type. This information is included in the City’s CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (2020).

3. Compare the project VMT metric with the established threshold from the City’s guidelines. If the project VMT metric is lower than the threshold, as indicated before, the project does not have to pay VMT mitigation fees. In case the project’s VMT analysis results in a significant impact, the following steps need to be conducted.

4. The project VMT metric can be adjusted if the project proposes any design element improvements identified in the City’s UDC. The types of suggested design improvements and corresponding reduction in VMT are available from the City’s UDC. If the project can reduce its VMT impact to less than significant using the UDC, the project will not be required to pay any VMT mitigation fees. The following steps are applicable if the project VMT metric is greater than the threshold after application of the UDC.

5. Estimate the project VMT metric overage compared to the established threshold. As shown in Step A from the flow diagram, the project VMT metric overage would be:

A. Project VMT metric overage = Project VMT metric from ABM – VMT reduction from UDC – VMT per capita threshold

6. Estimate the total project VMT overage as shown in Step B of the flow diagram. The project VMT metric is multiplied by the project population/employees (population for residential uses and employees for non-residential uses) for efficiency metrics. For example, A. For residential projects:

V E H I C L E M I L E S T R A V E L E D R E D U C T I O N P R O G R A M A N D N E X U S S T U D Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 F R E S N O, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/09/25)

553247v1
33 Figure 4: Estimation of VMT Mitigation Fee for Development Projects with Significant VMT Impact

V E H I C L E M I L E S T R A V E L E D R E D U C T I O N P R O G R A M A N D N E X U S S T U D Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 F R E S N O, C A L I F O R N I A

P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/09/25)

553247v1
34 i. Total VMT overage = VMT per capita overage from step 5 * Total project population which can be obtained from ABM
For office and non-residential projects:
i. Total VMT overage = VMT per employee overage from step 5* Total project employees which can also be obtained from ABM
B. For retail projects:
i. Total VMT overage = Regional roadway VMT with project – Regional roadway VMT without project (Roadway VMT from the model can be estimated as a product of roadway volumes and roadway segment length within Fresno County)

7. Multiply the total VMT overage by the unit VMT mitigation fee to obtain the total project VMT mitigation fees.

Sample Calculation of VMT Mitigation Fee
Estimations of project VMT mitigation fees were conducted for sample projects to illustrate the magnitude of VMT mitigation fees in comparison to the City’s other fees. Calculation of VMT mitigation fees for a sample single family residential project is shown below.

1. Obtain the number of dwelling units/households (project households = 200) from the project description/site plan.

2. Estimate project population (project population = 610). Fresno COG ABM will include this information during the model run.

3. Calculate project VMT per capita (project VMT per capita = 17.6) using the Fresno COG ABM model run given the project is a residential project.

4. For the sample project’s analysis, no VMT reduction from the City’s UDC was assumed as a conservative approach. However, that step needs to be incorporated as previously described to determine the project’s VMT overage.

5. Compare project VMT per capita (17.6) with the City’s VMT per capita threshold (14.0) to estimate project VMT metric overage (VMT per capita overage = 17.6 – 14.0 = 3.6)

6. Convert VMT per capita overage into total VMT overage by multiplying the VMT per capita overage with project population (total VMT overage: 3.6 * 610 = 2,196 VMT)

7. Estimate total VMT mitigation fees by multiplying unit VMT fees with total VMT overage (total project VMT mitigation fees: 2,196 * $295 = $647,809)
The total VMT mitigation fee for the sample single family residential project with 200 dwelling units is $647,809. The VMT mitigation fee was compared to other existing fees for a typical single family Statements by City of Fresno Officials During Fresno City Council Hearings Regarding the VMT Mitigation Fee Program

Fresno City Council Hearing — October 16, 2025
Video: Fresno City Council Meeting (Oct. 16, 2025)
Start of VMT Presentation: 2:05:00
2:13:08 - Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager: "The 67,429 number represents the number of miles Fresno residents drive daily that are beyond the City's VMT threshold." 2:50:30 - Jennifer Clark, Planning Director: "[O]nce the City determines that a VMT fee program is feasible - is a feasible mitigation measure - you cannot do your own EIR to wipe it out, to say it's not feasible, unless you can prove that it’s not feasible…" 2:51:59 - “It's not that the project cannot be self-mitigating, it is that we [the City] would not be able to do a separate EIR to say ‘Meh we don't want to do it.’" 2:52:08 - Georgeanne White, City Manager: Can no longer say mitigating for VMT is "not feasible" because “we [the City] have developed a program that says it is feasible [to pay the fee].”

Fresno City Council Hearing — November 6, 2025
Video: Fresno City Council Meeting (Nov. 6, 2025)
Start of VMT Presentation: 6:37:14
7:05:31 - Jennifer Clark, Planning Director: “The first thing that’s really important to note is that VMT calculation for a program on a city-wide basis is intended to evaluate and look at our entire VMT in excess of that threshold. So city-wide, our excess VMT is 67,000 VMT per capita per day. The $295 is based on the project over the five-year program divided by the 67,000 VMT per capita per day.”
7:06:14 -“Projects are assessed based on their overages over thresholds.” 7:06:14 - “So anything that is subject to CEQA - so a discretionary action of the CIty council, which is subject to CEQA - would require that we actually look at this.”

7:12:30 - Georgeanne White, City Manager: “The State wants to dictate what development looks like so that it's more dense, more compact, more uses to get people out of their cars… They meant quite clear - quite, you know, right out there in public - that if you want to reduce GHG in the state, and one of the main ways you do that is to get people out of their cars. And one of the ways you can get people out of their cars is to have multiple uses within a very confined space, or provide alternate modes of transportation other than cars - buses, trails, walking, etc.”
@ 7:28:30
Perea talking about when the VMT fee will apply, i.e., projects with vesting maps/vesting right or some kind of approval
7:28:46 - Jennifer Clark [In response to question from Councilmember Annalisa Perea about the time of when the VMT fee will apply]: “The program itself has several areas where it wouldn’t apply…” [lists vesting rights, development agreement]... “The Resolution that you would be considering today says that if you have already completed CEQA and it has been circulated for public review,m it [the VMT Fee Program] would not apply because you’ve already done your VMT assessment prior to the adoption of this program.”
7:29:25 - Councilmember Annalisa Perea: “So if a project is already in the pipeline, has been deemed complete, and is in the processing stage, we kind of have to put a pause on it, go back and kind of restart CEQA all over again?”
Jennifer Clark: If CEQA has not already been completed and publicly circulated, then t, VMT, would need to be reviewed under the lens of the program. [Perea asks about whether an amendment be made to exempt projects in the pipeline that have been deemed complete for processing]
7:30:12 - Jennifer Clark: I don't know… I would have to defer to the City Attorney’s Office. In discussions previously, that was not the preferred method. However, I don't know if that impacts the program substantially.”
7:32:11 - City Attorney: “Our recommendation is that we [CAO] would have to look into it and the item should be referred back to staff to take a look.” [Note: The Resolution was ultimately adopted without such an amendment.]
7:40:23 - Jennifer Clark: “This [the VMT Mitigation fee program] is a CEQA mitigation for an environmental impact. Once a lead agency like the City of Fresno determines there is a feasible mitigation program, it must be used.”
“[A] project could identify its own mitigation which, through substantial evidence in the record, shows it can mitigate all of the VMT. Typically, this is what the Urban Design Calculator is for, but maybe there’s something else the project come up with that isn’t in that. So they could do an EIR and propose alternate mitigation that the City Council would have to determine is sufficient and there is substantial evidence in the record for that.” “You can, through an EIR, say that a mitigation measure is infeasible. In this case it is a fee.

Therefore there would have to be a financial analysis showing the project and essentially opening up the books of the project - here is why it is infeasible.” 7:42:43 - Jennifer Clark [Responding to question from Councilmember Mike Karbassi about a statement of overriding consideration]: “In this case, it [the VMT fee] is a financial mitigation.

You’re paying a fee. So the evidence in the record would have to be a financial analysis of the project.”

Babak Naficy
890 Monterey Street, Suite H
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
[email protected]

May 19, 2026

Fresno City Council
c/o [email protected].

Fresno City Hall,
2600 Fresno Street,
Fresno, CA 93721

RE: May 21, 2026, Council Meeting Agenda item ID 26-428 Consideration of Costco Project

Honorable Councilmembers,
I submit these comments on behalf of Herndon-Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development (“the Coalition”) concerning the partially-recirculated 2026 Final EIR (“PRFEIR”) for the proposed Costco Commercial Center Project located at the northeast corner of Herndon Avenue and Riverside Drive (CEQA State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443).

As set forth below, it appears that despite the recirculation, the City’s analysis and review of this project remains unlawful and inadequate.

The proposed MDO Distribution Facility is not an allowable use in the General Commercial zone.

The Coalition has consistently maintained that the MDO could not be approved as a component of the Project under the current zoning because it does not meet the definition of an “accessory” use under the City Code. The Coalition has pointed out that the City could propose a General Plan/Zoning amendment to 1 accommodate the MDO because as a “warehouse,” the MDO is not allowed use in any commercially zoned district.

Under Fresno’s Development Code,
An accessory use shall be incidental, related, appropriate, and clearly subordinate to the principal use or building to which it relates; under the same regulations applied to the
principal use in any zoning district; and where the
accessory use does not alter the principal use. These regulations are found in the use regulations tables in Part II, Base and Overlay Districts, and may be subject to specific standards found in this article or within each district, as specified in the tables. Accessory uses and structures are also subject to the development and site regulations found in Article 20, General Site Regulations. (RJN, Exhibit A.)

The Final Recirculated EIR recognizes that as set forth in Section 15-2703, to be permissible as an “accessory,” the use must be “under the same regulation in any zoning district.” However, the PRFEIR claims because “Fresno Municipal Code Table 15-1202 specifically allows for accessory uses in all commercial zones including General Commercial (CG), it is not necessary for the MDO to be expressly identified as a stand-alone permitted or conditionally permitted use in the General Commercial district to be an accessory use to a permitted large-format retail use.” This analysis is incorrect. Under the Fresno Municipal Development Code (MDC), the MDO is considered an “industrial” use because it meets the general definition of “Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution” set forth MDC Section 15-6705, which is defined as a “[s]torage and distribution facilities without sales to the public on-site or direct public access ….” (Ibid.)
“Table 15-1202 prescribes the proposed land use regulations for Commercial Districts.” MDC 15-1202 (A). “The regulations for the districts are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review. "P" designates permitted uses. "C" designates uses that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. "(#)" numbers in 2 parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. "-" designates uses that are not permitted.” MDO is not an allowable accessory in a commercial district because it is not listed as a permitted use in Table 15-1202.

MDC 15-6705 defines Wholesaling and Distribution as follows:

Indoor storage and sale of goods to other firms for resale; storage of goods for transfer to retail outlets of the same firm; or storage and sale of materials and supplies used in production or operation, including janitorial and restaurant supplies. Wholesalers are primarily engaged in business-to-business sales, but may sell to individual consumers through mail or internet orders. They normally operate from a warehouse or office having little or no display of merchandise, and are not designed to solicit walk-in traffic. This classification does not include wholesale sale of building materials.

The Costco MDO meets the MDC’s definition of a wholesale and distribution business because (1) it includes 47,000 square feet of floor space dedicated to the storage of goods, (2) the purpose of the facility is “distribution” of goods (3) no direct onsite sale to the public is proposed or (4) no direct public access is proposed.

Accordingly, because the MDO walks like a wholesaling and distribution center, it is a warehouse distribution center.

Moreover, the list of industrial use classifications is meant to be illustrative, and not exhaustive. MDC 12-1202, Table 15-202, specifically limits “industrial” accessories in a General Commercial district to personal storage, or “substantially similar” uses. MDC 1202(E) specifically provides that “[u]se classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below are not permitted.” The reference to “substantially similar to the uses below” shows that the drafters of the MDC recognized that the list of types of subcategories within each category such as “warehouse, storage and distribution” is not exhaustive.

Ignoring the MDC, the response to comments insists that accessory uses” are specifically allowed uses in all the city’s commercial districts, including the General Commercial zone. This claim ignores the fact that the text of 15-2703 specifically limits accessory uses to those that are “under the same regulations applied to the 3 principal use in any zoning district” which is not the case here because the MDO fits the definition of a warehousing and distribution center which is not allowed in a commercial zone. According to MDC 15-1202, Table 15-202, only personal storage businesses can operate as an accessory use in a commercial district.

Accordingly, the MDO cannot be allowed as an accessory to the main Costco large-format retail warehouse store.

Nor can the MDO be allowed as a “fully integrated” component of the Project.

The PRFEIR response to comments spends a lot of breath explaining how lately Costco and other retailers have been attempting to integrate an MDO distribution facility into the main retail store for the sake of convenience and operational efficiency. Bet that as it may, it does not follow that the MDO is allowed under the Fresno MDC as a “fully integrated” component. The PRFEIR fails to cite any City regulation of MDC to justify its insistence that just because Costco is now attempting to bring the MDO under the same roof, Fresno can approve the MDO under its current zoning regulation.

The response to comments attempts to blur the difference between and MDO and a retail store, but the distinction exists in the City MDC and therefore cannot be ignored, even if the PRFEIR admits that the City may have already violated the limitations on the General Commercial zone by approving a Walmart Superstore that may have included an MDO element. The fact that the City may have violated the zoning ordinance once does not mean it is legally proper to do it again.

Moreover, the big difference between the operation of the MDO and a large retail store is that most of the items purchased delivered to residences by Costco delivery trucks are bought online. In this regard, the PRFEIR admits that “members can purchase and return items in-person at the retail warehouse, and members can view additional items either in person or at digital kiosks or online.” In what appears to be a self-serving justification for the MDO, the PRFEIR heaps praise on the MDO component of the Project to support an argument that having an MDO under the same roof as the retail store in a GC zone is actually good for the consumers. This debate, however, is irrelevant to the question of 4 whether the City can lawfully approve an MDO that meets the definition of warehouse in a commercial zone.

The EIR’s Analysis of Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Impacts is inadequate and violates CEQA.

The PRFEIR’s’ analysis of the Project’s impact on a changing climate fails as an informational document and its conclusion that the Project would not result in a significant impact on climate change is not supported by substantial evidence. Much of the analysis is not informative and merely attempts to understate the magnitude of the Project’s contribution to climate change.

Table 3.7-4 shows that of the Project’s almost the entire 22,428 MT CO2e/yr total GHG emissions are attributed to mobile sources. Yet, the PRFEIR claims the Project’s significant increase in VMT does not equate to a significant impact on climate change because there are some electric vehicles on the ground. This analysis flies in the face of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan which identifies VMT reduction as one of the three main priority strategies.

Attempting to obscure the Project’s massive quantity of GHG emissions, the PRFEIR tries to undermine its own analysis by offering reasons why the total emissions and net increase in VMTs should not be considered significant:
[T]he VMT analysis does not take into account the Costco trips “replacing” existing trips currently going to other retailers.

Furthermore, the project would allow customers to have
multiple needs served in one trip, including but not limited to:
eye exams, purchase of household goods and groceries, furniture store, appliance store, liquor store, car washes, and refueling at a gas station. Given these factors, it is possible that Costco members make fewer total retail shopping trips in a month or a year when they have the option of shopping at the proposed expanded Costco than they would make if they did not have a Costco nearby. The VMT modeling does not measure the benefit of one Costco trip potentially replacing multiple trips, which makes the quantified inventory conservative. (2026 FEIR p. 2-4)

5 Moreover, PRFEIR’s analysis of the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions is not supported by substantial evidence. This analysis is based on the argument that the Project is consistent with the Fresno COG RTP/SCS and the 2022 CARB scoping plan because the Project does not violate any regulations or break any laws. This is not the standard for consistency, however. To be consistent with the 2022 CARB scoping plan, the Project would need to include mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s projected VMTs. Yet the Project does not include any such measure. In fact, the Project makes no effort to reduce its VMTs or otherwise meaningfully reduce its GHG emissions.

Imposing a VMT Mitigation Fee would reduce the significance of the Project’s VMTs The original EIR admitted that the Project’s transportation impact is significant, but claimed that no feasible mitigation measure existed to reduce the significance of that impact. However, now that the City has developed a VMT mitigation fee program the City apparently is reluctant to require Costco to mitigate the Project’s significant transportation impact by participating in that program.

The response to comments claims the VMT reduction program does not apply to this Project because the ordinance was written in such a way that does not apply to projects whose environmental review was published and available for review prior to the adoption by the City Council of the VMT reduction program. However, the release of the current PRFEIR so close to the effective date of the VMT Reduction Program appears to have been carefully planned to provide the City with a justification not to require Costco to mitigate its substantial impact on transportation.

Sincerely,

Babak Naficy
6 May 19, 2026