Costco Commercial Center Project
Conditional Use Permit Application No. P21-01959
Plan Amendment and Rezone Application No. P21-01960
Conditional Use Permit Application No. P21-03251
Planned Development Permit Application No. P21-03252
7120 North Riverside Drive Fresno, CA 93722
APN: 503-020-12
Exhibit E-2 – 2026 Final Environmental Impact Report
2026 Final Environmental Impact
Report
Fresno Costco
Commercial Center
Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443
Prepared for:
P
lanning and Development Department
May 2026
2026 F
inal Environmental Impact Report
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, California 93721
Contact:
Steven Martinez
Planner
559.621.8047
With assistance from:
Ascent, DBA Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
May 2026
20210052.01
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... II 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1
1.1 Major Conclusions of the Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of this EIR .......................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Organization of the Final EIR ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2-1
2.1 List of Commenters on the PR-DEIR ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Comments and Responses ............................................................................................................................................ 2-2
Tables
Table 2-1 List of Commenters ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
City of Fresno
ii Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACC Advanced Clean Cars
ACF Advanced Clean Fleets
ACT Advanced Clean Trucks
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CG General Commercial
cz conditions of zoning
DDC Direct Distribution Center
GHG greenhouse gas
MDO Market Delivery Operation
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PR-DEIR partially recirculated draft environmental impact report project the Costco Commercial Center
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District UGM Urban Growth Management
ZEV zero-emission vehicle
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This final environmental impact report (2026 Final EIR) has been prepared by the City of Fresno, as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15132). This 2026 Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the partially recirculated draft environmental impact report (PR-DEIR) for the Costco Commercial Center (project) proposed to be located at West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive. The PR-DEIR is intended to comply with the Fresno County Superior Court’s (Court’s) ruling issued in July 2025 in Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 24CECG02208, Herndon - Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development v. City of Fresno et al. (Lawsuit) and the requirements of CEQA. The Lawsuit challenged the analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change and project alternatives. The alternatives analysis was upheld by the Court and Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” has been revised and recirculated.
Prior to the Lawsuit, the City prepared a DEIR for the project and circulated it for public comment through August 28, 2023 (referred to as the 2023 DEIR). The City provided responses to all comments received and published the 2024 Final EIR on February 9, 2024 (referred to as the 2024 Final EIR). These documents are referred to herein as the 2024 EIR. The City Council certified the 2024 EIR and approved the project on April 18, 2024.
1.1 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The 2024 EIR identified the following significant impacts related to the project. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts were identified in the PR-DEIR.
Impact 3.11-1: Generation of a substantial temporary increase of construction noise levels in excess of applicable standards
Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
Impact 3.13-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment) Impact 4-13: Cumulative Transportation Impacts
1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
This 2026 Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the PR -DEIR, which are reproduced in this document. This 2026 Final EIR will be used to support the City’s decision regarding whether to approve the Costco Commercial Center project. The EIR that the City will consider certifying consists of the following elements:
1. The 2024 EIR certified by the City Council on April 18, 2024 without Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change”;
2. The PR-DEIR, which includes a new, substitute Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” and which alters the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change entry in Table ES- 1 of the Executive Summary and the cumulative impact discussion; and
3. The comments submitted on this PR-DEIR during the public comment period and the responses to those comments contained in this 2026 Final EIR.
This 2026 Final EIR will also be used by CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project.
Introduction
City of Fresno
1-2 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
Responsible, trustee, and interested agencies may include:
State Water Resource Control Board,
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This 2026 Final EIR is organized as follows:
Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of this 2026 Final EIR, summarizes the Costco Commercial Center project and the major conclusions of the 2024 EIR, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of this 2026 Final EIR. Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the PR-DEIR during the public review period, copies of the comment letters received, and responses to the comments.
There have been no changes to the project since release of the PR-DEIR and no revisions, corrections, or additions to the analysis in the PR-DEIR are provided in this 2026 Final EIR.
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-1
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The City of Fresno solicited comments from responsible agencies, trustee agencies, public agencies, organizations, and members of the public regarding the PR-DEIR. This chapter contains comment letters received during the public review period for the PR-DEIR, which concluded on January 5, 2026. The City requested that comments were limited to the new material presented in the PR-DEIR, which consists of Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change” (and corresponding changes to the cumulative discussion and Executive Summary). Responses to comments on the previously circulated analyses are included in the 2024 EIR and incorporated herein by reference.
2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE PR-DEIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the alphanumerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.
Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date
AGENCIES
A1 Fresno Irrigation District December 15, 2025
A2 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District December 18, 2025
ORGANIZATIONS
O1 Pacific Gas & Electric November 28, 2025
O2 Pacific Gas & Electric December 8, 2025
O3 Herndon-Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development January 5, 2026
INDIVIDUALS
I1 Janet Bergman November 21, 2025
I2 Lorraine Arrington November 21, 2025
I3 Rangel Melendez November 21, 2025
I4 Michael Van November 22, 2025
I5 Tom Ames November 29, 2025
I6 Janet Bergman January 2, 2026
I7 Robert Mason January 5, 2026
For ease of review, individual comments addressing separate subjects within each letter are labeled based on the letter’s numeric designation and comment number (e.g., the first comment in the first letter is Comment A1 -1). The text of the comments has been provided, followed by a response. The text of the comment letters below are reproduced exactly as they were submitted. Spelling, grammatical, and other errors in the original letters have not been corrected. Note that the preface language of the letters is often excluded (where the text consists of salutations and brief descriptions of the commenting organization).
In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses are provided to address comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the PR-DEIR. Where comments are not related to the PR-DEIR or the analysis of environmental impacts, response is not required (Public Resources Code Section 21091[d]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088[c], 15204[a]). All comments are acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-2 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2.2.1 Agencies
Letter A1 Fresno Irrigation District
Laurence Kimura, Chief Engineer
December 15, 2025
Comment A1-1
The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) has reviewed the Notice of Availability of Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Costco Commercial Center, APN: 503-020-12. FID has the following comments:
1. FID previously reviewed and commented on the subject property on September 24, 2021, as Conditional Use Permit Application No. P21 -01959. Those comments and conditions still apply, and a copy has been attached for your reference.
Response A1-1
The City acknowledges that Fresno Irrigation District does not have comments on the PR -DEIR.
The comment indicates that Fresno Irrigation District previously reviewed the project in 2021 and does not have additional comments. The 2021 comment indicates that the irrigation district does not own, operate, or maintain any facilities on the project site. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document.
Letter A2 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Gary Chapman, Engineering Technician III
December 18, 2025
Comment A2-1
The District has no comments for the partially recirculated draft environmental impact report, State Clearing House #2021100443.
Response A2-1
The City acknowledges that Fresno Metropolitan Flood District does not have comments on the PR -DEIR.
2.2.2 Organizations
Letter O1 Pacific Gas & Electric
Plan Review Team
November 28, 2025
Comment O1-1
Thank you for submitting the Costco Commercial Center project plans. The PG&E Plan Review Team is currently reviewing the information provided. If the project has the potential to interfere with PG&E’s facilities, we will provide project-specific comments in response.
Attached, you will find general guidelines regarding work near PG&E facilities and land rights. Please ensure compliance with these requirements when conducting work in proximity to PG&E’s infrastructure.
Please note that this email and its attachment do not constitute PG&E’s consent to utilize any portion of PG&E’s land rights for purposes not previously granted. If there are any modifications to your design, we kindly request that you resubmit the revised plans to the email address listed below to ensure accurate review and assessment.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-3
Should you have any questions regarding our review process or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at
[email protected].
Thank you for your cooperation. We appreciate the opportunity to assist.
Response O1-1
The comment does not pertain to the material in the PR-DEIR and no response is required.
Letter O2 Pacific Gas & Electric
Morgan Buno, Land Agent
December 8, 2025
Comment O2-1
PG&E does not have any comments to the EIR. Please reference attached previously issued letters regarding the Costco development.
Response O2-1
The City acknowledges that PG&E does not have comments on the PR-DEIR.
Letter O3 Herndon-Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development
Daniel Brannick
January 5, 2026
Comment O3-1
1. The PR-DEIR does not resolve the land use and zoning inconsistency stemming from the project’s proposal to construct the “MDO facility” within a zone district (General Commercial) that does not allow for it.
The entitlements associated with the proposed Costco project include a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) and a Rezone since the project site’s existing Community Commercial (“CC”) zoning designation does not allow for development of the project as proposed. However, a major component of the proposed project – the “Market Delivery Operation (MDO) facility” (which is basically a euphemism for a last-mile logistics facility) – is not allowed either by-right or via CUP under the proposed General Plan and Zoning designation of General Commercial (“CG”).
Response O3-1
As an initial matter, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2), the City requested that comments on the PR-EIR be limited to the parts of the 2024 EIR that were recirculated. The same section of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that City need only respond to comments that relate to the part of the 2024 EIR that was revised and recirculated; it need not respond to comments on other parts of the report. Here, the PR -DEIR recirculated Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.” This comment does not pertain to the contents of the PR-DEIR, nor does it identify any environmental issues relevant to the City’s compliance with CEQA. Therefore, CEQA does not require a response.
Although not required to comply with CEQA, responses on this topic are provided for informational purposes. The comment incorrectly states that the Market Delivery Operation (MDO) space within the retail warehouse i s not allowed in the proposed general plan and zoning districts. As explained below in Response O3-2, the entire project— consisting of the retail warehouse (inclusive of the MDO space), the fuel facility, and the car wash —is consistent with the proposed General Commercial (CG) general plan land use designation and General Commercial/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning (CG/UGM/cz) zoning designation. Should the City approve the proposed land use designations, the project would be consistent with the applicable regulations.
Comment O3-2
To recap what was presented in previous comments, the last-mile logistics facility (i.e., the MDO) is a fundamentally distinct type of use from “Large-Format Retail” as defined and contemplated in the Development Code and the Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-4 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
General Plan. The proposed MDO facility falls under the definition of what the Development Code defines as a type of “Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution” use (hereafter abbreviated as “WSD”), which is defined in Section 15 - 6705 of the Development Code. It is also noteworthy that WSD uses are listed under the “Industrial Use Classifications” in 15-6705 rather than “Commercial Use Classifications” in 15-6704. Not only is the MDO legally distinct from the large-format retail use, the MDO cannot be allowed as an Accessory Use to the primary Large - Format Retail use because WSD uses (except personal storage) are not allowed in any of the Commercial zone districts.
Response O3-2
The comment incorrectly characterizes the Fresno Municipal Code and misapplies the Code’s provisions to the project. Although this is not a CEQA matter, the City notes that large-format retail uses are allowed under the CG General Plan land use designation and the CG zoning designation. As explained below, the retail warehouse — inclusive of the MDO space—is consistent with the definition of large-format retail. Further, even if the MDO space were considered a separate use from the retail warehouse, it would be allowed as an accessory use.
Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-6704 defines “large-format retail” as “Retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) that sell merchandise and bulk goods for individual consumption, including membership warehouse clubs.” The project includes an approximately 219,216 square foot retail warehouse building that is dedicated to a membership-based direct-to-consumer retail operation. The Municipal Code expressly permits membership warehouse clubs, which typically include both sales floors accessible to the public and areas accessible only to employees. Here, the retail warehouse would sell merchandise and bulk goods for individual consumption from a sales floor open to members. In addition, the retail warehouse would include areas accessible only to employees as is typical of large-format retail, such as loading and storage areas, cooking facilities, and approximately 47,000 square feet of MDO space to manage customer deliveries.
Today, large-scale retail uses and grocery stores commonly incorporate both opportunities for in -person shopping and delivery to customers, as well as designated areas for storage of orders for delivery and curbside pickup. Costco’s approach to this shopping phenomenon is the MDO space incorporated into a retail warehouse. Although a relatively new component of Costco’s typical retail warehouse buildings, it is being introduced nationwide, with eight new retail warehouses developed to include MDO space as of 2024. Seven of those eight retail warehouses that include MDO space in other jurisdictions are located in a commercial, rather than an industrial, zone . 1 The MDO element of the retail warehouse facilitates efficient delivery to members of big and bulky items, including furniture, major appliances, patio furniture, televisions, fitness equipment, mattresses, and grills. The MDO space within the retail warehouse would function much like the storage element of a typical home improvement or furniture store; purchased items would be loaded onto small box trucks from the MDO space within the retail warehouse for delivery to members’ homes, just as occurs with orders placed with other large format retailers throughout Fresno.
For example, the City has previously approved a Walmart Supercenter 2 in the CG zone, which demonstrates that big
box general commercial uses with integrated delivery services—as proposed by Costco here —are consistent with the General Commercial land use designation. Likewise, the City has approved other big -box commercial retailers with storage and delivery capabilities—such as Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Lowes, and Home Depot—in other comparable commercial zoning districts throughout the city.
Large items (such as washers and dryers or couches) can be displayed on the sales floor, better serving members by providing in-person visibility for goods that would otherwise only be available online (see image directly below).
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. Following a purchase, members receive delivery of those items that flow through from the MDO space in as little as 2 days, or members can take immediate delivery of in-stock items on a “cash and carry basis” (i.e., members pay on site and self-transport items). For example, a member could purchase a
1 Holliday, Pari. Real Estate Development Director. Costco, Irvine, CA. November 15, 2023—Letter to Jose Valenzuela of City of Fresno Current Planning regarding the elements of the proposed Costco Commercial Center. 2 W almart Supercenter offers free delivery to Walmart+ members managed through the Superstore facility. See h
ttps://www.walmart.com/store/1815-fresno-ca.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-5
large television from the sales floor or place an online order (where there is a greater range of available inventory) with a Costco sales associate and, if the MDO has the ordered item in inventory, the member could receive the purchased television immediately. In all cases, delivery and returns are managed on location from within the retail warehouse.
Moreover, the MDO and the sales floor share employees. For example, an employee hired to load delivery vehicles with goods taken from the MDO in the morning may be redeployed to the sales floor or stocking areas for the duration of their shift. The sales floor and MDO are also fully physically integrated within one contiguous building, with a single lighting, HVAC, security, and utility system, as well as employee facilities like restrooms, breakrooms, quiet rooms, and meeting rooms. Equipment would be shared throughout the entire warehouse building, including forklifts, compactors, cardboard balers, and time clocks. The retail warehouse would also have a common delivery receiving area for both the sales floor and the MDO space. The entirety of the retail warehouse, inclusive of the MDO, is a retail establishment that is over 80,000 square feet and sells merchandise and bulk goods for individual consumption and, therefore, fits within the definition of large-format retail. Accordingly, the retail warehouse, inclusive of the MDO, is permitted within the General Commercial land use designation.
In addition, even if the overall store were not an integrated and permitted large- format retail use, the MDO would otherwise be classified as an accessory use to the remainder of the retail warehouse. Under Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-6802, an “accessory use” is a “use that is customarily associated with, and is incidental and subordinate to, the primary use and located on the same parcel as the primary use.” Accessory uses are further regulated in Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2703, which provides that “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.” Here, the MDO space satisfies each of the criteria to be classified as an accessory use to the retail warehouse building that is permitted as a large-format retail use. As described above, the MDO space would be used to receive large and bulky items that cannot practically be kept on the sales floor before those items would be delivered to members’ homes after purchase. This type of storage and delivery use is customarily associated with large -format retailers and is not substantially different from the storage and delivery options available at WalMart, Best Buy, Lowes, and other retailers located in the CG zone.
In addition, the MDO space is incidental and subordinate to the main retail warehouse. The vast majority of the retail warehouse would be dedicated to the sales floor open to the public; the MDO space would constitute only approximately 20 percent of the retail warehouse building’s area, making it subordinate to the other elements of the retail warehouse in terms of scale. Likewise, in terms of function, the MDO space would support retail operations in the retail warehouse, with the retail warehouse providing members in-person visibility for goods that would otherwise only be available online, along with in-person purchasing and return opportunities. For instance, shoppers could see a washer/dryer set in person or sit on a couch in order to decide whether to order the item for delivery. Moreover, the addition of the MDO space would not change the nature or character of the retail warehouse’s large -format retail use; the retail warehouse is designed to share mechanical systems, loading areas, and staff between the sales floor and the MDO space, meaning that the MDO space does not alter the principal use of the retail warehouse. In
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-6 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
practice, the MDO space is no different than the other portions of the retail warehouse that are inaccessible to the public, such as the meat preparation area, the pharmacy, the bakery, and other storage and shipping areas. Each of these functions, including the MDO space, are subordinate to, and serve the purpose of, the retail warehouse as a large-format retail use.
Finally, the MDO space would be subject to the same regulations applied to the principal large -format retail use.
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. The Municipal Code permits any use in the CG zone—regardless of whether it is expressly listed as permitted or conditionally permitted—as an accessory use, provided that the use meets the Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2703 definition of an accessory use (i.e., must be “incidental, related, appropriate, and clearly subordinate” to the principal uses). For the reasons set forth above, the MDO space satisfies the Municipal Code’s criteria to be allowed as an accessory use to the permitted large-format retail use.
The assertion that a stand-alone MDO could be allowed within industrial use designations is irrelevant because this is not what the project proposes. The project includes the MDO as a fully integrated component of the overall permitted large-format retail use. Although Costco does operate stand-alone facilities in other locations, no stand- alone industrial uses are proposed in connection with the project. For example, Costco maintains a Direct Distribution Center (DDC) in the City of Stockton, which exists for the sole purpose of warehousing and distributing large goods to the MDOs for transport to members’ homes.
3 The DDC handles substantially more truck trips and employs a greater number of workers than the MDO component of the proposed project here. It functions without any public- facing retail component and would not be permitted in Fresno’s CG zone. However, this use is distinct from the MDO component of the proposed Costco warehouse.
As described above, the retail warehouse, inclusive of the MDO, is permitted within the General Commercial land use designation. Further, if the MDO were viewed separately from the retail warehouse’s use, the MDO would be allowed as an accessory use within the project for the reasons detailed above.
Comment O3-3
This was previously demonstrated/contextualized by pointing to how the project’s Car Wash component was treated for this project (i.e., the City determined that it required a GPA and rezone and could not simply come in under the current zoning as either an Accessory Use or as being “fully integrated” with a larger allowable use.) Response O3-3
The comment addresses planning considerations outside the scope of CEQA. It attempts to draw an analogy between the car wash and the retail warehouse’s MDO space. This comparison is unavailing.
The project site’s existing Community Commercial (CC) zoning designation permits large-format retail uses and service stations with approval of a conditional use permit; however, automobile/vehicle washing uses are not permitted within this zone. Unlike the fully integrated MDO space, the proposed car wash i s a stand-alone structure proposed on a separate parcel from the other uses on the project site; it is neither part of the large format retail use or the fuel facility use. Under the City of Fresno Municipal Code, an accessory use or an accessory building must be located on the same parcel as the principally permitted use. Because the car wash is proposed on its own parcel, it cannot meet the Code’s definition of an accessory use or building. Therefore, the car wash would be inconsistent with the CC zone. Accordingly, the proposed rezoning is necessary to permit the development of the car wash. By contrast, the MDO space that is fully integrated into the retail warehouse would be an allowable use in the CG designation (to which the site would be rezoned) and, if that were not the case, would meet the Municipal Code’s definition of an accessory use, and no further rezoning would be required for the City to approve the project as proposed.
3 Costco is currently constructing within the City of Tracy a new, roughly 1,000,000 square foot Direct Distribution Center to receive, store and distribute large items to the MDOs. Once that facility opens, Costco expects to discontinue use of the leased Stockton facility.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-7
Comment O3-4
The PR-DEIR does not include any new information or findings regarding the issue of land use and zoning consistency. There is also no information in the PR-DEIR indicating that the project’s GPA and rezoning entitlements have been revised to a different land use or zoning designation (such as “IL” Light Industrial zoning, which as mentioned in previous comments would appear to allow for development of the proposed project). In the time since the EIR was certified (and later invalidated and decertified), no text amendments or other regulatory changes have occurred which would allow for development of the project in the Commercial General zone district.
Response O3-4
See Response O3-1. As explained above, the PR-DEIR did not recirculate the land use section, and the comment fails to identify any physical environmental impacts relevant for the purposes of CEQA. Recirculation of the l and use section was not required because the court did not identify any deficiencies with the evaluation of land use in the 2024 EIR and there have not been substantial changes in the proposal or the conditions and regulations under which the project would occur. The project continues to propose a CG General Plan land use designation and a CG/UGM/cz zoning designation. Should the City approve the proposed land use designations, the project would be consistent with the applicable regulations. In summary, the PR-DEIR does not include any new information or findings regarding the issue of land use and zoning consistency because there is no new information to disclose.
The comment appears to take the position that the entirety of the project would only be permissible if the project site were rezoned to an industrial use, such as the Light Industrial zone. This designation would enable manufacturing uses, commercial laundries and dry cleaning plants, printing and engraving factories, electronic manufacturing, furniture manufacturing, and other comparable uses. This change would have the potential for greater disruption and long-term character changes in the area that would be far more severe than allowing the project to proceed as a large-format retail use on property that has long been designated for commercial development.
Comment O3-5
To reiterate why this inconsistency matters: The position being taken for this project would essentially rewrite the City’s Development Code to allow light industrial uses like last-mile logistics facilities to be developed in areas where they are not currently permitted nor were they ever contemplated – particularly in neighborhoods near sensitive receptors. This de facto Development Code revision could be applied not only to Commercial General zone districts but also to Community Commercial zone districts. The comments and rationale expressed by the City (or expressed by the project applicant and co-signed by the City) to proceed with the land use and zoning as proposed would effectively allow for uses like last-mile logistics facilities to be developed on places that have been planned for (or are already developed with) community-scale development. If it sounds far-fetched that the City would allow this to happen, consider the City’s efforts to roll back (if not dismantle) land use designations and poli cies codified in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan in order to accommodate industrial landlords and operators whose properties have historically had a substantial and disparate adverse impact on residents of southwest Fresno. The City has shown it is very willing to overrun its own public participation processes and community well-being when it comes to accommodating industrial uses, and that makes the risks of adverse land use precedent stemming from this project all the more plausible and palpable.
Response O3-5
As explained in Response O3-2, the MDO space within the retail warehouse would function much like the storage element of a typical home improvement or furniture store; purchased items would be loaded onto small box trucks from the MDO space within the retail warehouse for delivery to members’ homes, just as occurs with orders p laced with retailers such as Best Buy, Lowes, Home Depot, and other large-format retailers that operate throughout the City’s various commercial zones. The MDO portion of the project would operate during limited business hours, with only one set of deliveries per day.
Nothing in the City’s determination implies that a standalone MDO would be allowed in a commercial zone. Moreover, the project does not propose a change to the City’s development code, and a decision on this project would not change the permissible uses within the City’s commercial designations. It is entirely speculative to claim that the Costco project would set a precedent for allowing industrial use in commercial zones. The land use designation changes Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-8 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
proposed in the updated Southwest Fresno Specific Plan were initiated by the City, following a complete and thorough planning process; changes to allowed uses did not result from approval of unrelated projects.
Under the specific facts here—where the MDO is proposed as less than 20 percent of the entire retail warehouse, where the retail warehouse is open to the public and operates as a large-format retail store, where the retail sales floor and the MDO are functionally and physically interrelated, and where someone can make in -person purchases for goods in the MDO component—the MDO component is permitted as part of the allowed large-format retail use, or in the alternative, as an accessory to the permitted use.
Comment O3-6
Additionally, included at the end of this comment letter are images showing the “M -3” industrial land use designation of the existing Costco facility (located in unincorporated Fresno County at 3688 E. Central Ave) plus images of the facility itself showing the visibly industrial nature of the MDO facility.
S
creencap of Fresno County GIS showing the M-3 Heavy Industrial Zoning of the existing Costco MDO facility located at 3688 N. Malaga Ave., Fresno, CA 93725
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-9
I
mage of existing Costco Logistics Merchandise Pick-Up Facility (front/south side)
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-10 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
I
mage of entryway area of existing Costco Logistics Merchandise Pick-Up Facility
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-11
I
mage of existing Costco Logistics Merchandise Pick-Up Facility (west side with fencing and loading docks) Response O3-6
The images attached to the comment show a stand-alone Costco delivery facility. As illustrated in the comment, the existing facility is consistent with the zoning of the site on which it is located. One of the purposes of zoning designations is to establish regulations that contribute to visual consistency in terms of style and scale. The fact that the exterior of an existing facility located in an industrial zone has a “visibly industrial nature” is not relevant to the evaluation of the proposed project. The project does not propose such a facility, and because the pictured facility is not integrated into a large format retail use that is open to the public, its location in a particular zone has no bearing on whether the proposed project is consistent with the CG zoning designation. The proposed MDO would be integrated into a warehouse building that is visually consistent with the proposed zoning of the site.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-12 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
Comment O3-7
2. The updated Greenhouse Gas Emissions section presented in the PR-DEIR remains informationally inadequate and non-compliant with CEQA
As brief context, in August 2024, the Fifth District Court of Appeal invalidated the City of Fresno’s General Plan PEIR and the City’s 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP) Update. In July 2025, the Fresno County Superior Court invalidated the Costco Commercial Center Project EIR and approvals associated with the project (i.e., the subject project and the EIR which was certified for it). As a consequence of those court rulings, the City reverted back to its prior 2014 GHGRP, and the environmental analysis for the subject Costco project was revised to remove references to the now-invalid 2021 GHGRP.
Response O3-7
The comment summarizes the procedural and legal history preceding the preparation and release of the PR -DEIR.
The comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the project, and CEQA requires no further response.
Comment O3-8
The PR-DEIR is again inadequate. The PR-DEIR fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Project’s impact on climate change. The PR-DEIR again presents a misleading analysis of the project’s impacts on climate change which undermines its credibility and informational value. The PR-DEIR’s analysis of project impacts on climate change again violates CEQA’s informational mandate. The PR-DEIR again violates CEQA by ignoring substantial evidence that its impact on climate change would be significant and unavoidable.
Response O3-8
The comment asserts that PR-DEIR’s analysis is “inadequate” and “misleading.” The comment claims that the PR -DEIR ignores substantial evidence that the project’s impact on climate change is significant and unavoidable. These assertions serve as preface to the remainder of the objections to the information included in the PR -DEIR, each of which are specifically responded to below.
In general, the assertions are incorrect because the PR-DEIR’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence (as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) and comply with CEQA. As explained in Section 3.7.4 of the PR- DEIR, the City estimated project-generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in accordance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District-recommended methodologies; then, using its discretion, the City identified thresholds of significance that would (1) be most relevant to assessing the GHG emissions and climate change impacts associated with construction and operation of the project; and (2) make no reference to the City’s 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP) Update, which is no longer adopted or in effect. The comment asserts that the PR-DEIR “ignores” substantial evidence of a purported impact on climate change but the comment fails 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.
Comment O3-9
Previously, the EIR presented quantitative GHG emissions estimates and compared them against a quantitative threshold. This comparison also involved overly generous assumptions about GHG emissions reductions from future regulatory changes (notably the California EV mandate, which has been effectively rolled back). In the PR -DEIR, the project’s estimated GHG emissions are quantified, and then the analysis shifts to a qualitative evaluation of plans, policies, and regulations.
Response O3-9
The comment describes the 2024 EIR’s approach to analyzing the project’s GHG emissions and claims, without support, that the 2024 EIR’s quantified GHG emissions included “overly generous assumptions.” It should be noted that in its July 17, 2025, Order after Hearing, the Fresno Superior Court found that, “[t]he modeling presented within the [2024] EIR is substantial evidence of the anticipated emissions of the Project.” Accordingly, there is no basis to the claim that the GHG emissions inventory included “overly generous” assumptions. The analysis utilizes EMFAC2021 for Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-13
quantifying mobile emissions, which accounts for adopted regulatory programs such as Assembly Bill 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”), Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program, and the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program.
Public Law 119-15, enacted on June 12, 2025, is a House joint resolution that disapproves the Clean Air Act waiver granted by USEPA for the ACT Regulation, which is a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate for truck manufacturers.4 While EMFAC2021 incorporates reductions associated with the ACT regulation, this analysis assumes that all project-related delivery trucks are diesel-fueled. Hence, Public Law 119-15’s disapproval of California’s Clean Air Act waiver for ACT regulation does not impact this analysis.
Public Law 119-16, enacted on June 12, 2025, is a House joint resolution that disapproves the Clean Air Act waiver granted by USEPA for the ACC II regulation, which is a ZEV sales mandate for passenger vehicle manufacturers. 5 Additionally, on January 13, 2025, the California Air Resources Board withdrew its waiver request for the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation, which requires fleet owners to reduce emissions by increasing the use of zero emissions trucks in their fleets by replacing existing diesel/gasoline trucks. 6 EMFAC2021 does not incorporate the benefits of the ACC II and ACF regulations; therefore, GHG reductions associated with these regulations are not included in this analysis.
For disclosure purposes, the PR-DEIR continues to include a quantified inventory of the project’s GHG emissions during operation and construction, which is consistent with the 2024 EIR. However, following the recission of its 2021 GHGRP, the City no longer has a quantitative threshold to evaluate the significance of GHG emissions. Accordingly, for Threshold 1, the PR-DEIR evaluates the significance of the project’s GHG emissions based on whether the project would conflict with or impede the ability of the State to meet its GHG reduction goals. For Threshold 2, the PR-DEIR evaluates whether the project would conflict with applicable plans related to GHG emissions at the state, regional, and local levels. This qualitative approach is consistent with the State Supreme Court’s direction of how to evaluate GHG impacts in jurisdictions without a qualified climate action plan or numerical significance thresholds as expressed in the Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (2015). Because the City no longer has a qualified climate action plan, and neither the City nor the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District have adopted numerical thresholds of significance, the City used its discretion to develop qualitative thresholds of significance and evaluate the project under this framework.
Comment O3-10
It should be mentioned that merely demonstrating consistency with the City’s 2014 GHGRP is not sufficient to demonstrate consistency with subsequent applicable State-level plans concerning GHG emissions. CEQA requires public agencies to ensure their analyses “stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. SANDAG, 3 Cal.5th at p. 504.) An agency’s approach that is legally adequate at one point in time may not “necessarily be sufficient going forward.” (Ibid.) Notably, in the time since the 2014 GHGRP was adopted, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its 2022 Scoping Plan, which imposes significant changes in modeling and reductions that the 2014 GHGRP does not adequately account for.
To be fair, the PR-DEIR looks at several applicable plans, policies, and regulations beyond the 2014 GHGRP which pertain to achieving reductions in GHG emissions. However, the PR-DEIR utilizes the same problematic tactic as in the earlier DEIR of pointing to numerous different policy items and purportedly showing how the project would not conflict with them.
4 United States Code. 2025. Public Law 119-15 - Joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision". Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-119publ15. Accessed: October 2025. 5 United States Code. 2025. Public Law 119-16 - Joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision". Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-119publ16. Accessed: October 2025. 6 California Air Resources Board. 2025. Withdrawal of California’s Request for a Waiver, Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(b), and Request for Authorization, Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e)(2), for the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0589.
January 13. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/ca-acf-carb-withdrawal-ltr-2025-1-13.pdf. Accessed: October 2025.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-14 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
Response O3-10
The comment asserts that “merely demonstrating consistency with the City’s 2014 GHGRP is not sufficient” analysis, incorrectly implying that this comparison is the only analysis included in the PR -DEIR. The City agrees with the comment to the extent that it suggests the PR-DEIR should rely on more than the 2014 GHGRP to evaluate the project’s GHG impacts, which is precisely the approach taken in the PR-DEIR. Although the City’s 2014 GHGRP is its most current and only GHGRP in effect, the City’s 2014 GHGRP relies on reduction targets that are now out of date.
Therefore, the City determined that it is not prudent to rely solely on the currently effective 2014 GHGRP for CEQA streamlining of GHG emissions analysis for individual development projects.
Accordingly, the PR-DEIR appropriately analyzes the project’s GHG emissions as compared with the policies and requirements of the State of California’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Fresno Council of Government’s (COG’s) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and Fresno COG’s Priority Climate Action Plan, as well as the policies of the 2014 GHGRP and the pertinent policies of the Fresno General Plan to comprehensively determine whether the project’s emissions would (1) have a significant impact on the environment or (2) conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.
To analyze the first threshold of significance, the PR-DEIR quantifies the project’s GHG emissions during operation and construction, and evaluates whether the project would conflict with or impede the ability of the State to meet its GHG reduction goals, consistent with the State Supreme Court’s ruling in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (2015). To analyze the second threshold of significance, the PR-DEIR evaluates whether the project would conflict with applicable plans related to GHG emissions at the state, regional, and local levels.
The comment characterizes the City’s analysis of applicable policies as “problematic,” but provides no support identifying what alleged problem exists. Although the comment is critical of the PR -DEIR’s analysis comparing the project to applicable plans and the findings of consistency presented therein, the comment does not identify any purported plan inconsistencies, nor does the comment dispute that the PR-DEIR’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence in support of its conclusions. Moreover, the comment ignores the thresholds of significance in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which expressly identifies conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations as an appropriate threshold to apply to GHG analysis. The City’s decision to follow this guid ance is consistent with CEQA’s direction and within its discretion as the lead agency.
Comment O3-11
There are at least two problems here: First, the presentation implicitly suggests that all policies/impacts are created equal or are of equal weight when they are not.
Response O3-11
The comment incorrectly asserts that the PR-DEIR suggests that all policies and impacts are to be given equal weight.
Nowhere does the PR-DEIR include language to this effect. Rather, it supports the conclusion that on balance, weighing competing interests with the applicable plans and policies, the project is consistent with the purpose of applicable plans and policies. 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. (Solano County Orderly Growth Committee v. City of Fairfield (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1043 quoting San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678) The analysis included in the PR-DEIR demonstrates that the project exceeds this standard, because it does not conflict with any applicable policy in the 2022 Scoping Plan Priority GHG Reduction Strategy (PR-DEIR Table 3.7-5), the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS (PR-DEIR Table 3.7-6), the Fresno COG Priority Action Plan (PR-DEIR Table 3.7-7), or the 2014 GHGRP (PR-DEIR Table 3.7-8).
This conclusion includes the project’s consistency with policies related to reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As explained in PR-DEIR Table 3.7-5, the project would implement neighborhood design improvements and transportation network modifications; increase development density in a developed, urban area; encourage employee trip reduction; and provide customers with the opportunity to combine multiple retail trips into a single, Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-15
consolidated destination. Each of these project attributes contribute to the state’s VMT reduction goals, notwithstanding the project’s modeled net VMT increase.
Accordingly, because the project would not conflict with applicable plans and policies, the project would not impede the state’s goals with respect to climate change and GHG emissions reduction.
Comment O3-12
Second, this approach avoids addressing the fact that the project will result in a massive increase in VMT – which is far and away the biggest contribution to GHG emissions both locally and statewide. The evidence presented in the PR-DEIR is not substantial enough to overcome the fundamental policy conflict that exists due to the project’s excessively high level of VMT.
Response O3-12
The comment incorrectly asserts that the PR-DEIR avoids addressing the fact that the project will result in an increase in VMT. As an initial matter, the project’s VMT impacts are addressed in Section 3.13 , “Transportation and Circulation,” of the 2024 EIR. Due to the project’s modeled VMT increase, the 2024 EIR discloses that even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact. This conclusion has not changed, and if the City decides to re-approve the project, CEQA requires the adoption of findings and a statement of overriding considerations regarding this significant and unavoidable impact. Moreover, in its discussion of Impact 3.7-1, the PR-DEIR expressly discloses that “the project does generate an increase in VMT.” In addition, the PR-DEIR includes a quantified inventory of the project’s GHG emissions, including the GHG emissions generated by the project’s VMT. Although the PR-DEIR acknowledges that mobile source emissions (i.e., transportation emissions from VMT) are a substantial component of overall GHG emissions, it explains that VMT alone does not account for vehicle characteristics, fuel type, emission standards, and fleet -level standards, all of which directly influence GHG emissions. For example, all-electric vehicles generate VMT while resulting in no tailpipe GHG emissions. Thus, while the GHG analysis does incorporate information regarding VMT, the assessment of GHG impacts is based on the significance thresholds described in Responses O3-9 and O3-10 above.
The PR-DEIR also identifies the variety of ways the project would not conflict with policies aimed at reducing VMT. For example, the project includes modifications to the transportation network consistent with the City's Complete Streets Policy. Such improvements include constructing sidewalks along the project frontage; constructing bicycle facilities along its western, southern, and northern frontages; constructing a multi-use path; and installing striping to better delineate the roadway cross section for different users. These facilities would be consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan. The project also includes a redesignation of Herndon Avenue from Expressway Area to Superarterial, which allows for multiple modes of travel, including pedestrian and bikes. This could lead to further development of these types of non-vehicular facilities, including bike lanes and sidewalks, which are not currently allowed under the Expressway Area designation.
In addition, the project site is largely surrounded by existing development. The project would increase the development density of the area and would be located near transit facilities, such as the NW Herndon- Hayes transit stop, and therefore would increase the density of development near transit. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, the project would encourage employee commute trip reduction through a variety of strategies. The project would provide carpool incentives, partner with local agencies to provide vanpool services, subsidize transit passes, and provide bicycle storage and locker rooms for employees who bike to work. This would reduce employee VMT and provide incentives for employees to commute to work in alternative ways.
Furthermore, the project would allow customers to have multiple needs served in one trip, including eye exams ; purchase of household goods and groceries, furniture, appliances, and liquor; car washes; and refueling at the gas station. Costco members may make fewer total retail shopping trips in a month or a year than they would if they did not have a Costco nearby. This may result in VMT reduction that is not captured in the VMT modeling.
Together, this provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the project would not conflict with policies aimed at reducing VMT to address GHG emissions.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-16 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
Comment O3-13
As indicated during Fresno City Council meetings regarding the City’s new VMT Mitigation Fee Program (more on that later), the City of Fresno needs a reduction of 67,429 average daily VMT to meet its citywide reduction targets. If the project’s peak daily VMT is going to be nearly double the amount of daily VMT by which the entire City currently exceeds its threshold, it appears clear that the project will either 1) generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, to a degree that will have a significant impact on the environment; or 2) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Response O3-13
The comment conflates the City’s VMT Reduction Program with GHG emissions and project -specific impacts. First, the 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. Through the application of the VMT Reduction Program, new projects that result in unmitigated VMT would pay an impact fee to fund improvements that offset and mitigate this figure. However, as discussed in Responses O3-14 through O3-21 below, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to this project. Furthermore, the comment assumes that the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, but it does not—and cannot—identify such a policy. There is no policy that states a project may not have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact or that such an impact necessarily constitutes a GHG impact.
As explained in Response O3-9 above, the PR-DEIR includes substantial evidence that the project is consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of GHG reduction.
Comment O3-14
VMT is a multifaceted metric, which is demonstrated by the fact that VMT and SB 743 (the piece of legislation which required consideration of VMT under CEQA) are mentioned in the regulatory setting for both the GHG Emissions section and the Transportation section of the EIR. This is why the PR-DEIR’s failure to identify the excessive VMT as a significant GHG impact (like the invalidated EIR before it) is inaccurate, misleading, and a failure to satisfy CEQA’s informational mandate. Large-format retail projects constructed in suburban edge locations like the subject project site are among the poster children for highly-impactful high-VMT projects with high GHG emissions that are squarely targeted to be addressed through GHG-reduction policymaking and regulation. It is unreasonable to pretend that a project of this nature and this scale (“the largest Costco in the world”) – both at the project-specific and cumulative level – does not unequivocally conflict with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, the RTP/SCS, SB 743, and other plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted to address GHG emissions and climate change.
Response O3-14
The PR-DEIR provides an accurate characterization of the project’s potential GHG emissions, including the GHG emissions that would result from VMT. The information is disclosed in the PR-DEIR both as quantified emissions and through qualitative evaluation of the project against plans for GHG reduction. It would be inaccurate and misleading to simply equate an increase in VMT to a significant GHG emissions impact for several reasons.
First, as explained by the 2022 Scoping Plan Update and summarized in Section 3.7.1 of the PR -DEIR, the state does not expect each individual project to result in net zero GHG emissions. Rather, GHG reduction planning must understand that the population and land use/economic sectors in California will continue to grow and, therefore, decisions should balance growth that includes GHG increases with effective GHG reduction strategies. In other words, a project can produce GHG emissions without inhibiting the state’s overall ability to meet its GHG reduction goals.
Second, a significant VMT impact (based on local/regional travel patterns) does not equate to a significant GHG impact (based on a broader geographic scale and applicable policies). This is partly because the VMT metric alone does not account for vehicle characteristics, fuel type, emission standards, and fleet -level standards, all of which directly influence GHG emissions, and each of which is accounted for in the PR-DEIR GHG inventory and its analysis of plan and policy consistency.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-17
CEQA maintains a distinction between VMT thresholds of significance and GHG thresholds of significance because they relate to different impacts. 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). By contrast, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) provides lead agencies with guidance to apply discretion in developing thresholds to evaluate GHG emissions impacts. Consistent with CEQA, the City adopted a transportation threshold that provides any net increase in VMT (i.e., 1 additional mile traveled in any car as a result of the project) generates a significant transportation impact. As discussed in Response O3-9 above, the City properly used its discretion to set thresholds of significance for GHG impacts that are different from the VMT threshold for evaluating transportation impacts.
The comment does not include substantial evidence—nor, more importantly, does it dispute that the City’s analysis is supported by substantial evidence—that the City’s determinations are incorrect or unreasonable. As explained above, the environmental topics of VMT within a transportation analysis and of GHG emissions generated by VMT in a GHG section are judged by different thresholds of significance. If they were synonymous, they would not be separately evaluated and would not be separately listed and directed for individual study in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist.
Comment O3-15
As previously stated, 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 was that an EIR must include “sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project rais es.” An additional 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 substantively 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 substantially connect the project’s VMT impacts to GHG emissions impacts and consequences.
Based on the foregoing information presented in these comments, it has not done so. The Draft EIR ’s failure to identify policy and regulatory conflicts resulting from the project’s GHG-related impacts (which stem from its acknowledged threshold-exceeding VMT levels) as being a significant impact is a major analytical and informational deficiency.
Once again, the rationale and comments demonstrate what arguably amounts to an attempt to willfully confuse the meaning of and/or downplay the significance of the EIR’s own significant -and-unavoidable determination regarding the project’s threshold-exceeding VMT levels. The approach being taken in the EIR functionally serves to keep the project’s VMT impacts in the realm of “technical minutiae” and cuts against the provision of adequate information to the public and fostering of meaningful public participation. CEQA does not ban projects with significant and unavoidable impacts from ultimately being carried out when there are compelling reasons to do so, and the range of legitimate reasons is broad and can be for non-environmentally-centric reasons. What CEQA does require though is sufficient disclosure of information in order to allow informed understanding and meaningful public participation, and that has not happened here.
Response O3-15
The Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case (Friant Ranch) established that a reasonable effort should be made to explain the connection between exceeding a numerical threshold pertaining to air quality emissions and health effects on sensitive receptors. The PR-DEIR is compliant with this aspect of the decision in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case, and no one has challenged the sufficiency of the analysis of air quality impacts or its relation to health effects presented in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of the 2024 EIR.
The relationship between air emissions and health consequences is not analogous to the relationship between VMT and GHG emissions. In the Friant Ranch case, the decision indicates that only disclosing modeling numbers does not provide the context necessary for the public to understand the project’s implications, particularly with respect to health outcomes from specific pollutants. As explained above and in the PR -DEIR, VMT is a component of GHG emissions modeling and all project VMT was included in the calculated GHG emissions reported in the PR -DEIR. The calculations, which reflect an industry standard approach to modeling project VMT emissions, apply an emissions Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-18 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
factor to VMT; whether the VMT exceeds a threshold developed for transportation impacts does not factor into the GHG modeling. Moreover, the analysis in the PR-DEIR provides the connection between the project attributes, modeled emissions, and consistency with regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions. In this regard, the PR-DEIR provides a full analysis that explains the effects of the project.
For the reasons summarized above, the PR-DEIR fully and adequately discloses the connection between VMT and GHG emissions, and the project’s GHG impacts, including the potential for policy and regulatory conflicts and inconsistencies. The 2024 EIR also fully discloses the project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impact, which would remain even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. Should the City decide to reapprove the project, CEQA would require it to adopt findings and a statement of overriding considerations addressing the significant and unavoidable transportation impact related to VMT. There is no effort to obscure or downplay the significance of the project’s transportation impact with respect to VMT.
Accordingly, the PR-DEIR fulfills the City’s obligation under CEQA to disclose potential effects of the project and to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the project’s potential for substantial adverse environmental effects. The PR-DEIR fully satisfies CEQA’s mandate to serve as an informational document that facilitates meaningful public participation.
Comment O3-16
3. The City of Fresno’s recently-adopted VMT Reduction Program is available as feasible mitigation to substantially reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts resulting from excessive VMT.
Under CEQA Guidelines 15126.4, where a project will have significant environmental impacts, the agency undertaking or permitting that project must impose all feasible mitigation. For reasons already discussed, the project’s VMT in excess of the City threshold constitutes a significant GHG impact as well as a significant Transportation impact.
Response O3-16
The comment incorrectly asserts that the project’s increase in VMT would result in a significant impact from GHG emissions in addition to a significant and unavoidable transportation impact. As discussed in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” in the 2024 EIR, the project would generate an increase in VMT, which would result in a significant transportation and circulation impact. The 2024 EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, which requires the project applicant to implement a program that reduces employee VMT by at least 26 percent. The 2024 EIR concludes that this is the greatest VMT reduction that could feasibly be implemented. However, because the majority of the project’s VMT would be generated by members—not employees—the 2024 EIR concludes that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact due to its net increase in VMT. Accordingly, the 2024 EIR disclosed the project’s significant and unavoidable impact with respect to VMT and identifies measures to reduce the severity of that impact to the greatest feasible extent.
As an initial matter, the comment’s focus on transportation impacts is misplaced. When only portions of an EIR have been modified, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(c) only requires circulation for public comment of the chapters or portions that have been modified. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 limits the scope of review and comment on a recirculated EIR to those portions of the EIR that are recirculated; recirculation is not an opportunity to reassess the adequacy of issues that are already settled. The 2024 EIR’s transportation analysis, associated mitigation measures, and conclusion of a significant and unavoidable impact were never challenged. The transportation analysis was not recirculated, nor has it changed. Therefore, CEQA does not require responses to comments on the PR -DEIR that concern mitigation measures to address the project’s transportation impact related to VMT. Although not required by CEQA, Responses O3-17 though O3-31 below are provided for informational purposes.
Moreover, as discussed in Responses O3-7 through O3-15 above, the project’s VMT increase does not result in a significant impact with respect to GHG, and therefore no further mitigation measures are required to address GHG impacts. In addition, as discussed in Responses O3-17 through O3-21 below, by its own terms, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to the project, and it cannot feasibly be adopted as a mitigation measure for multiple reasons.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-19
Comment O3-17
On November 6, 2025, the City of Fresno voted to enact a VMT Reduction Program as a means of adding greater consistency and predictability in mitigating significant VMT impacts associated with new land use development projects. The VMT Reduction Program established a mitigation fee of $295 per mile that projects with VMT above the applicable local threshold would be required to pay to offset their threshold-exceeding levels of VMT.
Response O3-17
The comment provides an incomplete summary of the City’s newly adopted VMT Reduction Program, which took effect on January 6, 2026, after the close of the public comment period on the PR -DEIR. Although not related to the adequacy of the PR-DEIR, additional details about the VMT Reduction Program are provided for clarity below.
The comment is correct that on November 6, 2025, the Fresno City Council approved: Resolution No. 2025 -314 adopting a Vehicle Miles Traveled Nexus Study, Reduction Program, and Capital Improvement Plan; Resolution No. 2025-315 amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to add a Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Fee; and Ordinance No. 2025-43 adding Article 4.17 to Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code relating to the VMT Reduction Program and Mitigation Fee. By the terms of the two Resolutions and the Ordina nce, the legislation took effect on January 6, 2026, 61 days after passage.
As noted in the comment, the VMT Reduction Program imposes a VMT mitigation fee of $295 per unit of VMT generated above the threshold of significance on projects subject to the VMT Reduction Program. As set forth in Resolution No. 2025-314 Sections 2.D and 2.E, the VMT Reduction Program contemplates collecting impact fees from projects to contribute towards 24 enumerated VMT mitigation bank projects, which are forecast to reduce c itywide VMT. As set forth on page 31 of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2025-314, the 24 enumerated projects would result in a cumulative VMT reduction of 67,429 VMT over a 5-year horizon at a cost of $19,891,686, resulting in a fee of $295 per unit of VMT.
By its own clear terms, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to all development projects within Fresno. Section 5 of Resolution No. 2025-314, which adopted the VMT Reduction Plan, provides that “due to fairness and certainty principles and infeasibility due to the City and private party time, effort and resources and public review and comment that have been spent in such cases, the VMT Mitigation Fee will not apply to projects for which VMT analysis has been conducted and incorporated into CEQA documents published for public review prior to the effective date of the VMT Mitigation Fee.” In other words, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to projects for which VMT analysis has already been prepared and subject to public review, as the City Council de termined it would not be feasible for such projects to redo their VMT analysis.
Here, the project’s VMT analysis was completed and circulated for public review in July of 2023 as a component of the 2024 EIR. The 2024 EIR was fully certified on April 18, 2024. Although the 2024 EIR was later decertified, the Court did not identify any inadequacy in the transportation analysis. The project’s VMT analysis was unaffected and was not recirculated for public review. The PR-DEIR circulated Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” for public review and comment between November 21, 2025 and January 5, 2026. Each of these events took place before the VMT Mitigation Fee and the VMT Reduction Program took effect on January 6, 2026.
Importantly, the Court did not identify any inadequacy in the transportation analysis and the project’s VMT analysis was not recirculated for public review. Because the project’s VMT analysis was complete, incorporated into a CEQA document, and circulated for public review long before the VMT Reduction Program became effective, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to the project.
Comment O3-18
During recent City Council hearings regarding the VMT Reduction Program, City executive staff discussed at length how by adopting the VMT Reduction Program the City effectively determined that payment of the VMT mitigation fee as set forth in the program is considered a feasible mitigation measure. Additionally, in response to a question from Council about the applicability of the VMT fee to projects in the pipeline that have been deemed complete and are in processing stage, the Planning Director stated “If CEQA has not already been completed and publicly circulated, then VMT would need to be reviewed under the lens of the program.” Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-20 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
Response O3-18
The comment summarizes staff comments made during the City Council hearing regarding the VMT Reduction Program. However, the comment does not reflect the full text of the VMT Reduction Program’s treatment of pipeline projects. As discussed in Response O3-17, above, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to projects for which VMT analysis has been conducted and incorporated into CEQA documents published for public review prior to the effective date of the VMT Mitigation Fee, including the project. Although the City determined that the VMT Mitigation Fee would be a feasible mitigation measure as applied to the future development projects subject to the VMT Reduction Program, the project and others similarly situated are expressly excluded from the VMT Reduct ion Program and, therefore, the City is legally precluded from imposing the VMT Mitigation Fee on the project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines feasible to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.” In addition, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21004, the City’s authority to impose mitigation measures must be based on legal authority other than CEQA. Here, no such legal authority exists because the resolution adopting the VMT Reduction Program expressly excludes projects from the VMT Mitigation Program for which VMT analysis has been conducted and incorporated into CEQA documents published for public review prior to the effective date of the VMT Mitigation Fee, which includes the project at issue here. Furthermor e, as set forth in the City Council’s findings related to the infeasibility of imposing the VMT Mitigation Fee on in -process projects, it would not be feasible to re-do and recirculate the project’s VMT analysis at this late stage in the development review process, more than 2 years after the VMT analysis was circulated for public review. Therefore, consistent with the clear language of the VMT Mitigation Program, the VMT Mitigation Fee is not a feasible mitigation measure for the project’s VMT impacts.
Comment O3-19
The project’s prior environmental review which was invalidated by court order did not consider the possibility of mitigating VMT via payment of a mitigation fee since a mitigation fee program did not yet exist. Now, however, the VMT Reduction Program offers a readily available way for the proposed project to offset its excessive VMT (at least to some degree).
Response O3-19
The comment correctly notes that the 2024 EIR did not analyze the effect of the VMT Reduction Program because the VMT Reduction Program did not exist when the 2024 EIR was prepared and certified.
The project and the 2024 EIR were the subject of a petition for writ of mandate in Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 24CECG02208, Herndon-Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development v. City of Fresno et al.
There was no challenge to the 2024 EIR’s transportation analysis, including the thresholds of significance used to evaluate transportation impacts related to VMT, the methodologies used to quantify the project’s VMT, the mitigation measures adopted to reduce VMT to the greatest extent feasible, and the conclusion that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact due to its resultant increase in VMT.
In an Order After Hearing issued by the Fresno County Superior Court, the Court granted the petition in part, finding that the 2024 EIR’s GHG emissions and climate change analysis was inadequate. The Court reasoned that the 2024 EIR’s conclusion was “based upon a comparison of the Project’s anticipated emissions with the application of the mitigation measures and implementation of clean vehicle regulations and the 2021 [GHGRP].” However, the 2021 GHGRP was set aside following certification of the 2024 EIR due to an unrelated legal challenge, and therefore the 2024 EIR’s conclusion about GHG and climate impacts was determined by the court to be “without foundation.” The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the City to certify a revised EIR that “includes a legally adequate analysis of the Project's Greenhouse Gas impacts that complies with CEQA and does not rely on the City's 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.” Nothing in the Court’s Order undermined the validity of the 2024 EIR’s analysis with respect to VMT impacts. In compliance with the Court’s Order and the writ of mandate, the PR -DEIR is limited to recirculation of a single topical section: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-21
Because the VMT Reduction Program addresses transportation impacts, and because the project’s transportation impacts were fully addressed in the 2024 EIR and are not included in the PR -DEIR, the VMT Reduction Program is not applicable nor relevant to the PR-DEIR. Moreover, as explained in Response O3-18 above, the VMT Reduction Program is neither applicable to the project nor is the VMT Mitigation Fee legally feasible to adopt as a project mitigation measure. Therefore, the City is not obligated to re-evaluate the project’s VMT and does not have the legal authority to impose participation in the VMT Reduction Program as mitigation. The analysis and conclusions in the 2024 EIR related to VMT remain valid.
Comment O3-20
While the project was initiated before the VMT Reduction Program was approved, the subject PR -DEIR was not circulated for public review until after the City adopted the VMT Reduction Program. Further, since the previously approved EIR was decertified and project approvals were set aside, the mitigation issue is still live for purposes of CEQA. Therefore, it appears the project is not grandfathered in and would be subject to payment of the fee.
Response O3-20
The comment notes that the PR-DEIR was not circulated for public review until after the City adopted the VMT Reduction Program. Although this is correct, it is irrelevant. As discussed above, the PR -DEIR, which was circulated for public review between November 21, 2025 and January 5, 2026, only addressed the project’s GHG and climate change impacts, not the project’s transportation impacts. The project’s VMT analysis was prepared and circulated for public review in July of 2023 and then later certified as a component of the 2024 EIR. By its plain text, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to projects with a completed VMT analysis that has been circulated for public review. Therefore, the project is not subject to the VMT Reduction Program, and there is no legal mechanism to impose the VMT reduction fee. It is infeasible for the City to require contribution to the VMT Reduction Program as mitigation
for the reasons explained above in Response 03-18. Accordingly, the comment’s assertions that the project is “not grandfathered” and “would be subject to payment of the fee” are incorrect.
Comment O3-21
It is noted that during Council meetings for the VMT Reduction Program that the City’s Planning Director mentioned two possible alternatives to paying the VMT fee:
1) A project could do its own EIR with its own mitigation which, based on substantial evidence in the record, shows it can mitigate all of the VMT in excess of the threshold - and City Council would have to determine that evidence shows it.
2) A project applicant could demonstrate that payment of the VMT fees would be infeasible, which requires a detailed financial analysis to substantiate such a determination.
If the project intends to proceed under either of the alternative approaches, substantial evidence would need to be provided before certification and approval can happen.
Response O3-21
The comment summarizes City staff’s statements made during the City Council hearings concerning the VMT Reduction Program as to potential alternatives to paying the impact fee created under the VMT Reduction Program.
As discussed in Responses O3-16 through O3-20, above, the VMT Reduction Program is not applicable to the project and, therefore, alternative measures or further analysis are not required.
2.2.3 Individuals
Letter I1 Janet Bergman
November 21, 2025
Comment I1-1
How can I join the fight against this monstrosity?
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-22 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
Response I1-1
On November 21, 2025, City staff advised the commenter on the comment period, directed the commenter to the available documents, and provided direction for submitting further comments. The comment does not pertain to the material in the PR-DEIR and no response is required.
Letter I2 Lorraine Arrington
November 21, 2025
Comment I2-1
Are you saying the costco on shaw will be closed, and a new one built? What happens to the old building? Response I2-1
Costco is proposing to open the new location and close the Shaw Avenue location. There are no known plans for the Shaw Avenue location. This comment does not address the adequacy of the PR-DEIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required.
Letter I3 Rangel Melendez
November 21, 2025
Comment I3-1
Please remove me from your list.
I moved away from the area and far away from Fresno. Not interested in this topic anymore Response I3-1
The comment does not pertain to the material in the PR-DEIR and no response is required.
Letter I4 Michael Van
November 22, 2025
Comment I4-1
Thank you. Awesome news can’t wait for Costco to open there thank you Response I4-1
The comment does not pertain to the material in the PR-DEIR and no response is required.
Letter I5 Tom Ames
November 29, 2025
Comment I5-1
All this states is all the concerns are within acceptable limits. I disagree for the simple reason there will be too many traffic lights from Golden State Blvd. up to the one Costco wants to add. Anyone who drives in this area for their morning or afternoon commute already know how bad it is. The increase on Herndon will not be minimal but will impact the area. I think Costco and the city can come up with a better way to alleviate traffic concerns.
Response I5-1
This comment expresses concerns about the proposed project's contributions to traffic. On December 28, 2018, the California Resources Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines which included the adoption of Section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts.” Pursuant to Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion were eliminated as the basis for determining significant impacts, effectively being replaced with VMT as the primary metric to identify transportation-related impacts under CEQA. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, this topic is addressed outside of the CEQA review process.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR 2-23
Letter I6 Janet Bergman
January 2, 2026
Comment I6-1
I strongly oppose this Costco project. It would be located in an area where children must walk past it on the way home from school. Having large semi-trucks in this area will be extremely dangerous.
Additionally, it is located next door to a 200 plus bed senior living facility, Kingston Bay. Only a few months ago a person was killed by a semi-truck near the current Costco on Shaw that was on a mobility scooter. The semi did not even know they had hit the person. This Costco will have many more trucks than the current one does and every day when I’m walking my dogs, I see residents of Kingston Bay walking with their walkers and in their electric wheelchairs.
Someone will be killed very soon after this Costco opens – mark my word, the blood will be on your hands if you let this happen.
Please do not allow this monstrosity to be built in this location.
Response I6-1
Although the comment does not pertain to the material in the PR-DEIR, the following response briefly addresses the concerns. No further response is required.
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. As explained in the 2024 EIR, the proposed project would not conflict with planned pedestrian facilities. Regarding delivery trucks, the 2023 DEIR (see page 2 -20) describes an anticipated delivery schedule between approximately 2:00 and 10:00 a.m. at a rate of two to three trucks per hour and a total of approximately 10 to 13 trucks per day for the warehouse. Fuel would be delivered to the gas station in two to three trucks per day, and the tire center would receive shipments once or twice a week. As disclosed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the 2023 DEIR (see page 2-14), the primary truck access route would be the southernmost driveway along North Arthur Avenue, with a secondary truck route using the southernmost driveway along North Riverside Drive, minimizing exposure of existing residents to truck traffic. (In addition, note that a proposed condition of approval would eliminate truck access via Riverside Drive.) The truck loading dock would be located on the southern facade of the warehouse building. Further, the City of Fresno has met with the Central Unified School District regarding the proposed project to ensure that project-related truck deliveries do not pose a safety hazard for students at school bus drop-off/pick-up locations. Please refer to Response I5-1 and I89-1 in the 2024 Final EIR for further discussion of this topic.
Letter I7 Robert Mason
January 5, 2026
Comment I7-1
I am submitting this comment in support of the proposed Costco Commercial Center project at Herndon and Riverside (SCH 2021100443).
As a Fresno resident and customer, I believe this relocation will bring clear community benefits including retaining jobs within the city, reducing congestion at the older Blackstone & Shaw site, and providing improved access for northwest Fresno residents. The new site design also appears to include updated environmental and traffic mitigation measures that will reduce emissions and improve safety for both vehicles and pedestrians.
I appreciate that the City has revised its environmental analysis in response to prior court concerns, and I encourage you to move forward with certification of the EIR and project approvals once the comment period closes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your work to support balanced growth in our city.
Response I7-1
The comment expresses support for the project. No response is required.
Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
2-24 Costco Commercial Center Project 2026 Final EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443
City of Fresno
May 2026
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 2 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.4 Discretionary Approvals ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5
3.1 Notice of Preparation .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Environmental Impact Report .......................................................................................................................................... 5 4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 6
4.1 City Council Independent Judgment ............................................................................................................................. 6
4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................................................................................ 6
4.3 Nature and Legal Effect of Findings................................................................................................................................7
4.4 Reliance on Record ...............................................................................................................................................................7
4.5 Findings Regarding Recirculation of the PR-DEIR .................................................................................................... 8 5 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ................................ ................................ ............ 9 6 FINDINGS OF FACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9
6.1 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 9 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT .................. 10
7.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10
7.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................................................. 11
7.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12
7.4 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 14
7.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
7.6 Energy...................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
7.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change..................................................................................................... 16
7.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................ 17
7.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 19
7.10 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
7.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
7.12 Public Services and Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 22
7.13 Transportation and Circulation ...................................................................................................................................... 23
7.14 Utilities .................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 8 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 26
8.1 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 26
8.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
8.3 Noise ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
ii Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE CONSIDERED UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 35
9.1 Noise ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
9.2 Transportation and Circulation ...................................................................................................................................... 37 10 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 41
10.1 Alternatives considered in the EIR ................................................................................................................................ 42
10.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................................................................... 47 11 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 47 12 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 47
12.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 48
12.2 Overriding Considerations .............................................................................................................................................. 49
12.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................ 50 13 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 50
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APN assessor’s parcel number
BMP best management practice
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Fresno
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
Costco Costco Wholesale Corporation
dB decibels
EIR environmental impact report
FAR floor area ratio
Findings Findings of Fact
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
Ldn day-night level
Leq energy-equivalent noise level
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NOP notice of preparation
PRC Public Resources Code
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SR State Route
TIA Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis VMT vehicle miles traveled
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
iv Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page is intentionally left blank.
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 1 INTRODUCTION
The Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco), the project applicant, proposes to construct a membership-only Costco Commercial Center, including a new warehouse with an attached tire center and home delivery services, and a detached gas station and drive-through car wash. The proposed project site is a vacant 22.4-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive in the C ity of Fresno. An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared under the direction of City of Fresno (City), the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR consists of the 2023 DEIR, 2024 Final EIR (referred to collectively as the 2024 EIR), the 2025 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR), and the 2026 Final EIR.
The existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue would be relocated to the project site. Costco has occupied the commercial building at 4500 West Shaw Avenue in the city of Fresno since 1985. Costco’s customer base has outgrown the capacity of the current facility, which could lead to future traffic and parking concerns. The new facility would serve the same customers as the existing facility plus anticipated growth in the area. The project would also allow Costco to expand services in the area to include an additional gas station and a car wash, as well as a loading area to facilitate delivery of purchases directly to homes in the Fresno area.
This statement of Findings of Fact (Findings) has been prepared in accordance with C EQA and its implementing guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) to address the environmental effects associated with the proposed Costco Commercial Center Project. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that the lead agency prepare written Findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation for the rationale for each finding. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in part:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The CEQA analysis for the project identified potentially significant effects that could result from project implementation. The City finds that the inclusion of mitigation measures as part of the project approval would reduce most, but not all, of those effects to a less-than-significant level. Those impacts that are not reduced to a less-than- significant level are identified and overridden due to specific project benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth within these Findings.
The following sections make detailed Findings with respect to the potential effects of the project and refer, where appropriate, to the mitigation measures set forth in the 2024 EIR to avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant adverse impacts of the project. The 2023 DEIR, 2024 Final EIR, 2025 PR-DEIR, and 2026 Final EIR and the administrative record concerning the project provide additional facts in support of the F indings herein. The 2023 DEIR, 2024 Final EIR, 2025 PR-DEIR, and 2026 Final EIR are hereby incorporated into these Findings in their entirety.
Furthermore, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP) are incorporated by reference into these Findings.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
2 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The Fresno City Council (City Council) is the decision-making authority for the project. The City Council adopts these Findings in that capacity.
2 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is a 22.4-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive in the city of Fresno. The project site is bordered by the undeveloped right-of-way for West Spruce Avenue to the north, the right-of-way of (currently unbuilt) North Arthur Avenue to the east, West Herndon Avenue to the south, and North Riverside Drive to the east. The project site’s address is 7120 North Riverside Drive and the assessor’s parcel number (APN) is 50302012. Local access to the site is provided by West Herndon Avenue, West Spruce Avenue, and North Riverside Drive. Regional access is provided by State Route (SR) 99, via the West Herndon Avenue interchange approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest.
2.2 PROJECT ELEMENTS
The Costco Commercial Center would include a warehouse retail building, gas station, and car wash. The size of each project element, as revised in the 2024 Final EIR, is summarized below in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Project Elements
Structure Area (square feet)
Warehouse Retail Building Footprint 219,216
Warehouse/Retail 163,539
Loading/Back of house/Storage/Receiving 4,422
Market delivery operation 46,834
Open canopy space 3,233
Building envelope 1,188
Fuel canopy 12,885
Car wash 4,800
Source: Data provided by Urban Planning Partners in 2022 and 2023.
The project would also include construction of off-site improvements to improve circulation and provide utilities to the site. Specific improvements include the following and are depicted in Figure 2 -10:
1. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of West Fir Avenue, North Riverside Drive, and the main Costco driveway.
2. The construction of a private 36-foot asphalt right-of-way (currently named North Arthur Avenue) running along the eastern boundary of the project site.
3. Construction of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Arthur Avenue to allow right-in/right-out and left-in turning, which would require a median cut on West Herndon Avenue.
4. The construction of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue. The asphalt roadway would include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights, as well as the installation of sewer and water mains underneath this portion of West Spruce Avenue. Existing turf and mature trees within the right-of-way would be removed. In addition, the existing irrigation system at the golf course and path for the golf carts would be relocated. A new fence and nets to prevent errant balls from striking vehicles and pedestrians would be installed along the northern boundary of the roadway.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3
5. Improvements to the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive.
6. Improvements to North Riverside Drive, including moving the concrete median approximately 5 feet to the west, construction of a second southbound left-turn lane, construction of a second northbound lane, and construction of a 12-foot-wide multiuse trail and a 3-foot-tall, landscaped berm between trail and parking lot.
7. The construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a trail as identified by the City’s Active Transportation Plan along the project site’s frontage with West Herndon Avenue.
2.2.1 General Plan Amendments and Rezoning
The proposed Costco warehouse building is consistent with established zoning for the parcel; however, an amendment to the City of Fresno’s General Plan and rezoning of the site would be required to permit the proposed car wash. The project would require a general plan amendment to change the land use designation of the project site from Community Commercial (CC) to General Commercial (CG). The General Commercial designation proposed for the site is described in Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element of the General Plan as appropriate for retail and service uses that may generate high volumes of vehicle traffic. Similarly, the project site would be rezoned from CC to CG.
The project also includes a proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning to reclassify West Herndon Avenue from North Riverside Drive to North Hayes Avenue as a superarterial. West Herndon Avenue is designated, depending on the specific segment, as either an expressway or superarterial, the two highest roadway classifications in the General Plan, throughout the project site’s vicinity and is designated as a superarterial between the project site and SR 99. The project includes a general plan amendment to reclassify the portion of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue from expressway to superarterial to allow the construction of an intersection where West Herndon Avenue meets the private North Arthur Avenue right-of-way. The current classification of expressway would not permit the construction of this intersection. The proposed intersection where West Herndon Avenue meets the North Arthur Avenue right-of-way would allow access to the project site via two north-south streets, rather than solely from North Riverside Drive. This may result in easier travel for southbound drivers along North Riverside Drive, including nearby residents and visitors to the Riverside Golf Course.
2.2.2 Planned Development Permit
Article 59 of Chapter 15 of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes regulations and procedures for Planned Development Permits (PD Permits), which are permits for “development on large areas of land and infill sites to allow for projects that desire greater flexibility than already provided for in this Code.” The PD Permit process allows developments to request deviations from development standards to respond to site conditions in a more customized and tailored manner than allowed by the standards specified in the Municipal Code.
The project applicant has applied for a PD Permit to request deviations from Section 15 -2015 of the Municipal Code, which specifies that lighting fixtures in commercial districts have a maximum height of 25 feet. Costco aims to achieve
2.5 foot-candles of light throughout the parking area to maximize safety within the parking lot. This level of lighting is intended to provide security and safety for drivers and pedestrians navigating the parking lot at night. The project would include light fixtures with a maximum height of approximately 36.5 feet instead of the allowed 25 -foot-tall fixtures to reduce the number of lights needed to achieve the desired light levels within the parking field. The proposed 36.5-foot-tall light poles would also allow a more diffuse distribution of light, reducing the difference in light levels in the areas between poles. The taller lighting would also ensure that the area beneath the PG&E easement that runs directly through the parking field has adequate lighting. (No structures, including light poles, are allowed within this overhead easement.) Off-site glare and light spillover from parking lot light fixtures would be minimized by using less powerful lights on fixtures at the edge of the property.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
4 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a statement of objectives for the project and that the objectives include the underlying purpose of the project. These objectives help the lead agency determine the alternatives to evaluate in the EIR (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[b]) and gauge whether alternatives or mitigation measures are feasible. The following is a list of project objectives:
Construct and operate a new membership-only Costco Commercial Center in northwest Fresno that serves the local community with a wide variety of goods and services from both nationally known businesses and regional and local businesses.
Locate the new membership-only Costco Commercial Center in a location that is convenient for its members, the community, and employees to travel to for shopping and working. Locate the new membership-only Costco Commercial Center in an area serviced by adequate existing infrastructure, including roadways and utilities.
Establish a facility of sufficient size to provide a state-of-the-art facility that integrates several services, including home and/or business delivery service, under one roof.
Meet demand for automobile services, including gasoline, car wash, and tire center. Create a commercial use with architecture designed to facilitate integration with the overall design context for an area, including the surrounding community.
Reduce energy consumption by incorporating sustainable design features and systems with enhanced energy efficiencies meeting State and federal requirements.
Continue and increase big-box retail store sales tax revenues received by the City. Improve availability of integrated retail sales of goods and services in the northwest area of Fresno. Minimize circulation conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians for retail stores and gas stations.
2.4 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
A list of discretionary approvals, permits, and entitlements anticipated for the proposed project includes the approvals noted below. The following list identifies permits and other approval actions likely to be required from responsible agencies before implementation of the proposed project. State Water Resource Control Board: Coverage under the State General Stormwater Permit. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Wastewater Discharge Permit.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD): Permit to construct and permit to operate. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD): Plan and drainage report review.
The proposed project would also require the following entitlements from the City of Fresno:
Amend the 2035 Fresno General Plan to change the planned land use designations for the project site from the Community Commercial to the General Commercial planned land use designation and reclassify a portion of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue from Expressway to Superarterial.
Amend the Official Zoning Map of the City of Fresno to reclassify the project site from the CC/EA/UGM/cz (Community Commercial/Expressway Area Overlay/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone district to the CG/UGM/cz (General Commercial/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone district.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 Approve a Conditional Use Permit to construct a ±241,342 square-foot, warehouse retail building with a ±4,800 square-foot car wash; and an ±13,000 square-foot, 32-station fuel canopy. Approve an Alcoholic Beverage Control Conditional Use Permit to establish a Type 21 alcohol license that would allow the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold. Approve a Planned Development Permit to modify parking lot development standards to allow for 36.5 -foot-tall light fixtures rather than 25-foot light fixtures.
Approve a Parcel Map for the subdivision of the existing parcel into two resultant parcels. Approve vacation of an existing public street right-of -way for North Arthur Avenue, between West Spruce Avenue and West Herndon Avenue.
Approve a permit for construction noise.
3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has provided opportunities for individual members of the public, as well as organization and agency representatives, to consider the proposed actions and provide input and recommendations concerning the content of the EIR.
3.1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City released a notice of preparation (NOP) for the EIR on October 22, 2021. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR was being prepared and to solicit input on the scope and content of the document.
A virtual public meeting was held on November 2, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. The scoping period for the project ended on November 22, 2021. The NOP and comments received in response to the NOP are included in Appendix A of the 2023 DEIR. Comments were received regarding traffic congestion, safety, and access; air quality and the proximity of the gas station to nearby sensitive receptors; access to existing recreational trails; and lighting. The comments received on the NOP and at the scoping meeting are addressed, as applicable, in the technical sections of the 2023 DEIR and PR-DEIR.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
On July 11, 2023, the City released the 2023 DEIR for public review and comment. The 2023 DEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the City’s website (https://www.fresno.gov/planning/plans-projects-under-review/#tab-14); and was made available at the Planning and Development Department (2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043). The document was also available for review at the Teague Branch Library (4718 N Polk Avenue). A notice of availability of the 2023 DEIR was published in the Fresno Bee.
As a result of these notification efforts, written and verbal comments were received from two state agencies (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and California Department of Transportation), one local agency (SJVAPCD), an organization representing the project applicant, and individuals. The 2024 Final EIR includes comments received on the 2023 DEIR; responses to these comments; and revisions to the 2023 DEIR, as necessary, in response to these comments or to amplify or clarify material in the 2023 DEIR. The 2024 Final EIR was certified, and the project was approved by the City Council on April 18, 2024.
The Herndon-Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development challenged the City’s approval of the project and certification of the 2024 Final EIR, asserting inadequacies in the analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and alternatives. The Fresno County Superior Court’s (Court’s) ruling issued in July 2025 in Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 24CECG02208, Herndon-Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development v. City of Fresno et al. (Lawsuit), upheld the analysis of alternatives in the 2024 Final EIR as adequate. However, the Court found that the GHG analysis required revision because the significance of GHG emissions was determined through comparison to the City of Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
6 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Fresno’s 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (“GHGRP”). In August of 2024, following the certification of the 2024 Final EIR for the Costco Commercial Center Project, the 2021 GHGRP was set aside pursuant to the Fifth District Circuit Court of Appeal’s unpublished decision in the South Fresno Community Alliance v. City of Fresno matter (case no. F086180), where the Court of Appeal directed that the City be compelled to set aside its Program Environmental Impact Report for the continued implementation of the City’s 2014 General Plan (including the 2021 GHGRP).
The City subsequently prepared the PR-DEIR for the Costco Commercial Center project that includes a revised Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.” In accordance with the time limits established by CEQA, the PR-DEIR was released for public review and comment from November 21, 2025 to January 5, 2026. The PR-DEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies and was made available at the Planning and Development Department and Fresno County Library . A notice of availability of the PR-DEIR was published in the Fresno Bee. Pursuant to procedures set forth in Section 15088.5(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, reviewers were directed to limit their comments to the information contained in the P R-DEIR. Nine comment letters (including four comment letters documenting no further comment on, or interest in, the project; one comment of general support; and three comments expressing concern unrelated to the PR -DEIR) were received during the comment period. Comments on the content and analysis in the PR-DEIR are addressed in the 2026 Final EIR.
The EIR as discussed and referred to herein consists of
1. The 2024 EIR certified by the City Council on April 18, 2024 without Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change”;
2. The PR-DEIR, which includes a new, substitute Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” and which alters the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change entry in Table ES- 1 of the Executive Summary and the cumulative impact discussion; and
3. The comments submitted on the PR-DEIR during the public comment period and the responses to those comments in the 2026 Final EIR.
4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS
4.1 CITY COUNCIL INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
The City Council has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining an environmental consultant for the preparation of the EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant. Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the EIR, as well as all other information in the record, the City Council hereby makes Findings pursuant to and in accordance with Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the PRC.
4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PRC Section 21081.6(a)(1) requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) is adopted in conjunction with certification of the EIR and adoption of these Findings of Fact. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures and the MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. Based on the entire record before the City Council and having considered the significant impacts of the project, the City Council hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR.
Furthermore, City finds that any inconsistency in the language of the mitigation measures in the EIR, in the MMRP, and in these Findings is inadvertent. Because measures have been revised over time, it is possible that such revisions Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 or clarifications have been made in one document, but not another. In the event of such inconsistency, the language of a measure in one document shall be applied in a manner that harmonizes the measure with the corresponding measure in other documents, such that the most stringent version of the measure shall apply.
4.3 NATURE AND LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
These Findings constitute the City’s evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these Findings conclude that various mitigation measures outlined in the EIR and set forth in the MMRP are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to impose these measures as conditions of approval. These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the project.
Any Findings made by the City Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where they appear in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes Findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City Council intends that these Findings be considere d as an integrated whole and that any finding required or committed to be made by the City Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the EIR shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these Findings.
4.4 RELIANCE ON RECORD
In accordance with PRC Section 21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City ’s decision on the project includes the following documents:
The NOP for the project and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP; The 2023 DEIR for the project and all appendices;
The 2024 Final EIR for the project, including comments received on the 2023 Draft EIR, and responses to those comments and all appendices;
Documents cited or referenced in the 2023 Draft EIR and 2024 Final EIR; The 2025 PR-DEIR for the project and all appendices;
The 2026 Final EIR for the project, including comments received on the 2025 PR-DEIR, and responses to those comments and all appendices;
Documents cited or referenced in the 2025 PR-DEIR and 2026 Final EIR; The MMRP for the project;
All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the project; All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project;
Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project;
Any and all resolutions or ordinances adopted by the City regarding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions or ordinances; Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
8 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by PRC Section 21167.6(e).
The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decisions are based is Steven Martinez, or his designee. Such documents and other materials are located at the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721.
4.5 FINDINGS REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE PR-DEIR
The City Council adopts the following Findings with respect to whether the City was obligated to recirculate the PR- DEIR. Under Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of an EIR is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but prior to certification of the Final EIR. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(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. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
There have been no changes to the project, significance of environmental effects, proposed mitigation measures since the rescinded adoption of 2024 Final EIR. The PR-DEIR re-evaluated GHG emissions and has been recirculated.
The City Council recognizes that the 2024 Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes to the 2024 DEIR. (See 2026 Final EIR, Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR.”) As discussed in the 2026 Final EIR, none of the information added to the PR-D EIR altered the significance conclusions to identify additional impacts. Rather, the new information refined, amplified, and clarified the information provided in the PR-DEIR. None of the revisions or updates to the PR-DEIR’s analyses represents “significant new information” as that term is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5(a).
The City Council finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required: (1) because recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR; and (2) because no “substantial adverse” impact would result from any of the revisions to the portions of the Draft EIR that were not recirculated (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[e]).
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 5 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
The City Council certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, that the EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein before approving the proposed project, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). Through adoption of these Findings, the EIR (consisting of the 2023 DEIR, 2024 Final EIR, PR-DEIR, and the 2026 Final EIR) is certified. 6 FINDINGS OF FACT
PRC Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” The second permissible finding is that “such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” The third potential conclusion is that “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.) PRC Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) Moreover, “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency finds that the project’s “benefits” render “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093, 15043[b]; see also PRC Section 21081[b].) Those impacts that are not reduced to less than significant levels are identified and overridden due to specific project benefits identified specifically in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 12, below).
6.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Chapter 3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” of the 2023 DEIR describes the potential impacts of the project in 14 resource areas, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts, to the extent feasible.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
10 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” of the 2023 DEIR determines whether the incremental effects of this project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. After implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, most of the impacts associated with the project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. For some impacts, there are no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level (see Section 5.2, “Significant and Unavoidable Impacts,” of the 2023 DEIR.)
The City Council’s Findings with respect to the project’s significant and potentially significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in Sections 9 and 10, below. These sections do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the sections provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City , and state the City Council’s Findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation me asures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR. In making these Findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these Findings the analysis and explanation in the 2023 DEIR, 2024 Final EIR, PR-DEIR, and 2026 Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these Findings the determinations and conclusions relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE
FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The text in this section reflects impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions from the PR -DEIR, where appropriate.
For impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions that were not subject to the Order After Hearing issued by the Court on July 17, 2025, text is consistent with the 2024 EIR.
The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, including information in the 2024 EIR and PR-DEIR, the following impacts have been determined be less than significant and no mitigation is required pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a).
7.1 AESTHETICS
Impact 3.1-1: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and Its Surroundings or Conflict with Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality Implementation of the project would alter views by adding built-environment elements on a vacant parcel. However, the existing visual quality of the parcel is low. The project elements proposed would not change the suburban visual character of the general area, as elements of the project’s design (such as building height, color, massing, architectural detailing, screening vegetation and landscaping, and setback requirements) would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding environment. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.1-6 to 3.1-8)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 Impact 3.1-2: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Nighttime Views in the Area The project would introduce new sources of light onto the existing, vacant project site. Light spillover onto adjacent land uses would be reduced by using less powerful lights on fixtures at the edge of a property. Reflective, glare causing materials would not be used. All fixtures would be downcast and would not exceed the 0.5 -foot-candle standard for light spillover onto residential areas. (2023 DEIR p. 3.1-9)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-1: Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts
The project would contribute regional changes to aesthetics. The effects of these changes are highly subjective and tend to be localized. The combined effects of other projects in the cumulative impact area would not be cumulatively significant and the project would not have a considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant impact would occur. (2023 DEIR p. 4-7)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment, Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use
The project would result in the development of a parcel that was formerly used for agriculture and is recognized by the Department of Conservation as Farmland of Local Importance. The project site is no longer used for agriculture and is designated for commercial land use per the City of Fresno General Plan. Similarly, surrounding parcels are designated, and in some cases developed as, residential and commercial uses. The project would not involve changes to the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. (2023 DEIR p. 3.2-5)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-2: Cumulative Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts Although portions of the city, including the project site, were historically used for agriculture, the City has planned for urbanization of the incorporated city through its general plan. The City of Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report identified that development according to the land uses designated in the General Plan would result in the loss of up to 15,903 acres of Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program-designated farmland (City of Fresno 2014: 5.2-12).
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
12 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Although the project site is not zoned for agriculture and is not under Williamson Act contract, it is designated Farmland of Local Importance. Development of the project site would result in permanent conversion of this land.
Farmland of Local Importance is not a designation of concern under CEQA. The refore, although there is an existing, adverse cumulative condition related to the loss of Farmland in the city of Fresno the project would not contribute to the impact in a cumulatively considerable manner. (2023 DEIR pp. 4-7 to 4-8)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.3 AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Generate Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5
The project would not generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria. These thresholds are inherently tied to long-term regional air quality planning (i.e., SJVAPCD’s air quality management plans), which demonstrates that the project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plans. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.3-19 to 3.3-20)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.3-2: Generate Long-Term Operational Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5
The project would not generate operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria for permitted and non-permitted sources following compliance with SJVACPD’s Rule 9510 (ISR) for this land use type. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.3-20 to 3.3-21)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.3-3: Expose Receptors to TAC Concentrations Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Based on the health risk assessment prepared for the project, construction and operation of the project would not produce significant diesel particulate matter or other toxic air contaminants (TACs) such that SJVAPCD’s thresholds for TAC cancer risk exposure of 20 in 1 million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index of 1 for the maximally exposed individual for non-carcinogens would be exceeded. Using these numerical thresholds established by SJVAPCD, the project would not generate substantial emissions of TACs causing an adverse health impact f rom TAC exposure. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.3-22 to 3.3-23)
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.3-4: Expose Receptors to Substantial CO Concentrations Buildout of the project would not contribute to localized concentrations of mobile-source carbon dioxide that would exceed an applicable ambient air quality standard. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.3-23 to 3.3-24)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.3-5: Generate Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People Buildout of the project would not introduce an odor source identified by SJVAPCD that could result in an adverse odor impact. (2023 DEIR p. 3.3-25)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-3: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
There is a cumulative impact related to air quality in the city of Fresno. However, the project’s contribution to this cumulatively significant air quality impact would not be cumulatively considerable. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, subdivision (h)(3), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previous ly approved plan or mitigation program. All air quality pollutants would be below established thresholds. This level of emissions indicates that the project would not conflict with long-term regional air quality planning in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Additionally, as long-term regional air quality planning is directly tied to attainment of the national and state air quality standards, the project would not contribute substantially to adverse health outcomes associated with cumulative air quality impairment. (2023 DEIR p. 4-8)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
14 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
7.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-3: Disturb Human Remains
Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic -period marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, ground- disturbing preconstruction and construction activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would make this impact less than significant . (2023 DEIR p. 3.4-14 to 3.4-15)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-4: Cumulative Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
The project could contribute to cumulative impacts associated with damage or loss of cultural resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would reduce the project’s individual impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring that a worker environmental awareness program be prepared and provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources, requiring construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered. Because the project’s individual impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, the project’s contribution to this cumulatively significant impact would not be cumulatively considerable. (2023 DEIR p. 4-9)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.
7.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4-5: Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
The project would contribute to cumulative biological resources impacts associated with construction and operation of land uses in the cumulative impact area. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b would prevent potential adverse effects on these species associated with the individual project. Because implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the project’s individual impact to a less-than-significant level, the project’s contribution to the cumulatively significant impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. (2023 DEIR pp. 4-9 to 4-10)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15
7.6 ENERGY
Impact 3.6-1: Result in a Potentially Significant Environmental Impact Due to the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources, During Project Construction or Operation The project would not use energy for construction that would be considered wasteful or unnecessary, as that energy expenditure would facilitate operation of the project and achievement of project goals. The project does not include any construction activity beyond what is needed to provide a functional facility. Construction of the project would adhere to best management practices (BMPs) for construction (e.g., restrict idling time to 5 minutes or less). Moreover, the project would utilize Tier 3 construction equipment for construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower. The project would introduce new electricity and natural gas consumption relative to baseline conditions; however, the project would be enrolled in PG&E’s Solar Choice Program to procure 100 percent of its electricity from solar resources.
The project would also be served by existing infrastructure capable of meeting the project’s operational energy needs.
During operation, energy would not be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.6-7 to 3.6-9)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.6-2: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Energy Measures of a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency
The project would be consistent with the relevant energy measures from the City of Fresno’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP) that pertain to nonresidential development. Because the project would incorporate relevant measures as project design features, such as a commitment to PG&E’s Solar Choice Program, and would incorporate energy-reducing measures from the GHGRP, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City of Fresno’s GHGRP. (2023 DEIR p. 3.6-9)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-6: Cumulative Energy Impacts
Cumulative development would result in increased energy demand and consumption from increased construction activities, vehicle trips, and electrical and natural gas consumption. The cumulative effects of related projects are not significant and the project would not have a considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant impact would occur. (2023 DEIR pp. 4-10)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
16 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
7.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Impact 3.7-1: Generate GHG Emissions That Would Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
Construction-related activities would generate GHG emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment, materials transport, and worker commutes. Based on modeling conducted for the project, construction is estimated to generate a total of 1,050 MTCO2e. Operation of the project would also generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips (member vehicles, employee vehicles, and delivery trucks) accessing the project site, on-site natural gas combustion, and solid waste and wastewater generation. For the first year of operation, the project’s emissions would total 22,428 MTCO2e/year. While the project would result in an increase in GHG emissions when compared to the existing conditions (i.e., vacant site with no development), the project would not conflict with or impede the state’s ability to meet its GHG reduction goals. Specifically, the PR-DEIR demonstrates that the project would not conflict with statewide emissions reduction targets, the Fresno Council of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the Fresno Council of Government’s Priority Climate Action Plan, and the City of Fresno’s 2014 GHG Reduction Plan. (PR-DEIR pp. 3.7-30 to 3.7-55)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.7-2: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of GHGs The project would comply with all laws and regulations governing the reduction of GHG emissions. The project aligns with Federal Vehicle Standards, which regulate fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from motor vehicles. Additionally, the project would comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings, contributing to GHG emission reductions. Finally, the project would comply with the California Renewables Portfolio Standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and would not conflict with the ability of these policies to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity and fuels used in California. As described above, the project would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (PR-DEIR p. 3.7-55)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.7.1 Impact 4-7: Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for GHG emissions and climate change is global. Climate change is an inherently cumulative issue and relates to development in the region, California, and, most of all, the world. Whereas most pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any GHG molecule depends on Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more carbon dioxide (CO 2) is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contribute substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. (PR-DEIR p. 1-4)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.8-1: Create a Significant Hazard through Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Project construction and operation would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Potential impacts would be addressed through compliance with applicable regulations that would reduce impacts associated with the use, transport, storage, and sale of hazardous materials, including measures taken to address the safety of underground storage tanks and the handling of hazardous materials in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Business Emergency/Contingency Plan and the local Certified Unified Program Agency. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.8- 7 to 3.8-8)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.8-2: Create a Significant Hazard through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment or be Located on a Site which is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment
The potential for past use of the project site to result in substantial hazard s has been evaluated, including soil sampling as part of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Operation of the project, which would involve the use, storage, and sale of potentially hazardous materials, would be subject to regulations designed to reduce the potential for the project to create hazardous conditions through a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition. There is no evidence of a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Implementation of the project would not create a significant hazard due to release of chemicals associated with past agricultural use of the site, location on a site that is on a list of known hazardous materials sites, or due to operation of the project. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.8-9 to 3.8-10)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
18 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 3.8-3: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within 0.25 Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Compliance with all relevant regulations for the handling and transport of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for the generation of hazardous waste typical of construction activities. Additionally, the potential for operation of the project to result in hazardous effects on schools would be limited because the gas station would be designed to minimize potential for accidental releases of fuel into the environment. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.8-10 to 3.8-11)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.8-4: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with the Implementation of an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify formal evacuation routes. Compliance with the conditions of the Street Work and Traffic Control Permit during any potential road closures, applicable G eneral Plan policies, and review of the site plan by the City Fire Department would result in a less-than-significant impact on implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (2023 DEIR p. 3.8-11)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.8-5: Expose People or Structures, Either Directly or Indirectly, to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires
The project site is not located within a designated urban-wildland interface area nor is it near designated State Responsibility Areas. Existing development and irrigated agricultural land surround the project site, and the likelihood for wildland fire in the area is low. The project design would comply with existing regulations and would ensure the Costco facility and associated tire center, gas station, and drive-through car wash meet the standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent damage to structures or people by reducing wildfire hazards. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.8-11 to 3.8-12)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 Impact 4-8: Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Hazardous materials and safety issues generally occur independently of one another and are related to site -specific and project-specific characteristics and conditions. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials on a project-by-project basis would ensure that site-specific impacts are appropriately addressed and cannot combine with site-specific impacts from other project sites. The cumulative effects of related projects are not significant, and the project would not have a considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant impact would occur. (2023 DEIR pp. 4-11 to 4-12)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.9-1: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or Otherwise Degrade Water Quality
Project construction activities such as grading, excavation, and trenching could result in erosion and sedimentation, and discharge of other nonpoint source pollutants. In addition, the project would include fuel storage and dispersal, tire maintenance, and a car wash facility that could generate stormwater pollutants including oils, lubricants, and heavy metals. Regulations apply to the project that would reduce potentially significant impacts, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, underground storage tank regulations contained in CCR, Title 23, Water, Division 3, Chapter 16 (underground storage tank regulations), Central Valley RWQCB General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (Order R5-2016-0040), and FMFCD’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Because compliance with these regulations and BMPs would be incorporated into the project, there would not be a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirement or interference with implementation of a water quality control plan. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.9-8 to 3.9-9)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.9-2: Substantially Decrease Groundwater Supplies; Interfere with Groundwater Recharge, Such That the Project May Impede Sustainable Groundwater Management of the Basin; or Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The project would receive water from the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, which relies on groundwater and surface water supplies. The North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is projected to reach sustainability by 2040 if groundwater flows from within the North Kings GSA plan area to neighboring GSAs and basins are reduced and projects are developed to address present and future projected groundwater conditions. The project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that implementation of a Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
20 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sustainable groundwater management would be impeded, nor would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Draft EIR p. 3.9-10)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.9-3: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area in a Manner That Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation, Substantially Increase in Surface the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner That Would Result in Flooding or Exceedance of the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
The applicant would construct utility improvements within the site to service the proposed uses and connect to available utilities adjacent to the project site. Stormwater from the site would be directed to existing FMFCD drainage facilities in North Riverside Drive, West Spruce Avenue, and West Herndon Avenue, located within the EH local stormwater drainage area. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City of Fresno grading plan check process and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit Region-wide municipal separate storm sewer system. Compliance with the grading plan check process requires that all new development drains properly and is routed to the appropriate location. Additionally, these regulations would result in appropriate handling of stormwater on site to reduce potential for substantial increased runoff and minimize potential for downstream flooding. Participation in the region-wide municipal separate storm sewer system permit would reduce water quality impacts to surface and groundwater by ensuring that discharged water meet s the water quality standards and goals established in the Central Valley RWQCB’s Basin Plan through the implementation of BMPs described above. The runoff generated by the project is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of existing and planned stormwater drainage systems. (2023 DEIR p. 3.9-11)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-9: Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The effects of buildout of the project on surface water quality, groundwater quality and quantity, alteration of drainage patterns, and flood hazards would be addressed though compliance with existing regulations. Development associated with anticipated projects in the cumulative impact area would be subject to similar state and local regulations. The combined effects of other projects in the cumulative impact area would not be cumulatively significant and the project would not have a considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant impact would occur. (2023 DEIR p. 4-12)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21
7.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 3.10-1: Cause a Significant Environmental Impact Due to a Conflict with Relevant Plans, Policies, and Zoning Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect The proposed project would require a general plan amendment (GPA), rezone, and conditional use permit (CUP).
Requests for discretionary permits require that the project be evaluated for compliance and consistency with a variety of policy and regulatory programs adopted to avoid or reduce the severity of potential environmental effects. The project would not conflict with City policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.10-5 to 3.10-7)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-10: Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts
Land use and planning impacts would occur where there would be physical division of established communities or inconsistency land use plans and regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. There is not a significant cumulative impact as a result of community division or development of projects that do not adhere to adopted plans and regulations. The cumulative effects of related projects are not significant and the project would not have a considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant impact would occur. (2023 DEIR p. 4-13)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.11 NOISE
Impact 3.11-2: Generate Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels
Construction activity associated with the proposed project would generate short-term increases in vibration near sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Based on the distance between the equipment anticipated to be used during construction and the location of nearby sensitive receptors, vibration levels would not exceed applicable state and federal thresholds with respect to structural damage and human annoyance. Additionally, City of Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2507 exempts construction activity from vibration standards. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.11- 20 to 3.11-21)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
22 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 3.11-4: Generate a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project due to Traffic Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies The proposed project is expected to increase traffic along the surrounding roadway network and , thus, increase traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. Project-generated traffic noise would not result in an exceedance of the City’s interior or exterior standard at any sensitive receptors (residences) along North Riverside Drive. Additional ly, although existing noise levels on West Herndon Avenue exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 decibels (dB) at day - night level (Ldn)/ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for nearby residential uses, project-generated traffic would not result in an exceedance of interior noise standards (i.e., 45 Ldn/CNEL) or a substantial increase (i.e., greater than 3 dB) in transportation noise. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.11-26 to 3.11-27)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-11: Cumulative Noise and Vibration Impacts
The ambient noise along West Herndon Avenue is influenced by roadway noise that exceeds the City’s standards. The project’s contribution to this cumulatively significant noise impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Although the existing noise levels along West Herndon Avenue are above the City’s noise standard, the traffic noise generated by the project would not result in a substantial increase. The 1 dB increase in traffic noise would be imperceptible and would not be a cumulatively considerable contribution to ambient noise on West Herndon Avenue in the cumulative condition. Although there is an existing, adverse cumulative condition associated with roadway noise along West Herndon Avenue, the project would not contribute in a cumulatively considerable manner to this condition. The project would also result in single-event noise from semi-trucks along North Riverside Drive. This impact would be addressed through implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11 -5. Because the project’s individual impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, the project’s contribution to the cumulatively significant impact would be less than cumulatively considerable (2023 DEIR pp. 4-13 to 4-14)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.
7.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.12-1: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Fire or Police Facilities or the Need for New or Physically Altered Governmental Facilities
The project site is in a developing suburban area that is within the service area of the City’s fire and police departments. The proposed facility would serve the city’s existing population in northwest Fresno. The project would Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 not introduce new residents to the area and new or physically altered facilities would not be required. Further, the project would comply with all applicable fire safety regulations and pay fire impact fees.
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4-12: Cumulative Public Services and Recreation Impacts The project would not result in substantial demand for public services. The cumulative effects of related projects are not significant and the project would not have a considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant impact would occur. (2023 DEIR p. 4-14)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.13 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.13-1: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, Including Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed project would be consistent with established City and regional policies and plans related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit service in the project area. The proposed project’s off -site improvements include construction of bicycle facilities along its western, southern, and northern frontages (North Riverside Drive, West Herndon Avenue, and Spruce Avenue, respectively) and would be consistent with the City of Fresno Active Transportation Program. Additionally, although demand would be minimal, the existing transit service has the capacity to accommodate any increase in ridership generated by the proposed project. Lastly, the proposed project’s reclassification of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue would allow the project to construct the proposed intersection that would provide additional access to the project site. This general plan amendment would allow for consistency between the proposed project and the general plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a plan, program, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.13-11 to 3.13-13)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.13-4: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
The proposed project would be designed according to City of Fresno standards and would be reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno and the appropriate emergency service providers. Additionally, the proposed project would develop a Traffic Control Plan to ensure sufficient emergency access is maintained during construction activities. The proposed project would meet all City design standards, municipal code regulations, and requirements Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
24 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations provided in the 2019 California Fire Code as adopted by the City of Fresno. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to review by the City and emergency service departments to ensure adequate access is provided. Thus, the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access during construction and operation. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.13- 21 to 3.13-22)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
7.14 UTILITIES
Impact 3.14-1: Require or Result in the Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment or Storm Water Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities, the Construction or Relocation of which could cause Significant Environmental Effects
The project would develop a currently vacant site into a Costco facility, which would require extending the surrounding utility infrastructure onto the project site. All utility infrastructure extensions and hookups would occur within the disturbance area of the project site, the environmental effects of which have been analyzed in the EIR. The project’s projected demand for water, electric power, and natural gas, along with the project’s projected wastewater and stormwater output, are within the existing and future capacity of the utility providers that serve the project site. For these reasons, the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility infrastructure that could result in significant environmental effects that are not evaluated in the EIR. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.14-11 to 3.14-12)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.14-2: Have Insufficient Water Supplies Available to Serve the Project and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development during Normal, Dry, and Multiple Dry Years
The Urban Water Management Planning Act projects that the City would have an excess of water through 2045 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. While the project would require a G eneral Plan amendment from Community Commercial to General Commercial, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not differentiate between commercial districts. Therefore, the project is accounted for within the UWMP’s water supply calculation. Given that the project’s water demand is accounted for in the City’s UWMP projections for future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and that the UWMP projections found that the City would have an excess of water in the aforementioned drought scenarios, there would be sufficient water supplies to serve the project. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.14-12 to 3.14-13)
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.14-3: Result in a Determination by the Wastewater Treatment Provider Which Serves or May Serve the Project That It Has Inadequate Capacity to Serve the Project’s Projected Demand in Addition to the Provider’s Existing Commitments
The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities provides wastewater and sewer service to the project site. All wastewater is diverted to one of the City’s two wastewater treatment plants that have an average flow capacity of
88.71 million gallons per day. The project would produce approximately 0.05 million gallons per day of wastewater.
The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has reviewed the proposed project and has identified sewer facility charges as conditions of approval. The Department of Public Utilities has not identified inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the City’s existing commitments (Diaz and Gray pers. comm. 2021).
Based upon the relative quantity of wastewater produced by the project and the consistency of the project with the General Plan land use designation for the project site, upon which the Department of Public Utilities bases future wastewater generation projections, it is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to accommodate provision of sewer service to the project site. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.14-13 to 3.14-14)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 3.14-4: Generate Solid Waste in Excess of State or Local Standards, or in Excess of the Capacity of Local Infrastructure, or Otherwise Impair the Attainment of Solid Waste Reduction Goals or Not Comply with Federal, State, and Local Management and Reduction Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste The project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes related to solid waste, including the state Integrated Waste Management Act and the solid waste policies of the City of Fresno General Plan. The project’s anticipated solid waste production of 2.9 tons per day would comprise 0.13 percent of the American Avenue Landfill’s maximum permitted throughput of 2,200 tons per day. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Following closure of the American Avenue Landfill (anticipated in 2031), solid waste would be transported by the licensed waste hauler to the facility identified to accept waste from the city. The project would not be inconsistent with established regulations or generate solid waste that exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure. (2023 DEIR p. 3.14-14)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
26 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 4-14: Cumulative Utilities Impacts
The combined demand for some utilities, such as electricity, could result in the need to construct new or expected infrastructure. The cumulative effects of related projects could be potentially significant due to the combined demand for some utilities, such as electricity, and the resulting need to construct new or expected infrastructure. However, the demand for utilities from the project and associated environmental effects would not result in cumulatively considerable environmental effects. (2023 DEIR p. 4-15)
FINDING
The City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 8 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions in this section were not subject to the Order After Hearing issued by the Court on July 17, 2025, granting the Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Lawsuit. As such, text reflects the 2024 EIR. Based on the analysis contained in the 2024 EIR, the following impacts have been determined to be significant impacts that can be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures described below and set forth in the MMRP. Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the PRC and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the following potentially significant effects identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate the identified potentially significant effects on the environment to a less-than-significant level. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
8.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Archaeological Resources
Although no known archaeological resources have been identified on the project site, project -related ground- disturbing activities may result in the discovery of or damage to yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.4-12 to 3.4-13)
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologists to prepare a worker environmental awareness program. The program shall be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources. A copy of the worker environmental awareness program shall be provided to the City’s Planning Division before construction activities begin. The topics to be addressed in the worker environmental awareness program will include, at a minimum:
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 types of cultural resources expected on the project site; types of evidence that indicates cultural resources might be present (e.g., glass shards, lithic scatters); what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; what to do if a worker encounters animal bones or possible human bones; and repercussions for removing or intentionally disturbing archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Retain an Archaeological Monitor and Native American Monitor, and Halt Ground- Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features or Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that any historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., glass, metal, and/or ceramic refuse scatters), or prehistoric subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., locally darkened soil (“midden”), stone tool chipping debris, bones, shell beads, or concentrated charcoal layers), are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified. The applicant will then retain the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to assess the significance of the find.
Specifically, the archaeologist shall determine whether the find qualifies as an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or tribal artifacts. If the find does fall within one of these three categories, the qualified archaeologist shall then make recommendations to the City regarding appropriate procedures that should be used to protect the integrity of the resource and to ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, and/or data recovery, with preservation in place being the preferred option if feasible. If the find is a tribal artifact, the City shall provide a reasonable opportunity for input from a Native American tribal representative affiliated with the location of the discovery; affiliation shall be determined by the City, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, based on the City’s AB 52 list or the contact list provided by the NAHC. If responsive, the tribal representative will then determine whether the artifact is considered a tribal cultural resource, as defined by PRC Section 21074. The applicant, in consultation with the City and Tribe, shall implement the recommended preservation options (which may include preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation of significant artifacts, if it determines that the measures are feasible in light of project design, logistics, and cost considerations.
FINDING
The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures are imposed upon the project as conditions of approval adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council finds that pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
RATIONALE
Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would minimize impacts by requiring that a worker environmental awareness program be prepared and provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who would have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources. These measures would also require construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered. These mitigation measures would also be consistent with Objective HCR-1, Policy HCR-1-c, Objective HCR-2, Policy HCR-2-b, Policy HCR-2-c, and HCR-2-d of the City of Fresno General Plan and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. (2023 DEIR p. 3.4-14)
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
28 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 3.4-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource
Tribal consultation has not resulted in the identification of tribal cultural resources on the project site. Despite this, excavation activities associated with project construction may disturb or destroy previously undiscovered significant subsurface tribal cultural resources. (2023 DEIR p. 3.4-14)
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologists to prepare a worker environmental awareness program. The program shall be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources. A copy of the worker environmental awareness program shall be provided to the City’s Planning Division before construction activities begin. The topics to be addressed in the worker environmental awareness program will include, at a minimum:
types of cultural resources expected on the project site; types of evidence that indicates cultural resources might be present (e.g., glass shards, lithic scatters); what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; what to do if a worker encounters animal bones or possible human bones; and repercussions for removing or intentionally disturbing archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Retain an Archaeological Monitor and Native American Monitor, and Halt Ground- Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features or Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that any historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., glass, metal, and/or ceramic refuse scatters), or prehistoric subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., locally darkened soil (“midden”), stone tool chipping debris, bones, shell beads, or concentrated charcoal layers), are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified. The applicant will then retain the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to assess the significance of the find.
Specifically, the archaeologist shall determine whether the find qualifies as an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or tribal artifacts. If the find does fall within one of these three categories, the qualified archaeologist shall then make recommendations to the City regarding appropriate procedures that should be used to protect the integrity of the resource and to ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, and/or data recovery, with preservation in place being the preferred option if feasible. If the find is a tribal artifact, the City shall provide a reasonable opportunity for input from a Native American tribal representative affiliated with the location of the discovery; affiliation shall be determined by the City, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, based on the City’s AB 52 list or the contact list provided by the NAHC. If responsive, the tribal representative will then determine whether the artifact is considered a tribal cultural resource, as defined by PRC Section 21074. The applicant, in consultation with the City and Tribe, shall implement the recommended preservation options (which may include preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation of significant artifacts, if it determines that the measures are feasible in light of project design, logistics, and cost considerations.
FINDING
The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures are imposed upon the Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 project as conditions of approval adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council finds that pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
RATIONALE
Impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced by requiring that a worker environmental awareness program be prepared and provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter cultural resources; and requiring construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered. These mitigation measures would also be consistent with Policy HCR-2-d of the City of Fresno General Plan related to Native American sites. (2023 DEIR p. 3.4-14) Impact 3.4-4: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature
Although no known paleontological resources have been identified on the project site, project -related ground- disturbing activities may result in the discovery of or damage to yet undiscovered resources. ( 2023 DEIR p. 3.4-15)
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Halt Ground-Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Paleontological Resources If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the project applicant shall immediately halt operations within 30 feet of the find and notify the City. If the find is determined to be significant, it shall be salvaged by a qualified paleontologist retained by the project applicant following the standards of the SVP (2010) and curated at a certified repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
FINDING
The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and would reduce the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure is imposed upon the project as a condition of approval. Accordingly, the City Council finds that pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
RATIONALE
The potential for the project to result in the direct or indirect destruction of unique paleontological resources is low; however, the potential cannot be dismissed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4- 4, which sets forth standard treatment measures to limit destruction of unique paleontological resources, the effect of the project on yet undiscovered paleontological resources would be effectively reduced. (2023 DEIR p. 3.4-16) Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
30 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5-1: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat
Project activities would include ground disturbance, tree removal, and other vegetation removal, which could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special-status wildlife species if present, reduced breeding productivity of these species, and loss of species habitat. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.5-13 and 3.5-15)
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a: Conduct Take Avoidance Survey for Burrowing Owl, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Compensate for Loss of Occupied Burrows
A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey for burrowing owls in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the project site no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities using survey methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report (CDFW 2012). Much of the area within this 1,640-foot survey area does not contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., residential areas, commercial development, roads) and would not require surveys. Inaccessible areas that contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course property) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope. If no occupied burrows are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. If an active burrow is found within 1,640 feet of pending construction activities during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), the applicant shall establish and maintain a minimum protection buffer of 164 feet (50 meters) around the occupied burrow throughout construction. If an active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The actual buffer size shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the time of year and level of disturbance in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Ow l Mitigation (CDFW 2012). The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer shall not disturb burrowing owl use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no-disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be developed, as described in Appendix E of the CDFW Staff Report. Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW. The exclusion plan shall include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below).
If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. If an active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad- scale, long- term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan developed in accordance with Appendix E of CDFW 2012 Staff Report.
If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) shall be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent conservation of com parable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to develop a burrowing owl mitigation and management plan that incorporates the following goals and standards:
Mitigation lands shall be selected based on comparison of the habitat lost to the compensatory habitat, including type and structure of habitat, disturbance levels, potential for conflicts with humans, pets, and other wildlife, density of burrowing owls, and relative importance of the habitat to the species throughout its range. If feasible, mitigation lands shall be provided adjacent or proximate to the project site so that displaced owls can relocate with reduced risk of injury or mortality. Feasibility of providing mitigation adjacent or proximate to the project site depends on availability of sufficient habitat to support displaced owls that may be preserved in perpetuity.
If habitat suitable for burrowing owl is not available for conservation adjacent or proximate to the project site, mitigation lands can be secured off-site and shall aim to consolidate and enlarge conservation areas outside of planned development areas and within foraging distance of other conservation lands. Mitigation may be also accomplished through purchase of mitigation credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank, if available.
Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultation with CDFW. If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permittee-responsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan shall include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and responsibilities, vegetation management goals, financial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures.
Success shall be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the site and if the num bers are maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, shall include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distribution, and trends in stressors.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b: Conduct Focused Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, Other Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Buffers To minimize the potential for loss of Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other raptors, and other native birds, project construction activities (e.g., tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1 -January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), if feasible. If project construction activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation shall be required.
Within 14 days before the onset of project construction activities during the breeding season (approximately February 1 through August 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys shall conduct focused surveys for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other nesting raptors, and other native birds. Surveys shall be conducted in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) within 0.5 mile of the project site for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite; within 500 feet of the site for other raptors; and within 50 feet of the site for non- raptor common native bird nests. Inaccessible areas that contain habitat suitable for nesting birds (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course property) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
32 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations If no nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. Impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity, including tree removal, shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. An avoidance buffer shall be implemented for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite in consultation with CDFW.
CDFW guidelines recommend implementation of 0.25- or 0.5-mile-wide buffers for Swainson’s hawk nests, but the size of the buffer may be decreased if a qualified biologist and the City of Fresno, in consultation with C DFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. For other species, a qualified biologist shall determine the size of the buffer for nests of non-special-status species after a site- and nest- specific analysis. Buffers typically shall be 500 feet for common raptors. Buffer size for non-raptor common bird species generally shall be at least 20 feet. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size shall include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and proposed project construction activities. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would n ot be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for a listed or fully protected species (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, white -tailed kite) shall require consultation with CDFW. If an active nest is found on property outside of the project site (e.g ., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project construction activities shall be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project construction activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.
FINDING
The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures are imposed upon the project as conditions of approval adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council finds that pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
RATIONALE
Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b would minimize impacts by requiring preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other common raptors, and other native birds, and implementation of protective measures for active nests. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a would reduce potential impacts on burrowing owl to a less-than-significant level by requiring a take avoidance survey for burrowing owl, implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of burrowing owls and destruction of active burrows if detected, and compensation if burrows cannot be avoided such that the habitat acreage and the number of burrows destroyed are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b would reduce potential impacts on Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other raptors, and other common native nesting birds to a less-than- significant level by requiring focused surveys for nesting birds and implementation of measures to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of the species if nests are detected. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.5-15 and 3.5-16) Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33
8.3 NOISE
Impact 3.11-3: Generate a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project due to Operational Stationary and On-Site Noise in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies
The proposed project would involve the generation of noise from various stationary and other operations-related non-transportation noise sources. Combined noise levels from non-transportation noise sources would fluctuate depending on each noise source’s location and proximity to sensitive receptors, the presence of noise barriers (i.e., building walls), operating hours, and if the nature of each noise is intermittent or continuous. Although noise may combine from the various generators, it is unlikely that combined noise levels would increase to levels that exceed the City’s noise standards at nearby sensitive receptors. The HVAC equipment, parking area, tire center, car wash, and transformer and trash compactor would not exceed appliable City standards. However, the loading area could result in potentially significant levels of noise depending on project design.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: Reduce Exposure of Existing Sensitive Receptors to Noise Generated by Loading Dock Activity The project applicant shall construct a sound wall west of the loading docks or other noise attenuating feature with a demonstrated ability to result in a 9 dB noise decrease at the existing residences along North Riverside Drive.
FINDING
The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and would reduce the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure is imposed upon the project as a condition of approval adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council finds that pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
RATIONALE
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 would require the implementation of design features to reduce noise levels to meet industry standards. (2023 DEIR p. 3.11-25) Impact 3.11-5: Generate a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project due to Intermittent Single-Event Noise Levels from Trucks in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies
The proposed project has the potential to expose nearby residents to single -event noise levels (SENLs) due to operation of heavy vehicles accessing the project site during operational activities. The closest sensitive receptor west of North Riverside Drive could experience interior noise levels of approximately 66.4 dB SENLs , exceeding a threshold of 65 dB SENL.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
34 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.11-5: Implement Traffic Noise Reduction Measures along North Riverside Drive The project proponent shall implement noise reduction measures to ensure that interio r noise levels at residential land uses near the west side of North Riverside Drive do not exceed 65 dB SENL under existing-plus-project conditions. This measure is consistent with General Plan Policy NS-1-I, which recommends the use of design alterations to reduce noise impacts. This performance standard can be achieved using either of the following measures. Therefore, if one option is not implemented, the other would be required. Pave the roadway segment with rubberized hot-mix asphalt or equivalent surface treatment with known noise- reducing properties on top of the roadway surface. The rubberized hot-mix asphalt overlay shall be designed with appropriate thickness and rubber component quantity (typically 15 percent by weight of the total blend), such that traffic noise levels are reduced by an average of 4 to 6 dB (noise levels vary depending on travel speeds, meteorological conditions, and pavement quality) as compared to noise levels generated by vehicle traffic traveling on standard asphalt. Rubberized hot-mix asphalt has been found to achieve this level of noise reduction in other parts of California (Sacramento County 1999). Pavement will require more frequent than normal maintenance and repair to maintain its noise attenuation effectiveness. The applicant shall fund the incremental cost for maintaining the roadway segment with the surface treatment. Construct a sound barrier taller than the 6-foot cinderblock wall that is currently present from West Spruce Avenue to West Herndon Avenue. The sound barrier shall be constructed of solid material (e.g., wood, brick, adobe, an earthen berm, boulders, or combination thereof). The reflectivity of each sound barrier shall be minimized to ensure that traffic noise reflected off the barrier does not contribute to an exceedance of applicable Leq standards at other receptors. The level of sound reflection from a barrier can be minimized with a textured or absorptive surface or with vegetation on or next to the barrier. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction (Caltrans 2013: 2 -41; FTA 2018: 42).
Barriers higher than the line of sight provide increased noise reduction (FTA 2018: 16). Scenic quality factors shall be taken into account during design, such as using more natural materials (e.g., berms and boulders) to reduce the visible mass of a wall. All barriers shall be designed to blend into the landscape along the roadway, to the extent feasible. Ensuring a character consistent with the surrounding area may involve the use of strategically placed native trees or other vegetation; the addition of special materials (e.g., wood or stonework) on the façade of the sound wall; and/or a sound wall that is covered in vegetation. Additionally, the sound barrier shall meet the standards established in General Plan Policy NS-1-o which establishes aesthetic considerations for sound walls including a maximum allowable height of 15 feet.
FINDING
The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and would reduce the potential impacts of the Costco Commercial Center Project to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure is imposed upon the project as a condition of approval and adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council finds that pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
RATIONALE
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 would require the project applicant to construct a sound barrier and/or pave North Riverside Drive with noise reducing materials. The sound barrier would only be implemented if all of the property owners on the west side of North Riverside Drive between West Herndon Avenue and West Spruce Avenue collectively agree to the improvement (if it occurs on private lands). If sound barriers that reduce exterior traffic noise levels on the residential properties to less than 65 dB SENL are constructed, then the applicant shall not Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 35 be required to pave the roadway with a special low-noise surface treatment. However, if the sound barrier component of the mitigation measure cannot feasibly reduce the exterior traffic noise levels to below the established threshold, the rubberized hot-mix asphalt or equivalent surface treatment would be required. City staff have confirmed the feasibility of this option. The implementation of either one of these mitigation measure options would ensure residents near North Riverside Drive would not experience SENL above 65 dB. (2023 DEIR p. 3.11-29) 9 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE
CONSIDERED UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions in this section were not subject to the Order After Hearing issued by the Court on July 17, 2025, granting the Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Lawsuit. Text reflects the 2024 EIR and has been supplemented to reflect County programs adopted since release of the 2024 EIR. As documented throughout Chapter 3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” and Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” of the Draft EIR, after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, most of the impacts associated with the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The following impacts are considered significant and unavoidable; that is, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the project’s impacts to a less -than-significant level:
Impact 3.11-1: Generate a Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
Impact 3.13-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment) Impact 4-13: Cumulative Transportation and Circulation Impacts
9.1 NOISE
Impact 3.11-1: Generate a Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies
Construction would be located in close proximity to existing noise-sensitive receptors. Most noise-generating construction activity would be performed during daytime hours, when construction noise is exempt from noise standards by the City of Fresno Municipal Code. However, it is possible that construction activity may be required during the non-exempt evening and nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and all -day Sunday) for activities such as large continuous concrete pours. On-site construction could start as early as 2:00 a.m. and the exterior nighttime noise standard of 50 dB between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. could be exceeded during nighttime construction activities. Thus, potential nighttime construction activities could expose nearby noise- sensitive receptors to noise levels that exceed City nighttime noise standards as detailed in the Municipal Code. ( 2023 DEIR pp. 3.11-16 to 3.11-19)
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
36 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Implement Additional Measures to Reduce Exposure to Construction Noise Reduction during Noise-Sensitive Time Periods
For all outdoor construction activity that is to take place outside of the City of Fresno construction noise exception timeframes (i.e., 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and all hours of the day on Sunday), and that is anticipated to generate interior noise levels at sensitive receptors that exceed the City of Fresno General Plan interior noise standard of 45 dB for residential land uses, the construction contractor shall comply with the following measures:
Consistent with Section 10-110 of the City Noise Control Ordinance, obtain an exception to Article 1, “Noise Regulations,” through the Chief Administrative Officer. A permit may be issued authorizing noises prohibited by the noise ordinance whenever it is found that the public interest will be served thereby or that extreme hardship will result from the strict enforcement.
Install temporary noise curtains as close as possible to the noise-generating activity such that the curtains obstruct the direct line of sight between the noise-generating construction activity and the nearby sensitive receptors. Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to sound-absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious, material with a surface weight of at least one pound per sq uare foot. Noise-reducing enclosures and techniques shall be used around stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g., concrete mixers, generators, compressors).
Operate heavy-duty construction equipment at the lowest operating power possible. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation.
Where available and feasible, construction equipment with back-up alarms shall be equipped with either audible self-adjusting backup alarms or alarms that only sound when an object is detected. Self -adjusting backup alarms shall automatically adjust to 5 dB over the surrounding background levels. All non-self-adjusting backup alarms shall be set to the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise levels. Provide a minimum of one week of advanced notice to owners of all residential located within 350 feet of where nighttime construction activity would take place. This noticing shall inform the recipients of when and where nighttime construction would occur and the types of measures being implemented to lessen the impact at potentially affected receptors. This noticing shall also provide the contact information for the designated disturbance coordinator. The disturbance coordinator shall receive all public complaints and be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint and implementing any feasible measures to alleviate the problem.
FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the p roject that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][1]). However, the City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures may not reduce the identified significant impact to a level below significant. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), see the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 37
RATIONALE
The proposed project is anticipated to require limited nighttime construction, which has the potential to result in short-term, temporary exceedances of the nighttime exterior noise standard. Interior noise standards would not be exceeded and sleep disruption is not anticipated. Therefore, actual effects would be limited to individuals outdoors between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on the specific night(s) of construction and their experience of the tranquil nighttime environment.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would provide substantial reductions in levels of construction noise exposure at noise-sensitive receptors by ensuring proper equipment use; and requiring the use of enclosures, shields, and noise curtains (noise curtains typically can reduce noise by up to 10 dB [EPA 1971]). Thus, construction noise could potentially be reduced from 63 dB Leq prior to mitigation to approximately 53 db Leq after Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 is implemented. Although noise reduction would be achieved with implementation of these measures, the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would depend upon the specific site conditions at the time of construction. Because it cannot be assured that the applicable noise standards can be met, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
9.2 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or be Inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)
Construction activity is temporary and would generate fewer than 500 daily trips; thus, the proposed project meets the screening criteria established in the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds while construction activities occur. Generation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) attributed to project operation is expected to result in a net increase of average daily VMT by 129,326. The City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds states that “VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT” (City of Fresno 2020); therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant impact to VMT. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.13-13 to 3.13-15)
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Provide a Program to Reduce Costco Employees’ VMT by at least 26 Percent Costco shall provide a program that is designed to achieve at least a 26 percent reduction in employee VMT. The program shall be provided to the City for acceptance prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Specific actions must include the following measures described in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s 2021 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity:
Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (estimated to result in up to 4 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall implement a marketing strategy to promote Costco’s commute reduction program. Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The following features (or similar alternatives) shall be provided:
on-site or online commuter information services,
employee transportation coordinators,
on-site or online transit pass sales, and
guaranteed ride home service.
Provide Ridesharing Program (estimated to result in up to 8 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall develop and implement a ridesharing program. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
38 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations single-occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and greenhouse gas emissions. The following strategies provide examples of a multifaceted approach for promoting a rideshare program:
designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
Implement Subsidized or Discount Transit Program (estimated to result in up to 5.5 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall provide free transit passes for employees. Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and, thus, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (estimated to result in up to 4.4 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities include elements such as bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Improve Street Connectivity (estimated to result in up to 30 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall construct West Spruce Avenue along the northern site boundary, creating new connections between West Spruce Avenue and North Aurther Avenue. The increased connectivity and intersection density that would result from these improvements would facilitate shorter trips, thereby reducing VMT. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements/Construct Bike Facilities/Expand Bikeway Network (estimated to result in up to 10 percent employee VMT reduction 1): Costco shall construct new, 12-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle paths along West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive to improve pedestrian access and connect to a larger bicycle network. This encourages a mode shift from automobiles to biking and walk ing, resulting in VMT reduction.
FINDING
On November 6, 2025, the Fresno City Council approved: Resolution No. 2025 -314 adopting a Vehicle Miles Traveled Nexus Study, Reduction Program, and Capital Improvement Plan; Resolution No. 2025 -315 amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to add a Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Fee; and Ordinance No. 2025-43 adding Article 4.17 to Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code relating to the Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program and Mitigation Fee. By the terms of the two Resolutions and the Ordinance, the legislation took effect on January 6, 2026, 61 days after passage.
The VMT Reduction Program imposes a VMT mitigation fee of $295 per unit of VMT generated above the threshold of significance on projects subject to the VMT Reduction Program. As set forth in Resolution No. 2025-314 Sections
2.D and 2.E, the VMT Reduction Program contemplates collecting impact fees from projects to contribute towards 24 enumerated VMT mitigation bank projects, which are forecast to reduce citywide VMT. As set forth on page 31 of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2025-314, the 24 enumerated projects would result in a cumulative VMT reduction of 67,429 VMT over a 5-year horizon at a cost of $19,891,686, resulting in a fee of $295 per unit of VMT.
Section 5 of Resolution No. 2025-314, which adopted the VMT Reduction Plan, provides that “due to fairness and certainty principles and infeasibility due to the City and private party time, effort and resources and public review and comment that have been spent in such cases, the VMT Mitigation Fee will not apply to projects for which VMT analysis has been conducted and incorporated into CEQA documents published for public review prior to the effective date of the VMT Mitigation Fee.” In other words, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to projects for
1 Measures T-18 through T-22-C are in the Neighborhood Design subsector. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent (CAPCOA 2021: 135).
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 39 which VMT analysis has already been prepared and subject to public review, as the City Council determined it would not be feasible for such projects to redo the VMT analysis.
Here, the project’s VMT analysis was completed and circulated for public review in connection with the Draft EIR in July of 2023. The 2024 EIR was fully certified on April 18, 2024. Although the 2024 EIR was later decertified, the project’s VMT analysis was not overturned and was not recirculated for public review. The PR-DEIR circulated the Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” for public review and comment between November 21, 2025 and January 5, 2026. Each of these events took place before the VMT Mitigation Fee and the VMT Reduction Program took effect on January 6, 2026. Because the project’s VMT analysis was complete, incorporated into a CEQA document, and circulated for public review long before the VMT Reduction Program became effective, the VMT Reduction Program does not apply to the project.
The City has, therefore, determined that contribution to the VMT Reduction Plan is infeasible mitigation. CEQA Guidelines section 15364 defines feasible to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.” In addition, as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21004, the City’s authority to impose mitigation measures must be based on legal authority other than CEQA. Here, no such legal authority exists, because the resolution adopting the VMT Reduction Program expressly excludes projects from the VMT Mitigation Program for which VMT analysis has been conducted and incorporated into CEQA documents published for public review prior to the effective date of the VMT Mitigation Fee, which includes the project at issue here. Therefore, the City is legally precluded from imposing the VMT Mitigation Fee on the project. Furthermore, as set forth in the City Council’s findings related to the infeasibility of imposing the VMT Mitigation Fee on in-process projects, it would not be feasible to re-do and recirculate the project’s VMT analysis at this late stage in the development review process, more than 2 years after the VMT analysis was circulated for public review. Therefore, consistent with the clear language of the VMT Mitigation Program, the VMT Mitigation Fee is not a feasible mitigation measure for the project’s VMT im pacts.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the p roject that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][1]). However, the City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a level below significant. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), see the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.
RATIONALE
The primary source of daily VMT is warehouse shopping by Costco members. Members purchase items in bulk at Costco facilities, making walking, biking, or transit trips to the warehouse impractical. Bulk shopping generally requires access to a personal automobile and is often a single-destination outing. Mitigation that would substantially reduce the VMT of Costco members is infeasible due to the nature of Costco’s land use and business model, which is inherently auto-oriented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 would reduce employee trips. However, employee trips account for 436 daily trips (less than 2 percent of the total daily trips) and 13,385 VMT (approximately 7 percent of the daily VMT). Based on the California Air Pollution Control Officers A ssociation’s estimates in the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Handbook (CAPCOA 2021), Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 could achieve up to a 26 percent reduction in project employee commute VMT, which is less than 2 percent of the proposed project’s total daily regional VMT. (2023 DEIR p. 3.13-18) Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
40 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 3.13-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment)
The proposed project would follow all safety protocol during construction activities and would develop and implement a Traffic Control Plan in accordance with City standards. The proposed project would be required to meet City design standards and regulations, including internal circulation and off-site improvement standards for all modes of transportation. Additionally, the proposed project’s plans would be subject to review by the City, thus ensuring applicable design requirements related to safety are met. However, as detailed in the Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project (Kittelson & Associates 2023) and included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not meet safety thresholds related to intersection queuing.
Although the proposed project would follow all safety and design protocol as described above, the TIA found that the proposed project would potentially increase the occurrence of safety hazards due to queuing. The following intersections were determined to not have sufficient storage to contain 95th percentile queues with project implementation: North Riverside Drive and West Fir Avenue; North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue; and North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue.
The City has issued several conditions of approval for the proposed project that would require the implementation of o
ff-site improvements to reduce transportation hazards. However, no off -site improvements at the intersection of North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue have been identified that would alleviate the queuing effect. (2023 DEIR pp. 3.13-18 to 3.13-20)
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: Provide Off-Site Improvements Costco shall provide the following off-site improvements to alleviate queuing that would result in transportation hazards to the greatest extent feasible prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue: Revise signal phasing to optimize green- time allocation relative to anticipated volumes. To reduce queue blockage of the intersection, “DO NOT BLOCK” pavement markings are required for the full width of North Weber Avenue. On the north leg of the intersection (i.e., North Golden State Boulevard, northeast of West Herndon Avenue), reconstruct the median to extend the south bound dual left-turn pocket as far north as possible without interfering with the existing north bound left - turn pocket at West Kathryn Avenue.
All off-site improvements shall be designed in accordance with City roadway design standards and are subject to review by the City and responsible emergency service providers.
FINDING
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the p roject that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][1]). However, the City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a level below significant. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), see the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 41
RATIONALE
Following construction of off-site improvements detailed in Mitigation Measure 3.13-3, the southbound left-turn queue at the North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue intersection would continue to overflow the available storage for the turn pocket and block the adjacent travel lane by approximately 50 feet. Constraints in the median preclude increasing the southbound left-turn lanes to fully accommodate the 95th percentile queue. As discussed in the EIR, existing roadway layout and approved projects in the area preclude additional design features to address this impact. Specifically, the alignment of the California High Speed Rail parallels the existing railway northeast of North Golden State Boulevard and limits the available right of way for improvements. According to analysis in the TIA, the spillback condition would occur during the most congested period of the day and would not be a continuous condition. However, because the southbound left-turn queue at the North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue would continue to overflow the available storage for the turn pocket and block the adjacent travel lane during certain times throughout the day, this would remain a transportation hazard with mitigation. (2023 DEIR p. 3.13-21)
Impact 4-13: Cumulative Transportation and Circulation Impacts The project would result in an increase in VMT. Growth projected in the cumulative impact area could also result in increased VMT. The discussion of VMT impacts associated with the project in Impact 3.13 -2 is inherently a cumulative impact analysis because it addresses project generated VMT based on an efficiency threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans. The proposed project would result in a net increase of 129,326 regional daily VMT. (2023 DEIR p. 4-14)
MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts.
FINDING
The City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a level below significant. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), see the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.
RATIONALE
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, which requires the project applicant to provide a commute reduction program, would be focused on reducing employee trips, which account for less than 2 percent of trips. Due to the unique nature of the project, which involves bulk shopping that generally requires access to a personal automobile and is often a single-destination outing, it would be infeasible to implement other mitigation measures to minimize VMT impacts from Costco members. (2023 DEIR p. 4-14) 10 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PRC Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
42 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 999–1000 (CNPS); Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314–315; City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; Los Angeles Conservancy v. City of West Hollywood (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1031, 1041-1043.) “‘Feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” ( Ibid.; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible.
10.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE EIR
The Draft EIR identified and compared the significant environmental impacts of alternatives in Chapter 4, “Alternatives.” The emphasis of the analysis is on a determination of whether the alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts, as well as the alternative’s relative beneficial effects compared to the project and how well the alternative meets each of the project objectives. In accordance with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR identified and considered the following reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives would be capable, to varying degrees, of reducing identified impacts. Alternative 1a: No Project Alternative assumes continued operation of the existing Costco facility at its current location, but also assumes development of the project site with the type and intensity of commercial uses consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning. Alternative 1b: No Development Alternative assumes continued operation of the existing Costco facility at its current location and no development of the project site. Alternative 2: Reduced Size Costco Warehouse assumes that the proposed warehouse at the proposed site would be similar in size to the existing Costco warehouse. Alternative 3: Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative would adjust the land use mix on the project site to include high-density residential development intended to promote VMT efficiency.
The City Council finds that the range of alternatives studied in the EIR reflects a reasonable range of alternatives.
Alternatives were fully evaluated in the 2024 EIR. The 2024 EIR was upheld in the Lawsuit as to the alternatives analysis. Therefore, the PR-DEIR was not required to, and does not, include further analysis of project alternatives. No evidence was provided during review of the PR-DEIR triggering the need for further alternatives analysis. The following reflects the analysis of alternatives provided in the 2024 EIR.
10.1.1 Alternative 1: Alternative 1a: No Project Alternative - Development Consistent with Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative 1a assumes that development of the site would occur consistent with the existing land use designation (Community Commercial) and zoning (Community Commercial) of the site. The existing Community Commercial designation allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0, whereas the proposed General Commercial designation allows a FAR of 2.0, which is twice the floor area allowed under the existing designation. Also, whereas the General Commercial designation allows uses with higher traffic volumes, such as strip malls, wholesale businesses, and specialized retail, the Community Commercial designation is intended for commercial development that primarily serves local needs, Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 43 such as medium-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment use, supermarkets, drug stores, and supporting uses.
Based on the applicable development standards, and assuming that future development would be consistent with City standards related to building coverage, setbacks, landscaping, and building heights, future development of the site is anticipated to include commercial/retail development totaling approximately 120,000 square feet (s.f.), which is approximately half the intensity of the proposed project. It should be noted that, although Alternative 1a would include less overall development, this analysis assumes that no portion of the site would remain vacant, and that the entire site would be graded. However, because there would be less overall flo or area, there would likely be opportunities for increased landscape areas.
Under Alternative 1a, the existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue would continue to operate. Operation of the existing facility is accounted for in the baseline, existing conditions described throughout th e EIR. For this reason, continued operation and associated energy use, VMT, and air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the magnitude disclosed for existing operations are considered a continuation of baseline conditions and are not considered impacts resulting from Alternative 1a. However, the existing Shaw Avenue Costco has existing circulation challenges and limited parking that would persist with intensification of the use of the Costco property as the Costco member base in northwest Fresno continues to grow. (2023 DEIR pp. 6-7 to 6-8)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Implementation of Alternative 1a would result in less overall development than the project and would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the project site. As demonstrated in the Draft EIR analysis, most impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. Impacts related to Noise and Vibration and Traffic and Circulation would be reduced under this alternative. Under Alternative 1a, the overall floor area would be substantially smaller than the proposed project and may also consist of a series of smaller structures (depending on the specific development); therefore, overnight foundation pouring may not be necessa ry under this scenario. Also, the smaller size would also likely allow for increased site design flexibility, which could place structures farther from existing sensitive receptors than under the proposed project. Because of these reasons, there is a reasonable likelihood that Alternative 1a could result in a substantial reduction to the project’s significant impacts related to construction noise.
As described above, unlike the proposed General Commercial designation, which allows uses with higher traffic volumes, the existing Community Commercial designation is intended for commercial development that primarily serves local needs, such as medium-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment use, supermarkets, drug stores, and supporting uses. Therefore, a project consistent with this designation would generally be more VMT efficient than a wider-serving project, such as a Costco facility. Also, whereas some transportation demand management measures are not very effective for a Costco facility (i.e., shoppers buying in bulk would not generally be able use bicycles or transit), they may be more feasible for a local-serving retail development. Therefore, Alternative 1a may substantially reduce the project’s significant impacts related to VMT and traffic hazards due to overall reduced traffic volumes. (2023 DEIR pp. 6-8 to 6-9)
RELATION TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Alternative 1a would not achieve the basic project objective of establishing a facility of sufficient size that integrates several services, including home and/or business delivery service, under one roof. Alternative 1a would also not meet the project objective related to meeting demand for automobile services, including gasoline, car wash, and tire center because the car wash is not consistent with existing zoning. Other objectives related to operation of a retail center that serves the community with a wide variety of goods in northwest Fresno that is serviced by adequate infrastructure, creating a commercial center that is integrated with the overall design context, reducing energy consumption, increasing taxable sales, and minimizing circulation conflicts could be achieved by commercial development of the site under Alternative 1a. (2023 DEIR p. 6-8) Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
44 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FINDINGS
The City Council finds that Alternative 1a would result in similar or reduced impacts on the project site and would not alleviate existing adverse logistical conditions on the Shaw Avenue Costco site that make continued operation or redevelopment of the Shaw Avenue Costco less desirable. The City Council rejects Alternative 1a because it does not meet many of the project objectives which establish the underlying purpose of the project.
10.1.2 Alternative 1b: No Project Alternative – No Development The No Development Alternative is a version of the “no project” alternative wherein the existing environmental setting would be maintained. The existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue would continue to operate.
This alternative assumes that permissible development would not occur on the project site and the lot would remain vacant. Alternative 1b is provided for informational purposes and discloses the effects on the environment if the environmental setting were maintained. Although the site remaining undeveloped is a potential outcome of not approving the proposed project, decision-makers could only select and implement this alternative if the City also purchased the property or changed the land use designation to ensure a “no development” outcome. Otherwise, it is reasonably foreseeable that development of the property would occur as described in Alternative 1a. (2023 DEIR p. 6-9)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The No Development Alternative would eliminate all environmental effects of construction and operation identified in the Draft EIR. Alternative 1b would not conflict with City policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, the No Development Alternative would not be consistent with the existing G eneral Plan land use designation and zoning, which have been established by the City to identify appropriate locations for development. Eliminating the development potential of the project site could result in increased pressure to develop commercial land uses in other areas of northwest Fresno that are less suitable for this type of development. With the exception of land use and planning impacts, which would be similar to the proposed project, all impacts would be reduced under this alternative. (2023 DEIR pp. 6-9 to 6-10)
RELATION TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The No Development Alternative would not meet any of the objectives established for the project. (2023 DEIR p. 6-9)
FINDINGS
The City Council finds that Alternative 1b would result in similar or reduced impacts on the project site. However, the alternative would not alleviate existing adverse logistical conditions on the Shaw Avenue Costco site that make continued operation or redevelopment of the Shaw Avenue Costco less desirable. Moreover, the City does not intend to purchase the property or change the land use designation of the project site to ensure a “no development” outcome. The City Council rejects Alternative 1b because it does not meet any of the project objectives, which establish the underlying purpose of the project.
10.1.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Size Costco Warehouse
The Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative assumes development of a Costco warehouse on the project site that is the same size as the existing Costco warehouse on Shaw Avenue. As with redevelopment of the existing Costco site, a smaller warehouse would not accommodate consolidation with the market delivery operation and those processes would continue at their current location. The fueling station would also be substantially smaller than the proposed station, and there would be no car wash. The site would be designed to place the smaller structure as Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 45 far as reasonably possible from existing sensitive receptors that back onto North Riverside Drive across from the project site. Under this alternative, there may be a slight reduction in construction activity, but the general duration and types of construction would be similar. (2023 DEIR p. 6-10)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Implementation of the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative would result in less intense development on the project site, although the overall level of ground disturbance and the construction period and intensity would be similar. Overall operations would be similar. The significant impacts associated with the project that cannot be minimized or avoided through mitigation relate to traffic queuing, VMT, and construction noise. Reducing the size of the Costco warehouse would result in a reduction in average daily traffic contributing to queuing effects on area roadways and total VMT. Although the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative may result in a slight decrease in total VMT, it would not eliminate the significant VMT impact. It would also not change the effectiveness of mitigation measures (i.e., shoppers buying in bulk would not typically use bicycle or transit). Because the queuing impact is identified for the of 95
th percentile queue lengths under the project (i.e., the queue length that has only a 5 percent probability of being exceeded during a given analysis period) modest reductions in vehicle traffic generated by the alternative could reduce the severity of these impacts. The actual reduction would depend on both the volume and timing of the traffic generated. The impact is assumed to be slightly reduced overall.
Regarding the project’s significant impact related to noise, a smaller version of the project may allow more flexibility in terms of site design and layout, potentially providing more distance between specific project elements and existing sensitive receptors. Because noise generally attenuates according to the “inverse square law” (i.e., a doubling of distance from a point source reduces sound pressure by approximately 6 dB), the amount of increased distance a smaller structure would allow would not likely avoid the impact, but in combination with the mitigation measures identified, the construction-related noise impact would be further reduced. (2023 DEIR p. 6-11)
RELATION TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
This alternative would likely not adequately meet several of the project objectives, including expanding the space available for integrated retail sales and services in the local market, providing a state-of-the-art facility to better serve the membership in the greater Fresno area, integrated automobile services, and developing a facility that is large enough to accommodate all the uses and services that Costco provides to its members elsewhere. (2023 DEIR p. 6-10)
FINDINGS
The City Council finds that Alternative 2 would result in similar or slightly reduced impacts on the project site while substantially limiting the development potential and functional use of the site. The City Council rejects Alternative 2 because it does not meet many of the project objectives, which establish the underlying purpose of the project.
10.1.3 Alternative 3: Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative Under the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative, a two-story Costco warehouse would be developed within a smaller footprint to allow room for a low-to-mid-rise, high-density housing development on the project site. Given the large number of commercial/retail uses in the area and the generally low level of medium - and high-density housing, a high-density housing development would offer additional housing type(s) and contribute to making this area a “complete neighborhood.” The overall floor area would likely be smaller than the proposed Costco warehouse but may be larger than the existing Costco warehouse. Due to site constraints, no gas station, car wash, or market delivery operation would be included under this alternative.
Critically, the Costco warehouse structure would be designed such that loading docks and other noise - and air- pollutant-generating facilities and equipment are located on the side of the building farthest from any sensitive Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
46 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations receptor and as far from sensitive receptors as possible, including the on -site high-density residential structure. While it is theoretically possible to design a site plan that supports both high-density residential and large commercial uses, it is a rare mix of uses, and feasibility is highly questionable. (2023 DEIR pp. 6-11 to 6-12)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Implementation of the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative would result in greater intensity of development on the project site, although the overall level of ground disturbance and the construction period and intensity would be similar. The Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative would involve development of structures much larger in scale than the proposed project, including a two-story Costco warehouse and a low-to-mid-rise high-density housing development. Under this alternative, the mass of structures on the project site would be much more prominent and would not generally be consistent with the one- and two-story single-family residential development or the single- story commercial development in the vicinity. The contrast would be especially stark on the northern portion of the site, which is adjacent to the fairway for Riverside Golf Course. Although this change in visual character may not rise to the level of a significant impact that cannot be minimized, it would be greater than the proposed project.
Because the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative would result in a smaller commercial warehouse and includes uses that are more VMT efficient than the Costco warehouse facility alone, the alternative would likely result in somewhat reduced VMT impacts compared to the project. However, because the project site is not in a jobs -rich area that would support walkable/bikeable employment for on-site residents, the VMT efficiency associated with the residential development would be limited, and not likely enough to counter the project’s daily VMT generation. As discussed above, the City’s CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds establishes that any increase in net VMT for retail projects would be a significant impact. Therefore, although the project would likely result in modest reductions, it would not avoid or minimize the significant impact related to VMT. Furthermore, based on the overall reductions in traffic generated by the project, there may be a reduction in queuing effects. The actual reduction would depend on both the volume and timing of the traffic generated. The impact is assumed to be slightly reduced overall.
Impacts related to construction noise effects on existing sensitive receptors would also be. Due to the constrained size of the project site to support a Costco warehouse and a housing development, this alternative could increase the effects of construction noise by placing the construction areas closer to existing sensitive receptors. Also, the taller structures may require pile driving, which could result in increased impacts related to vibration. However, the modified design of this alternative may limit the need for nighttime construction associated with continuous concrete pours for large foundations. (2023 DEIR pp. 6-12 to 6-13)
RELATION TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
This alternative would likely not meet several project objectives, including developing a Costco facility that is large enough to accommodate all the uses and services that Costco provides to its members elsewhere and meeting member demand for automobile services, including gasoline. Also, because this alternative would involve large multi-story structures in an area dominated by one-and two-story residential development and single-story commercial development, it would likely not achieve the objective related to integration with the overall design context for the area. (2023 DEIR p. 6-12)
FINDINGS
The City Council finds that Alternative 3 would result in the potential for moderate reductions in the significant and unavoidable noise and transportation impacts of the project. However, Alternative 3 may also increase aesthetic impacts. In addition to the uncertainty associated with feasibility, this alternative would limit the functionality and efficiency of the larger, integrated Costco Commercial Center and would require the project applicant to engage a third party in the design and development of high-density housing because Costco does not develop housing. This is considered an excessive development requirement. The City Council rejects Alternative 3 because it does not Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 47 substantially reduce impacts, does not meet several of the project objectives, and would result in a project of different scope than the proposal.
10.2 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Because the No Development Alternative (Alternative 1b, described in Section 6.4.2 of the 2023 DEIR) would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project, it is the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Development Alternative would not meet the objectives of the project. The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1a, described in Section 6.4.1 of the 2023 DEIR) would also avoid the significant and unavoidable effects of the project, while achieving some of the project objectives related to providing a commercial center on the site.
When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[d][2]) require identification of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other action alternatives evaluated. Alternative 2: Reduced Size Costco Warehouse would be the environmentally superior action alternative because although the environmental impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and no significant impacts or significant and unavoidable impacts would be completely avoided, the project’s significant impacts related to VMT and construction noise would be slightly reduced. (2023 DEIR p. 6-13) As described above, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 would result in similar or slightly reduced impacts on the project site while substantially limiting the development potential and functional use of the site. The City Council rejects Alternative 2 because it does not meet many of the project objectives, which establish the underlying purpose of the project.
11 CONCLUSION
In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council adopts these Findings as part of its certification of the EIR for the project. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c)(3) of the PRC, the City Council also finds that the EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these Findings, also adopts an MMRP for the project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings, meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the PRC by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. Based on the entire record before the City, and having considered the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. 12 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the Costco Commercial Center Project w ould result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. Further, there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite the occu rrence of these effects, however, the Fresno City Council chooses to approve the project because, in its view, the economic, environmental, social, and other benefits of the project will render the significant effects acceptable.
In adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has considered the information contained in the EIR for the project and the record of proceedings in which the project was considered. The City Council hereby determines that the project’s benefits outweigh the significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts, as discussed below.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
48 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
12.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
Impact 3.11-1: Generate a Substantial Temporary Increase in Construction Noise Levels in Excess of Applicable Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
Impact 3.13-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment) Impact 4-13: Cumulative Transportation Impacts
12.1.1 Construction Noise (Impact 3.11-1)
As described above in Section 9, “Environmental Effects of the Project that are Considered Unavoidable Significant Impacts,” the proposed project is anticipated to require limited nighttime construction, which has the potential to result in short-term, temporary exceedances of the nighttime exterior noise standard. Interior noise standards would not be exceeded and sleep disruption is not anticipated. Therefore, actual effects would be limited to individuals outdoors between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on the specific night(s) of construction and their experience of the tranquil nighttime environment. In addition, mitigation has been identified that is anticipated to sufficiently reduce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors to eliminate the significant impact.
The significant and unavoidable impact is identified due to uncertainty. If significant impacts occur, they would be limited to individuals outside at night during the limited construction window.
12.1.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (Impact 3.13-2 and Impact 4-13) As described above in Section 9, “Environmental Effects of the Project that are Considered Unavoidable Significant Impacts,” the primary source of daily VMT would be warehouse shopping by Costco members. Members purchase items in bulk at Costco facilities, making walking, biking, or transit trips to the warehouse impractical. Mitigation measures that would substantially reduce the VMT of Costco members are infeasible.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 would reduce employee trips. However, employee trips account for 436 daily trips (less than 2 percent of the total daily trips) and 13,385 VMT (approximately 7 percent of the daily VMT). (2023 DEIR p. 3.13-18)
The City’s standard of no net increase in VMT for retail projects cannot be achieved by a warehouse retail project due to the practical considerations of purchasing items in bulk. The concept of VMT is largely tie d to the understanding of vehicle exhaust as a major contributor to global GHG emissions. Importantly, bulk shopping doe s present the opportunity for numerous efficiencies in shipping and packaging that may reduce GHG emissions compared to other commercial projects. As described in Section 3.7 of the 2023 DEIR, the project is consistent with the GHGRP and would not result in significant GHG emissions overall. Additionally, through regulatory mechanisms in place, such as the Advanced Clean Cars program and Advanced Clean Trucks, gasoline and diesel fuel consumption will continue to decrease as California’s on-road transportation sectors electrifies over time.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 49
12.1.3 Traffic Hazards (Impact 3.13-3)
As described above in Chapter 9, “Environmental Effects of the Project that are Considered Unavoidable Significant Impacts,” following construction of off-site improvements detailed in Mitigation Measure 3.13-3, the southbound left- turn queue at the North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue intersection would continue to overflow the available storage for the turn pocket and block the adjacent travel lane by approximately 50 feet. Constraints in the median preclude increasing the southbound left-turn lanes to fully accommodate the 95th percentile queue.
Specifically, the alignment of the California High Speed Rail parallels the existing railway northeast of North Golden State Boulevard and limits the available right of way for improvements. According to analysis in the TIA, the spillback condition would only occur during the most congested period of the day. (2023 DEIR p. 3.13-21) The City has required all feasible mitigation measures to address this intermittent condition, which presents a traffic hazard only if motorists are not adequately attentive to the turn pocket spillover. This area is undergoing change due to the construction of the Highspeed Rail, which both limits the City’s ability to expend the roadway and creates a dynamic environment where the impact may be less severe in the cumulative condition (i.e., once the rail improvements are complete).
Therefore, the significant and unavoidable impact is due to intermittent conditions in an area undergoing changes to the transportation network. The project alternatives are not anticipated to substantially reduce this impact.
12.2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). When significant impacts are not avoided or lessened, CEQA requires the agency to state, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project’s environmental impacts acceptable. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)).
In the City Council’s judgment, the project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The following statements, based in part upon the project objectives described in the EIR and Findings, support this conclusion. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the administrative record including t he preceding Findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section. The City Council finds that each of the enumerated benefits is individually meritorious and each benefit independently provides substantial public benefits that justify adoption of the project.
The project would provide convenient shopping to serve existing and projected demand for retail warehouse shopping in the growing area of northwest Fresno.
The project would result in a state-of-the-art facility of sufficient size to integrate several services, including home and/or business delivery service, under one roof. This promotes operational efficiencies compared to existing Costco warehouse and market delivery operations.
The project would be conditioned on the completion of several elements of the transportation network in northwest Fresno, including a pedestrian pathway along West Herndon Avenue and the completion of West Spruce Avenue. The project would be consistent with the furtherance of General Plan policies that support multimodal transportation and complete streets, such as Policy MT-1-b, Policy MT-1-g and Policy MT-1-j. The project would continue and increase big-box retail store sales tax revenues received by the City. The project is consistent with Objective ED-1 of the General Plan to support economic development by maintaining a strong working relationship with the business community and improving the business climate for current businesses.
Ascent
Costco Commercial Center Project
50 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
12.3 CONCLUSION
After balancing environmental costs against project benefits, the City Council has concluded that the benefits the City and its constituents will derive from the project outweigh the anticipated impacts to noise and transportation . The City Council has chosen to accept certain environmental impacts because to eliminate them would unduly compromise another important economic, fiscal, environmental, land use or other goal.
The City Council finds that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from the project, identified as significant and unavoidable in the Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits set forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds and determines that the project and the supporting environmental documentation provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the economic, fiscal, environmental, land use or other benefits to be obtained by the project outweigh any environmental and related potential detriments from the Project. The City Council has concluded that the Project’s implementation will represent a net positive impact on the City based upon a comprehensive analysis of all the underlying planning and environmental documentation. Therefore, the City adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations. 13 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model. Available:
https://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed July 20, 2022.
City of Fresno. 2014. City of Fresno: General Plan and Development Code Update Master EIR . Prepared by First Carbon Solutions. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Sec-08-00-EFNS- MEIR.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2021.
City of Fresno. 2020. Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2019050005. Prepared by LSA, Fresno. CA.
Diaz, Robert. Supervising Engineering Technician, Department of Public Utilities – Utilities Planning & Engineering and Kevin Gray, Supervising Engineering Technician, Department of Public Utilities – Utilities Planning & Engineering. City of Fresno. September 24, 2021. Memorandum to Mindi Mariboho – Development Services Coordinator, City of Fresno. DPU Conditions of Approval P21-01960 COSTCO APN 503-020-12.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Kittleson & Associates. 2023 (May). Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis . Prepared for Costco Wholesale.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 (December). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt, Beraned and Newman. Washington, D.C.
Available:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9101NN3I.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=Prior+to+ 1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QF ieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfile s%5CIndex%20Data%5C70thru75%5CTxt%5C00000024%5C9101NN3I.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=a nonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&De fSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&Zy Entry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL#. Accessed October 4, 2021.
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443
City of Fresno
February 2024
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP 1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[d] and 15097) require public agencies “to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for the proposed project because the EIR identifies potential significant adverse impacts related to the project implementation, and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce those impacts.
PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed in a satisfactory manner prior to or as part of implementation of the proposed project . The attached table has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the mitigation measures. The table identifies the mitigation measures, monitoring responsibility, mitigation timing, and provides space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the D raft EIR.
Mitigation measures that are referenced more than once in the EIR are not duplicated in the MMRP table.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Unless otherwise specified herein, the project applicant or its designee is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures under its jurisdiction according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed. The City of Fresno shall confirm implementation of all measures under its jurisdiction according to the specifications provided for each measure.
Inquiries should be directed to:
Steven Martinez, Planner II
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 621-8047
Email: [email protected]
The location of this information is:
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TABLE
The categories identified in the attached MMRP table are described below. Mitigation Measure – This column provides the verbatim text of the adopted mitigation measure. Implementation Responsibility – This column identifies the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. Timing – This column identifies the time frame in which the mitigation will be implemented. Verification – This column is to be dated and signed by the person (either project manager or his/her designee) responsible for verifying compliance with the requirements of the mitigation measure.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Fresno
2 Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program
The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologists to prepare a worker environmental awareness program. The program shall be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources. A copy of the worker environmental awareness program shall be provided to the City’s Planning Division before construction activities begin. The topics to be addressed in the worker environmental awareness program will include, at a minimum:
types of cultural resources expected on the project site; types of evidence that indicates cultural resources might be present (e.g., glass shards, lithic scatters);
what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; what to do if a worker encounters animal bones or possible human bones; and repercussions for removing or intentionally disturbing archaeological resources.
Project Applicant Develop plan before
construction activities begin;
implement plan during
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Retain an Archaeological Monitor and Native American Monitor, and Halt Ground-Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features or Tribal Cultural Resources
In the event that any historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., glass, metal, and/or ceramic refuse scatters), or prehistoric subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., locally darkened soil (“midden”), stone tool chipping debris, bones, shell beads, or concentrated charcoal layers), are discovered during construction, all ground -disturbing activity within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified. The applicant will then retain the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Specifically, the archaeologist shall determine whether the find qualifies as an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or tribal artifacts. If the find does fall within one of these three categories, the qualified archaeologist shall then make recommendations to the City regarding appropriate procedures that should be used to protect the integrity of the resource and to ensure that no additional resources are affected.
Procedures could include preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, and/or data recovery, with preservation in place being the preferred option if feasible. If the find is a tribal artifact, the City shall provide a reasonable opportunity for input from a Native American tribal representative affiliated with the location of the discovery; affiliation shall be determined by the City, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, based on the City’s AB 52 list or the Project Applicant During construction activities
Ascent Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP 3
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification contact list provided by the NAHC. If responsive, the tribal representative will then determine whether the artifact is considered a tribal cultural resource, as defined by PRC Section 21074.
The applicant, in consultation with the City and Tribe, shall implement the recommend ed preservation options (which may include preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation of significant artifacts, if it determines that the measures are feasible in light of project design, logistics, and cost considerations.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Halt Ground-Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Paleontological Resources
If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the project applicant shall immediately halt operations within 30 feet of the find and notify the City. If the find is determined to be significant, it shall be salvaged by a qualified paleontologist retained by the project applicant following the standards of the SVP (2010) and curated at a certified repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Project Applicant During construction activities
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a: Conduct Take Avoidance Survey for Burrowing Owl, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Compensate for Loss of Occupied Burrows A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey for burrowing owls in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the project site no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities using survey methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report (CDFW 2012). Much of the area within this 1,640 -foot survey area does not contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., residential areas, commercial development, roads) and would not require surveys. Inaccessible areas that contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course prop erty) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope.
If no occupied burrows are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required.
If an active burrow is found within 1,640 feet of pending construction activities during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), the applicant shall establish and maintain a minimum protection buffer of 164 feet (50 meters) around the occupi ed burrow throughout construction. If an active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The actual buffer size shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the time of year and level of disturbance in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).
The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist Project Applicant Before construction activities
begin (no less than 14 days
prior to ground disturbance)
and during construction
activities
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Fresno
4 Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification determines that an alternative buffer shall not disturb burrowing owl use of the burrow because of particular site features or other bufferin g measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no- disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be developed, as described in Appendix E of the CDFW Staff Report. Burrowing owls shall not be exc luded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW. The exclusion plan shall include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below). If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juven iles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. If an active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad - scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan developed in accordance with Appendix E of CDFW 2012 Staff Report.
If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) shall be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to develop a burrowing owl mitigation and management plan that incorporates the following goals and standards:
Mitigation lands shall be selected based on comparison of the habitat lost to the compensatory habitat, including type and structure of habitat, disturbance levels, potential for conflicts with humans, pets, and other wildlife, density of burrowing owls, and relative importance of the habitat to the species throughout its range.
Ascent Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP 5
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification If feasible, mitigation lands shall be provided adjacent or proximate to the project site so that displaced owls can relocate with reduced risk of injury or mortality. Feasibility of providing mitigation adjacent or proximate to the project site depends on availability of sufficient habitat to support displaced owls that may be preserved in perpetuity. If habitat suitable for burrowing owl is not available for conservation adjacent or proximate to the project site, mitigation lands can be secured off -site and shall aim to consolidate and enlarge conservation areas outside of planned development areas and within foraging distance of other conservation lands. Mitigation may be also accomplished through purchase of mitigation credits at a CDFW -approved mitigation bank, if available. Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultation with CDFW.
If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permittee -responsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan shall include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and responsibilities, vegetation mana gement goals, financial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures.
Success shall be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the si te and if the numbers are maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, shall include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distributi on, and trends in stressors.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b: Conduct Focused Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, Other Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Buffers To minimize the potential for loss of Swainson’s hawk, white -tailed kite, other raptors, and other native birds, project construction activities (e.g. , tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1-January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), if feasible. If project construction activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation shall be required.
Within 14 days before the onset of project construction activities during the breeding season (approximately February 1 through August 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys shall conduct focused surveys for Swainson’s hawk, white - tailed kite, other nesting raptors, and other native birds. Surveys shall be conducted in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) within 0.5 mile of the project site for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite; within 500 feet of the site for other raptors; and within 50 feet of the site for non-raptor common native bird nests. Inacc essible areas that contain habitat suitable for nesting birds (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course property) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope.
Project Applicant Before construction activities
begin (with 14 days of ground
disturbance) and during
construction activities
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Fresno
6 Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification If no nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. Impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffe rs around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity, including tree removal, shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young ha ve fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. An avoidance buffer shall be implemented for Swainson’s hawk and white -tailed kite in consultation with CDFW. CDFW guidelines recommend implementa tion of 0.25- or 0.5-mile-wide buffers for Swainson’s hawk nests, but the size of the buffer may be decreased if a qualified biologist and the City of Fresno, in consultation with CDFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. For other species, a qualified biologist shall determine the size of the buffer for nests of non -special-status species after a site- and nest-specific analysis. Buffers typically shall be 500 feet for common raptors. Buffer size for non-raptor common bird species generally shall be at least 20 feet. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size shall include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human ac tivity, species sensitivity, and proposed project construction activities. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for a listed or fully protected species (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite) shall require consultation with CDFW. If an active nest is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project construction activities shall be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project construction activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.
Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Implement Additional Measures to Reduce Exposure to Noise Reduction during Noise-Sensitive Time Periods
For all outdoor construction activity that is to take place outside of the City of Fresno construction noise exception timeframes (i.e., 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and all hours of the day on Sunday), and that is anticipated to generate interior noise levels at sensitive receptors that exceed the City of Fresno General Plan interior noise standard of 45 dB for residential land uses, the construction contractor shall comply with the following measures:
Project Applicant During construction activities
Ascent Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP 7
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification Consistent with Section 10-110 of the City Noise Control Ordinance, obtain an exception to Article 1, “Noise Regulations,” through the Chief Administrative O fficer. A permit may be issued authorizing noises prohibited by the noise ordinance whenever it is found that the public interest will be served thereby or that extreme hardship will result from the strict enforcement.
Install temporary noise curtains as close as possible to the noise-generating activity such that the curtains obstruct the direct line of sight between the noise -generating construction activity and the nearby sensitive receptors. Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to sound -absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious, material with a surface weight of at least one pound per square foot. Noise-reducing enclosures and techniques shall be used around stationary noise -generating equipment (e.g., concrete mixers, generators, compressors). Operate heavy-duty construction equipment at the lowest operating power possible. All construction equipment shall be properly maint ained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation. Where available and feasible, construction equip ment with back-up alarms shall be equipped with either audible self-adjusting backup alarms or alarms that only sound when an object is detected. Self-adjusting backup alarms shall automatically adjust to 5 dB over the surrounding background levels. All non-self-adjusting backup alarms shall be set to the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise levels. Provide a minimum of one week of advanced notice to owners of all residential located within 350 feet of where nighttime constructi on activity would take place. This noticing shall inform the recipients of when and where nighttime construction would occur and the types of measures being implemented to lessen the impact at potentially affected receptors. This noticing shall also provide the contact information for the designated disturbance coordinator. The disturbance coordinator shall receive all public complaints and be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint and implementing any feasible measures to alleviate the problem.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: Reduce Exposure of Existing Sensitive Receptors to Noise Generated by Loading Dock Activity
The project applicant shall construct a sound wall west of the loading docks or other noise attenuating feature with a demonstrated ability to result in a 9 dB noise decrease at the existing residences along North Riverside Drive.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of certificates
of occupancy
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Fresno
8 Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification Mitigation Measure 3.11-5: Implement Traffic Noise Reduction Measures along North Riverside Drive
The project proponent shall implement noise reduction measures to ensure that interior noise levels at residential land uses near the west side of North Riverside Drive do not exceed the City’s current noise standard of 65 dB SENL under existing-plus-project conditions. This measure is consistent with General Plan Policy NS -1-I, which recommends the use of design alterations to reduce noise impacts. This performance standard can be achieved using any combination of the following measures. Therefore, if one option is not implemented, the other would be required.
Pave the roadway segment with rubberized hot -mix asphalt or equivalent surface treatment with known noise-reducing properties on top of the roadway surface. The rubberized hot-mix asphalt overlay shall be designed with appropriate thickness and rubber component quantity (typically 15 percent by weight of the total blend), such that traffic noise levels are reduced by an average of 4 to 6 dB (noise levels vary depending on travel speeds, meteorological conditions, and pavement quality) as compared to noise levels generated by vehicle traffic traveling on standard asphalt. Rubberized hot -mix asphalt has been found to achieve this level of noise reduction in other parts of California (Sacramento County 1999). Pavement will require more frequent than normal maintenance and repair to maintain its noise attenuation effectiveness. The applicant shall fund the incremental cost for maintaining the roadway segment with the surface treatment.
Construct a sound barrier taller than the 6-foot cinderblock wall that is currently present from West Spruce Avenue to West Herndon Avenue. The sound barrier shall be constructed of solid material (e.g., wood, brick, adobe, an earthen berm, boulders, or combination thereof). The reflectivity of each sound barrier shall be minimized to ensure that traffic noise reflected off the barrier does not contribute to an exceedance of applicable L
eq standards at other receptors. The level of sound reflection from a barrier can be minimized with a textured or absorptive surface or with vegetation on or next to the barrier. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction (Caltrans 2013: 2- 41; FTA 2018: 42).
Barriers higher than the line of sight provide increased noise reduction (FTA 2018: 16).
Scenic quality factors shall be taken into account during design, such as using more natural materials (e.g., berms and boulders) to reduce the visible mass of a wall. All barriers shall be designed to blend into the landscape along the roadway, to the extent feasible. Ensuring a character consistent with the surrounding area may inv olve the use of strategically placed native trees or other vegetation; the addition of special materials (e.g., wood or stonework) on the façade of the sound wall; and/or a sound wall that is covered in vegetation. Additionally, the sound barrier shall mee t the standards established in Project Applicant Prior to issuance of certificates
of occupancy
Ascent Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP 9
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification General Plan Policy NS-1-o which establishes aesthetic considerations for sound walls including a maximum allowable height of 15 feet.
Transportation and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Provide a Program to Reduce Costco Employees’ VMT by at least 26 Percent
Costco shall provide a program that is designed to achieve at least a 26 percent reduction in employee VMT. The program shall be provided to the City for acceptance prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Specific actions must include the followin g measures described in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s 2021 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity:
Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (estimated to result in up to 4 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall implement a marketing strategy to promote Costco’s commute reduction program. Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employmen t location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The following features (or similar alternatives) shall be provided:
on-site or online commuter information services,
employee transportation coordinators,
on-site or online transit pass sales, and
guaranteed ride home service.
Provide Ridesharing Program (estimated to result in up to 8 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall develop and implement a ridesharing program. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single- occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and greenhouse gas emissions. The following strategies provide examples of a multifaceted approach for promoting a ridesha re program:
designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and
providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
Implement Subsidized or Discount Transit Program (estimated to result in up to 5.5 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall provide free transit passes for employees.
Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle Project Applicant Prior to issuance of certificates
of occupancy
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Fresno
10 Costco Commercial Center Project MMRP
Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and, thus, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (estimated to result in up to 4.4 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of- trip facilities include elements such as bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Improve Street Connectivity (estimated to result in up to 30 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall construct West Spruce Avenue along the northern site boundary, creating new connections between West Spruce Avenue and North Aurther Avenue. The increased connectivity and intersection density that would result from these improvements would facilitate shorter trips, thereby reducing VMT. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements/Construct Bike Facilities/Expand Bikeway Network (estimated to result in up to 10 percent employee VMT reduction1): Costco shall construct new, 12-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle paths along West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive to improve pedestrian access and connect to a larger bicycle network. This encourages a mode shift from automobiles to biking and walking, resulting in VMT reduction.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: Provide Off-Site Improvements Costco shall provide the following off-site improvements to alleviate queuing that would result in transportation hazards to the greatest extent feasible prior to issuance of building permit:
North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue: Revise signal phasing to optimize green-time allocation relative to anticipated volumes. To reduce queue blockage of the intersection, “DO NOT BLOCK” pavement markings are r equired for the full width of North Weber Avenue. On the north leg of the intersection (i.e., North Golden State Boulevard, northeast of West Herndon Avenue), reconstruct the median to extend the south bound dual left-turn pocket as far north as possible without interfering with the existing north bound left-turn pocket at West Kathryn Avenue.
All off-site improvements shall be designed in accordance with City roadway design standards and are subject to review by the City and responsible emergency service providers.
Project Applicant and City of
Fresno
Prior to issuance of certificates
of occupancy
1 Measures T-18 through T-22-C are in the Neighborhood Design subsector. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent (CAPCOA 2021: 135).