Fresno City Council
April 18, 2024

The Central Valley RWQCB also administers the adoption of waste discharge requirements, manages groundwater quality, and adopts projects within its boundaries under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit).

NPDES Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
The SWRCB adopted the statewide NPDES General Permit in August 1999. The state requires that projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction file a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB to be covered under this permit.

Construction activities subject to the General Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation.

Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters.

A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The SWPPP must include best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project; the BMPs must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control.

NPDES Stormwater Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems The Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Stormwater is runoff from rain or snow melt that runs off surfaces such as rooftops, paved streets, highways or parking lots and can carry with it pollutants such as oil, pesticides, herbicides, sediment, trash, bacteria, and metals. The runoff can then drain directly into a local stream, lake, or bay. Often, the runoff drains into storm drains that eventually drain untreated into a local waterbody.

Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.9-3
In 2016, the Central Valley RWCQB issued a region-wide MS4 permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040) covering the entire Central Valley Region, including the city of Fresno, to promote greater watershed/drainage shed coordination, water quality measure protections, and program implementation efficiencies (California Water Boards 2022).

California Water Code
The California Water Code is enforced by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The mission of DWR is “to manage the water resources of California in cooperation with other agencies, to benefit the State’s people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments.” DWR is responsible for promoting California’s general welfare by ensuring beneficial water use and development statewide.

Groundwater Management
Groundwater Management is outlined in the California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.75, Chapters 1-5, Sections 10750 through 10755.4. The Groundwater Management Act was first introduced in 1992 as Assembly Bill (AB) 3030, and has since been modified by Senate Bill (SB) 1938 in 2002, AB 359 in 2011, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA; SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) in 2014. The intent of these acts is to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and to provide a methodology for developing a Groundwater Management Plan.

SGMA became law on January 1, 2015, and applies to all groundwater basins in the state (Water Code Section 10720.3).

By enacting SGMA, the legislature intended to provide local agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater within their jurisdiction (Water Code Section 10720.1).

Pursuant to SGMA, any local agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin may elect to be a “groundwater sustainability agency” for that basin (Water Code Section 10723).

In 2017, the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (North Kings GSA) elected to become a GSA pursuant to Water Code Section 10723.8 and undertake sustainable groundwater management in the portion of the Kings Subbasin underlying the agency’s boundary. The North Kings GSA is a joint powers authority consisting of the following public agencies: Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno County, City of Fresno, City of Clovis, City of Kerman, Biola Community Services District, Garfield Water District, and International Water District (North Kings GSA 2019). In November 2019, the North Kings GSA completed a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) for the Kings Subbasin that was filed with the State in January 2020. DWR recommended approval of the GSP in March of 2023. GSAs are required to begin implementing their GSPs as soon as they are adopted locally.

California Code of Regulations
Underground Storage Tank Regulations
The SWRCB Underground Storage Tank Regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16), establish: construction requirements for new underground storage tanks; separate monitoring requirements for new and existing underground storage tanks, uniform requirements for unauthorized release reporting, and for repair, upgrade, and closure of underground storage tanks.

Worker Safety Regulations
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations within the state. Cal/OSHA standards are codified in Title 8 of the CCR.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2014a) includes the following policies that pertain to hydrology and water quality and are relevant to this analysis.

Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.9-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Policy NS-3-h: Runoff Controls. Implement grading regulations and related development policies that protect area residents from events that exceed the capacity of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan system of facilities.

X Policy NS-3-i: New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD [Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District] to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project.

X Policy PU-7-a: Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows.

X Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long-range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.

X Policy RC-7-c: Best Practices for Conservation. Require all City Facilities and all new private development to follow U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate.

Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 6: Municipal Services and Utilities
Chapter 6 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the following regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality.

Article 7: Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control This article prohibits illicit discharges and connections to the storm drain system. The chapter also addresses stormwater quality in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES permit, prohibits the discharge of nonstormwater into the storm drain system, and requires the reduction of pollutants in stormwater discharges by implementing BMPs and low impact development features for new development and redevelopment projects.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan The Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan contains an estimate of the total costs of constructing the local drainage facilities and improvements required by the plan, together with their appurtenances, and a map of each local drainage area showing generally its boundaries and location of the planned local drainage facilities and improvements.

Grading Plan Check Process
Before obtaining a grading permit, all development projects are required to submit grading plans to the City of Fresno for review and approval. Developers must submit plans and fees to satisfy the grading plan check process (City of Fresno 2021a).

Urban Water Master Plan
The 2020 UWMP was adopted by the City Council on July 14, 2021. The 2020 UWMP assesses current and projected water supplies along with the reliability of those water supplies; evaluates the current and future type of water demand and type of customers; describes required conservation measures implemented by water suppliers; and prepares a response plan, in the event of a water shortage.

Underground Storage Tank Closure Guidelines
A gas station maintenance contractor installs and/or removes underground fuel storage tanks up to 20,000 gallons which have been or are to be used for dispensing gasoline, diesel fuel, waste oil or kerosene (no chemicals). This work involves the installation and/or removal of all incidental tank related piping, electrical work, including the installation of vapor probes in back fill areas of the tanks and any associated calibration work, including but not limited to the testing and adjustment of leak detection and vapor recovery equipment, such as automatic tank gauges, leak line detectors, vapor recovery lines, and in-station diagnostics. This contractor also performs the installation of auto Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.9-5
hoisting equipment, grease racks, compressors, air hoses, and other gas station equipment. All contractors performing work must implement all safety standards established by Cal/OSHA (Fresno County 2009).

The Fresno County Department of Public Health provides underground storage tank closure guidelines. These guidelines provide a process to ensure that:

X underground storage tanks are removed or abandoned safely; X property permits are obtained prior to initiating any work on the property, X soil samples are obtained properly, and
X all paperwork is submitted in order, to the appropriate agencies.

Prior to conducting any activity associated with an underground storage tank closure, a permit shall be obtained from the Fresno County Department of Public Health. Upon removing the underground storage tank, dispenser, and piping, soil and/or groundwater samples must be obtained under the direction of the Fresno County Department of Public Health. Closure documentation required by the underground storage tank closure guidelines includes:

X Underground Storage Tank Unified Program Consolidated Forms reflecting permanent underground tank closure; X copies of all the closure process sample analytical results; X a scaled site drawing that includes the sample locations and depths, and the tank, dispenser, and piping locations; X copies of laboratory chain of custody forms and documentation of precision and accuracy; and X proper tank disposal documentation.

Additional permits may be necessary from the local fire department, building department, or law enforcement agency that has site jurisdiction (Fresno County 2009).

3.9.2 Environmental Setting

SURFACE WATER
The western slopes of the Sierra Nevada drain to the west through the city of Fresno via the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. The Kings River is connected to the San Joaquin River by the James Bypass, a manmade canal. The San Joaquin River is 366 miles long and spans from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the San Francisco Bay via the San Joaquin Valley. Much of the water that flows through the San Joaquin River has a variety of uses including municipal and domestic water supply, agricultural, industrial, recreational, freshwater and wildlife habitat, and migration and spawning grounds (City of Fresno 2021b).

The project site is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the San Joaquin River. Water quality in the San Joaquin River is affected by both natural and anthropogenic sources, including soil erosion; stormwater runoff; wastewater discharges, industrial, residential, and agricultural runoff; recreational activity; and wildlife. Water quality issues associated with the segment of the San Joaquin River that flows near the project site (Friant Dam to Mendota Pool) is listed on the SWRCB’s 303(d) list for invasive species and pH (SWRCB 2016). There are no agricultural ponds, recharge basins, irrigation canals, and other similar features located on the project site.

GROUNDWATER
The project site is underlain by the Kings Groundwater Subbasin, which is an alluvial basin bounded north and south by the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, respectively, the Sierra Nevada mountains on the northeast, and the Westside and Delta-Mendota Subbasins to the west-southwest. The aquifer system is comprised of unconfined and confined groundwater in the western parts of the subbasin where lacustrine clay beds exist. East of the lacustrine clays, clay beds separate shallower unconfined water from deeper confined groundwater (North Kings GSA 2019).

Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.9-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
The project site is located within the North Kings GSA plan area. The plan area is approximately 311,000 acres and is comprised primarily of agricultural and urban land use designations. The North Kings GSA plan area is a conjunctive use area, utilizing groundwater resources to supplement available surface water supplies to meet water demands.

Groundwater levels have fallen substantially over the last century throughout the San Joaquin Valley, including within the North Kings GSA plan area. This is largely due to extraordinary groundwater extraction in adjacent GSPs. Notably, a large cone of depression west of the North Kings GSA plan area has caused increased groundwater flow in that direction. Monitoring of the area since the 1920s indicates that there is minimal subsidence occurring within the North Kings GSA plan area boundary, with the greatest levels occurring toward the western edge (North Kings GSA 2019).

Through its various surface water resources and several decades of proactive groundwater recharge activities, the North Kings GSA plan area has not experienced significant overdraft conditions like elsewhere in the Kings Groundwater Subbasin. Drought and other challenges, however, have contributed to a gradual decline in overall groundwater conditions that will be addressed through the implementation of the GSP for the North Kings region.

The North Kings GSA is projected to reach sustainability by 2040 if groundwater flows from within the North Kings GSA plan area to areas governed by neighboring GSAs and basins are reduced and projects are developed to mitigate present and future projected impacts. Management actions included in the GSP to address groundwater sustainability consist of education and outreach, well head requirements, groundwater allocation, and groundwater pumping restrictions (North Kings GSA 2019).

On the project site, subsurface soil consists of alluvial deposits composed of interbedded layers of silts and clays with variable amounts of sand. Groundwater was not encountered to a maximum depth of 50 below the ground surface during soil sampling conducted in 2021. The elevation of the site is approximately 300 feet above mean sea level and regional well data indicates that groundwater levels at the site are currently approximately 200 feet above mean sea level, or 100 feet below the ground surface (Kleinfelder 2021).

STORMWATER DRAINAGE
The project site is located within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), which plans, implements, operates, and maintains storm drainage facilities within the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area. The storm drainage facilities within a drainage area consist of storm drain inlets, pipeline, retention basins, urban detention (water quality) basins, and stormwater pump stations. FMFCD 's local stormwater drainage system consists of interconnected surface conveyances, storm drains, retention basins, pump stations and outfalls, which discharge to groundwater, irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River. The raw surface water recharges the groundwater basin to sustain the groundwater supply for the city. The groundwater recharge volume can vary based on surface water supply availability and is represented as an addition to annual groundwater supplies (City of Fresno 2021a).

In compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and implementing stormwater permit regulations, FMFCD and five other local public agencies (Fresno County, City of Fresno, City of Clovis, California State University, Fresno, and California Department of Transportation) developed a stormwater quality management program to be implemented in the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area. The program proposal was submitted to the Central Valley RWQCB as a part of the NPDES municipal stormwater permit process and a permit was issued to the participating agencies in September 1994. The MS4 permit was renewed in 5-year increments until 2018. In April 2018, the Cities of Clovis and Fresno, Fresno County, California State University, Fresno, and FMFCD submitted Notices of Intent to obtain coverage under the General MS4 Permit (Order R5-2016-0040). The General Permit requires continued implementation of the existing Stormwater Quality Management Program until a new plan is approved. MS4 permits for the Cities of Clovis and Fresno, Fresno County, California State University, Fresno, and FMFCD were assigned in May 2018.

The local stormwater drainage program provides control and safe disposal of stormwater runoff generated by local land uses. The metropolitan portion of FMFCD is divided into local drainage areas of approximately 1 to 2 square miles. Within the drainage areas, the FMFCD operates and maintains a complex system of surface conveyances, storm drains, pump stations and retention basins that capture and recharge stormwater to the groundwater aquifer. The system is designed to move water from a basin and discharge to other FMFCD facilities, or to irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River (City of Fresno 2016). The project site is located within the EH local stormwater drainage area, which is served by a retention or detention facility. The area east of North Arthur Avenue is in the EG basin and Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.9-7
drainage is directed to Spruce Avenue (Chapman, pers. comm., 2021). There are existing stormwater inlets at the northeast, northwest, and southwest corners of the project site that lead to 24-inch, 30-inch, and 36-inch pipes, respectively. There is also an existing 7-acre basin adjacent to the Riverside Golf Course northeast of the project site that serves the adjacent, EG drainage basin.

FLOODING AND DAM INUNDATION
FEMA prepares maps of the 100-year floodplains for communities in the United States. For areas within the 100-year floodplain, there is a 1 percent chance of flooding for any given year and these areas are considered to be at highrisk. Maps are also available for 500-year floods, which mean that in any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is 0.2 percent. Areas within the 100-year floodplain that are financed by federally backed mortgages are subject to mandatory federal insurance requirements and building standards to reduce flood damage. According to FEMA Map Panel 06019C1535H, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone (FEMA 2009).

Three dams control flows on the San Joaquin River and the Kings River: the Friant, Mendota, and Pine Flat Dams. In addition to the dams on the two rivers, there are reservoirs and detention basins that have been constructed to prevent flooding (City of Fresno 2014b). Dam failure is the uncontrolled release of impounded water behind a dam.

Flooding, earthquakes, blockages, landslides, lack of maintenance, improper operation, poor construction, vandalism, and terrorism can all cause a dam to fail. There is no historic record of dam failure in Fresno County (Fresno County 2018). While both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county are considered at risk for dam failure, the project site is not designated as an area subject to inundation due to dam breach (DWR 2022).

3.9.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of potential hydrologic and water quality impacts is based on a review of existing documents and studies that address water resources in the vicinity of the project. Information obtained from these sources was reviewed and summarized to describe existing conditions and to identify potential environmental effects, based on the standards of significance presented in this section. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that the project would comply with relevant federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on hydrology and water quality would be significant if implementation of the project would:

X violate any water-quality standards or waste-discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;
X substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; X substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
ƒ result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site; ƒ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site;
ƒ create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater- drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; ƒ impede or redirect flood flows;
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.9-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or X conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Risk Release of Pollutants Due to Project Inundation in a Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zone According to FEMA FIRM Panel 06019C1535H, the project site is not within a floodplain, a FEMA-designated floodway, or an inundation area (FEMA 2009). Therefore, the project does not present a risk of release of pollutants in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. There would be no impact; therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

The project area is located inland with no large water bodies located in the vicinity, and there is no known history of mud flow in the vicinity. The project would not subject people or structures to a significant risk of inundation from sea level rise, tsunami, seiche, or mudflow. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no further analysis is required by CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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 NPDES 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 MS4s (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. Because water quality would not be degraded, this impact would be less than significant.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities associated with the project would include grading, exaction, placing of fill, trenching, spoil pile storage, and backfilling of trenches. These types of earth-moving activities would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation, particularly during storm events. Additionally, construction equipment and vehicles could deposit constituents such as diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, oil, and exhaust into the environment that could be conveyed within stormwater runoff to surface waters or groundwater. Construction activities use concrete, solvents, glues, oils, paints, and generate trash, all of which could contribute to polluted stormwater runoff. Polluted stormwater runoff could contribute to degradation of downstream surface waters or groundwater.

All earth-disturbing activities during construction would be subject to the NPDES Permit Program, administered by the Central Valley RWQCB. As required by NPDES, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The NPDES Construction General Permit identifies limits on discharge, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that the discharge does not adversely affect water quality or human health. Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and BMPs such as maintaining or creating drainages to convey and direct surface runoff away from bare areas, and installing physical barriers such as berms, silt fencing, waddles, straw bales, and gabions. Because the project would be required to comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit, Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.9-9
including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of all identified BMPs, short-term construction impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be minimized.

The project would be implemented in compliance with underground storage tank regulations contained in CCR, Title 23, Water, Division 3, Chapter 16 (underground storage tank regulations) to protect water quality.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Development of the site with a Costco warehouse building, car wash, fueling facilities, and paved parking areas would create impervious surfaces within the site. Fuel could be spilled while being dispensed to auto and trucks or during fuel deliveries. Oils, lubricants, heavy metals, and other water quality contaminants would create residue on the paved surfaces of the site, which could be carried in stormwater runoff during rain events and could reach surface or groundwaters. Additionally, a leak in an underground storage tank could result in the potential contamination of groundwater.

The underground storage tank regulations (CCR, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16) require rigorous design, construction, testing, and monitoring for all underground storage tank systems. These regulations require reinforcement of tank areas that receive the greatest wear and an independent secondary containment system large enough to contain 150 percent of the volume of the largest tank, or 10 percent of the total volume of all tanks, whichever is greater. A leak interception and detection system is also required that prevents stored fuel from contacting groundwater. Additionally, the owners of all new underground storage tanks are required to develop a routine monitoring and reporting plan, and a response plan for any unauthorized release before the storage tank system is put into service.

Costco would construct utility improvements within the site to service the proposed uses and connect to available utilities adjacent to the project site. The car wash facility would include only the automated car wash within the structure. Wash water would be recycled. The approximately 22-acre site would be paved and graded such that stormwater would runoff into the existing storm drain system. Stormwater from the site would be directed to existing FMFCD drainage facilities in North Riverside Drive, West Spruce Avenue, and West Herndon Avenue. The City of Fresno, FMFCD, Fresno County, the City of Clovis, and California State University Fresno are covered under the region-wide Central Valley RWQCB General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s (Order R5-2016-0040). This Region-wide MS4 Permit requires that the City and its co-permittees implement water quality and watershed protection measures for all development projects. The waste discharge requirements contained in the region-wide MS4 Permit have been designed to be consistent with the water quality standards and goals established in the Central Valley RWQCB’s Basin Plan. In addition, the project would be designed in a matter consistent with FMFCD’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Implementation of the SWPPP and BMPs, which include programs, technologies, processes, practices, and devices that control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution, would reduce impacts to surface waters to acceptable levels and long-term project impacts to surface or groundwater quality would not exceed acceptable levels.

As discussed above, regulations apply to the project that would reduce potentially significant impacts, including the NPDES 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 MS4s (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. Because water quality would not be degraded, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.9-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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 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 be consistent with the City of Fresno 2020 UWMP and would not impede management actions included in the GSP. Because the project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that implementation of a sustainable groundwater management would be impeded, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, this impact would be less than significant.

As discussed above under Section 3.9.2, “Environmental Setting,” the North Kings 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.

Management actions included in the GSP to address groundwater sustainability consist of education and outreach, well head requirements, groundwater allocation, and groundwater pumping restrictions.

As described further in Section 3.14, “Utilities,” the project would be supplied water through the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities in accordance with the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The city relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin; surface water from Central Valley Project (CVP), through a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation; Kings River water, through a contract with Fresno Irrigation District; and recycled water (City of Fresno 2021b). The groundwater yields identified in the North Kings GSA GSP were used to develop the 2020 UWMP. Water supply and demand factors within the City’s UWMP rely on existing land use designations. Although the project involves re-zoning of the site, the site remains zoned for commercial use.

Because the UWMP does not differentiate between different commercial zoning districts, the project is accounted for in the City’s UWMP. Because the UWMP is based on the yields in the GSP, the project’s water demand would not interfere with implementation of the GSP. Further, although project implementation would create impervious conditions on the project site, which would interfere with natural groundwater recharge that may occur through the silty and sandy alluvial subsoils, runoff would be channeled to a retention facility within the local stormwater drainage area that capture and recharge stormwater to the groundwater aquifer.

The project involves development of a retail building, car wash, fueling facilities, and paved parking areas. It is located on a parcel zoned for commercial uses, and would be rezoned to a different commercial use. There are no project features that could affect education and outreach activities included in the GSP. In addition, the project does not include wells. Water supplied to the project is accounted for in the City’s current UWMP, and would therefore not interfere with projected groundwater allocations or groundwater pumping restrictions as water supplies from the City would be adjusted as necessary. Because the project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that implementation of a sustainable groundwater management would be impeded, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.9-11
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 project would add approximately 22 acres of impervious surface to the currently undeveloped site, which would change the existing drainage rate and pattern of the site and could degrade downstream surface waters. The project is located within an area served by facilities identified in FMFCD’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City of Fresno grading plan check process and NPDES Construction General Permit Region-wide MS4. This impact would be less than significant.

The project site is undeveloped, does not contain streams or rivers, and does not contain impervious surfaces. As discussed in Impact 4.9-1 above, construction of the project would result in ground-disturbing activities such as grading, excavation, trenching, and spoil pile storage. The project would add approximately 22 acres of impervious surface to the currently undeveloped site, which would change the existing drainage rate and pattern of the site and could increase soil erosion that could contribute to degradation of downstream surface waters. It is anticipated that the stormwater runoff from the project site would flow west through the 36-inch pipes in West Herndon Avenue to the 54-inch pipes in North Golden State Boulevard and the existing 15-acre basin adjacent to SR 99. In addition, FMFCD would require construction of the inlet identified in the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan on Spruce Avenue in conjunction with development of North Arthur Avenue and Spruce Avenue. This would be constructed within the disturbance area of the Spruce Avenue extension. Both the EH and EG drainage areas have permanent drainage service and have been sized for the runoff of the proposed project (Chapman, pers. comm., 2021).

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 NPDES Construction General Permit Region-wide MS4. 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 MS4 permit would reduce water quality impacts to surface and groundwater by ensuring that discharged water meets 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. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.9-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.10-1

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This land-use analysis evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable land-use plans and policies. The physical environmental effects associated with the project, many of which pertain to issues of land use compatibility (e.g., noise, aesthetics, air quality) are evaluated in other sections of Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR.

Public comments on the notice of preparation related to land use and planning included concern over rezoning the project site from CC/EA/UGM/cz (Community Commercial/Expressway Overlay/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone district to the CG/UGM/cz (General Commercial/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone district. Evaluation of the potential impact associated with this rezone is presented below in Section 3.10.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.”

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to land use are applicable to the project.

STATE
Planning and Zoning Laws
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. establishes the obligation of cities and counties to adopt and implement general plans. The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term, and general document that describes plans for the physical development of a city or county and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the city’s or county’s judgment, bears relation to its planning. The general plan addresses a broad range of topics, including at a minimum land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. In addressing these topics, the general plan identifies the goals, objectives, policies, principles, standards, and plan proposals that support the city’s or county’s vision for the area.

The State Zoning Law (California Government Code, Section 65800 et seq.) establishes that zoning ordinances, which are laws that define allowable land uses within a specific zone district, are required to be consistent with the general plan. Local general plan policies and zoning ordinances, as they relate to the proposed project, are summarized below.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2014) establishes the following policies related to land use and planning that are relevant to the project:

X Policy LU-6-a: Design of Commercial Development. Foster high quality design, diversity, and a mix of amenities in new development with uses through the consideration of guidelines, regulations and design review procedures.

X Policy LU-6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of this Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhoods and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.

Bullard Community Plan
The Bullard Community Plan (City of Fresno 1991) outlines the public land use policy to direct the physical growth and change of the Bullard Community. Originally adopted in December of 1988 and most recently updated in 1991, this plan was developed assuming a 20-year horizon. As an adopted community plan, the Bullard Community Plan continues to guide development of the area. Where there is a conflict between the Bullard Community Plan and Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.10-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
other planning guidelines (Including adopted design guidelines, the development code, and the general plan), those other planning guidelines take precedence (refer to City of Fresno Code of Ordinances, Section 15-104[B][4]).

The potentially applicable goals and policies within the Bullard Community Plan are listed below:

X 4.2.3. Goals
ƒ Designate enough land for commercial use to meet the needs of the anticipated population. ƒ Distribute the new commercial land use designations at logical, marketable, convenient and accessible locations.

X 4.2.4 Policies/Implementation Measures

1. All new retail commercial uses shall be developed as part of planned unified shopping centers, except on Blackstone Avenue.

2. Retail commercial development within the undeveloped northwest portion of the Bullard Plan-Area shall occur at three commercial "nodes" of no more than 15 acres each located at the following intersections:

Polk/Sierra, Bullard/Dante, and Herndon/Bryan Avenues. The 15 acres of commercial use may be developed entirely on a single corner of the intersection or may be developed on two corners of the intersection as a 10-acre neighborhood shopping center and a 5 acre accessory center or combination thereof.

3. New retail commercial development shall be designed and located so as to minimize its impact as an attractive nuisance to any public or private school of elementary through high school grades.

7. The following development standards for interface areas between properties zoned or planned for commercial or office uses, and properties zoned or planned for residential uses, shall be mandatory for land north of West Herndon Avenue (excepting the Herndon townsite and the Pinedale Redevelopment Area) and advisory for all other areas.
a. All loading and storage areas shall be screened from view of adjoining property zoned or planned for residential uses, by a combination of landscape planting and a solid masonry wall. Loading space shall be located not less than one hundred fifty feet from the boundary of said residential property; however, the proximity of loading areas may be reduced to not less than forty feet from the boundary of residential property, if the Director of the Development Department or the Planning Commission finds that additional screening and noise attenuating methods have been designed to adequately protect adjoining residential property. All storage shall be within an enclosed structure. Outdoor storage is expressly prohibited;
b. Roof-mounted and detached mechanical equipment for commercial and office uses shall be screened from view and acoustically baffled, to prevent the noise level rating for the equipment from exceeding 55 Ldn, measured at the nearest property line;
c. A landscaped setback twenty feet wide, containing deciduous and evergreen trees, shall be planted and maintained along the property line between commercial and office uses and abutting properties zoned or planned for residential uses, and along abutting local streets, provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply to those parcels of land which are one acre or less in size, or to parcels larger than one acre, subject to Director review and approval of landscape plans; d. No commercial or office building shall be constructed within fifty-feet of the property line of abutting properties zoned or planned for residential uses;
e. The following wall and berm treatment shall be required for commercial uses and office uses:
(1) A solid masonry wall six feet in height, an earth berm six feet in height, or any combination of solid masonry wall and earth berm that provides a continuous barrier six feet in height, shall be erected on, or along, the property line between properties zoned or planned for commercial and office uses and properties zoned or planned for residential uses;
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.10-3
(2) A solid masonry wall three and one-half feet in height, an earth berm three and one-half feet in height, or any combination of solid masonry wall and earth berm that provides a continuous barrier three and one-half feet in height, shall be erected on, or along, the setback line twenty feet from and parallel with the right-of-way line of abutting local streets; (3) Earth berms shall be planted with grass or ground cover, and maintained by the property owner; f. The provisions of the approved commercial district or office district shall apply to outdoor advertising for commercial and office uses, excepting freestanding signs in a commercial district, wherein there shall be permitted one freestanding sign containing the name of buildings and occupants or groups thereof, and shall be not more than one hundred and twenty-five square feet in area, and not more than twenty feet in height, and shall not be located within any required landscaped setback or landscaped transition setback area.

Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code
The Citywide Development Code, Chapter 15 (City of Fresno 2015), establishes land use classifications and regulations to implement the General Plan. The Development Code is the primary tool that regulates development within the city.

Article 12
Article 12 establishes use regulations, development standards, and design standards for Commercial Districts within the city of Fresno. Lands within the city designated as Commercial District are meant to provide for a full range of commercial uses to serve the city’s existing and future needs; establish design standards to create a unified and attractive character along commercial streets; and ensure that new development is designed to minimize traffic and parking impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Commercial District designation is also meant to implement and provide appropriate regulations for general plan classifications of "Main Street Commercial,” “Community Commercial,” “Regional Commercial,” “General Commercial,” “Highway and Auto Commercial,” and “Commercial Recreation.” The project site is designated as Community Commercial within the City of Fresno General Plan which allows for medium-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug stores, and supporting uses.

3.10.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is located within 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. Surrounding land uses include a residential neighborhood to the west, a public golf course to the north (Riverside Golf Course), a vacant lot and self-storage facility to the east, a gas station and vacant lot to the south, Rio Vista Middle School and River Bluff Elementary School to the southeast, and a large-scale retail development (Marketplace at El Paseo Shopping Center) to the southwest.

The existing City of Fresno General Plan designation for the project site is Community Commercial (CC) (City of Fresno 2014). Land within the city designated as Community Commercial are meant to serve local needs including convenience shopping and small offices through commercial development (City of Fresno 2014). The CC designation allows for a variety of commercial facilities including medium-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug stores, and supporting uses. Additionally, 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 State Route 99.

The project site is also zoned as CC/EA/UGM/cz in the Title 15 Citywide Development Code. Similar to the City of Fresno General Plan designation, CC zoning designation is intended for commercial development that primarily serves local needs such as convenience shopping and offices. Specific uses allowed include medium-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug stores, and supporting uses (City of Fresno 2016).

The Expressway Area Overlay District is applied to Expressways, Super Arterials, and other streets that may be designated by the City. The district is intended to:

Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.10-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Protect land uses and residences proximate to designated major streets.

X Limit development that may potentially be detrimental to the general health, safety, and welfare and to existing and future infrastructure operations and improvements.

X Mitigate noise to acceptable levels in residential base districts.

Use regulations and development standards are governed by the base district, except that residential buildings cannot be constructed within 200 feet of the road’s right-of-way without specific mitigation for road noise and no non-residential buildings or signage can be constructed within 30 feet of the road’s right-of-way.

3.10.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of potential land-use impacts is based on a review of the planning documents pertaining to the project study area including that City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2014), General Plan Program EIR (City of Fresno 2021), and the Chapter 15 Citywide Development Code. In determining the level of significance, this analysis assumes that the project would comply with relevant state and local ordinances and regulations related to land use.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on land-use impact would be significant if implementation of the project would:

X physically divide an established community; and/or
X cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Physically Divide an Established Community
The project would occupy a currently undeveloped parcel surrounded by a residential neighborhood to the west, Riverside Golf Course to the north, a vacant lot and self-storage facility to the east, two schools to the southeast, a gas station and vacant lot to the south, and a large-scale retail development to the southwest. Given the range of uses that surround the site, development on this vacant parcel would not divide and established community. The project also involves making roadway improvements, including extending West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue. Because implementing the project would not divide an established community and would improve circulation on and around the site, there would be no impact. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.10-5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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. Evaluation of resource-specific plans and policies (e.g., transportation improvement plans, greenhouse gas reduction plans) are evaluated separately in the topical sections of this EIR. The project would not conflict with City policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be less than significant.

The City of Fresno General Plan and Title 15 Citywide Development Code are the primary planning documents for the City of Fresno. The project includes the following entitlements, as described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” which would eliminate conflicts with the adopted land use designations and zoning regulating development or the project site.

X Amend the General Plan to change the planned land use designations for the project site from CC to the General Commercial (GC) planned land use designation and reclassify a portion of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue from Expressway to Super Arterial.

X Amend the Official Zoning Map of the City of Fresno to reclassify the project site from the CC/EA/UGM/cz zone district to the CG/UGM/cz zone district.

X 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.

As described above, the project site is currently identified as CC, a general plan land use designation applied to locations intended to serve local needs. The project includes an amendment to the City of Fresno General Plan to change the land use designation for the project site to GC. Allowable uses under the GC designation include wholesale businesses and specialized retail not normally found in shopping centers with potential to generate higher volumes of traffic (City of Fresno 2014). The proposed Costco facility would be a wholesale business and would therefore be consistent with the GC designation. Similarly, the CG designation would allow for large-format retail and fuel sales, which would be the primary uses at the project site, and the car wash, which is not allowed under the current zoning. Amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Fresno to reclassify the project site from the CC/EA/UGM/cz zone district to the CG/UGM/cz zone district would ensure that the project is consistent with the zoning on site. Finally, a portion of West Herndon Avenue would be reclassified from Expressway to Super Arterial to allow the construction of a turn pocket where West Herndon Avenue meets the private North Arthur Avenue rightof-way. The proposed zoning changes are a part of the project and would not result in a conflict with relevant plans, policies, or zoning given that approval of the zoning change would occur prior to development of the site, ensuring that the proposed project features are consistent with the zoning requirements.

These proposed changes to the general plan land use designations, zoning, and parking lot standards are evaluated throughout this document. For example, Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” analyzes the project’s consistency with the lighting requirements applicable to the CG zoning district and the potential impact resulting from the taller light fixtures.

Similarly, consistency with City of Fresno General Plan Policy LU-6-a, which requires new development to foster high quality design, diversity, and a mix of amenities through compliance with guidelines, regulations, and design review procedures and Policy LU-6-d, which requires commercial development to implement the Urban Form concepts, promote the stability and identity of neighborhoods and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system are evaluated in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” and in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation.”
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.10-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
The Bullard Community Plan policies are intended to direct the physical growth and change of the Bullard Community as detailed above in Section 3.10.1, “Regulatory Setting.” Policy 1 requires all new retail commercial uses to be developed as a part of planned and unified shopping centers. The proposed Costco facility would be designed as a unified shopping center within the project area with a self-contained warehouse, gas station, and car wash. The proposed buildings are designed to relate to the proposed surrounding development by using similar building materials and architectural detailing, further creating a sense of unity. Policy 2 requires that retail commercial development within the Bullard Community Plan area to occur at three nodes, one of which is located at the West Herndon/Bryan Avenue intersection located directly southwest of the project site. This policy, which was established before the area was developed, limits commercial development to 15 acres. Policy 2 relates to community design and was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Policy 3 requires new retail commercial development to minimize effects as an attractive nuisance to any public or private school of elementary through high school grades and was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The closest schools to the project site are Rio Vista Middle School and River Bluff Elementary School, located south of West Herndon Avenue. The outdoor areas of Rio Vista Middle School are approximately 130 feet from the southeast corner of the project site. Once operational, students attending Vista Middle School and River Bluff Elementary School could easily access the project site. However, customers would need to be a Costco member to enter the warehouse, and the food court would be located within the warehouse. There are no outdoor facilities except for the car wash and gas stations that would be accessible to students. It is unlikely that students would spend time outside of the Costco warehouse given the lack of amenities; therefore, the project would not be an attractive nuisance, and would comply with Policy 3.

Policy 7 outlines development standards for interface areas between properties planned for commercial use and properties zoned or planned for residential uses. Directly west of the project site on North Riverside Drive is residential development. Therefore, there would be an interface area between the proposed project and the residential development to the west that falls under the requirements of Policy 7. Policy 7a requires all loading and storage areas to be screened from view of adjoining property zoned or planned for residential uses. The truck loading dock would be located on the southern facade of the building, and a portion of the loading dock would be viewable to residents.

However, dense landscaping composed of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs would provide visual screening to residents located adjacent to the project site. Policy 7b requires roof-mounted and detached mechanical equipment for commercial and office uses to be screened from view and acoustically baffled; however, no roof-mounted or detached mechanical equipment is proposed for this project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy 7b. Policy 7c requires a 20-foot landscaped setback containing deciduous and evergreen trees to be planted and maintained along the property line between commercial uses and abutting properties zoned or planned for residential uses. The project’s landscape design has incorporated a perimeter buffer which includes evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, consistent with Policy 7c. Additionally, the Costco warehouse would be built in the southeastern portion of the project site, with a landscaped parking lot and North Riverside Drive buffering the building from the residential development.

The project site is more than 50 feet from the property line of the residential development to the west, and would be in compliance with Policy 7e. The earth berm and masonry wall requirements detailed in Policy 7e do not apply to the project given that North Riverside Drive separates the project site from the residential development. However, the project would include improvements to North Riverside Drive, including construction of a 12-foot-wide multiuse trail and a 3-foot-tall, landscaped berm between the trail and parking lot, satisfying the intent of Policy 7e. No freestanding advertising signs are proposed, and Policy 7f does not apply.

Therefore, although implementation of the project would result in commercial development of the entire project site (22.4 acres), because the development would be consistent with the other policies in the community plan that address potential environmental effects of commercial development. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan policies related to land use and planning. The City of Fresno General Plan indicates that relevant policies and portions of plans are reflected in the general plan “resulting in a consolidation and update of planning documents” (City of Fresno 2014: 3-46). Where there are inconsistencies between the general plan and community plans, Implementing Policy D-7-a of the City of Fresno General Plan commits the City to amend or repeal the community plans.

Per Implementing Policy D-7-a, the Bollard Community Plan will be amended and consolidated with the Pinedale Community Plan. Last updated in 2007, the Pinedale Community Plan does not currently include the project site.

Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.10-7
Requests for discretionary permits require compliance and consistency with a variety of policy and regulatory programs adopted to avoid or reduce the severity of potential environmental effects. Resource-specific plans and policies (e.g., transportation improvement plans, greenhouse gas reduction plans) are evaluated separately in the topical sections of this EIR. With respect to land use planning, approval of the requested entitlements would change the underlying land use designation and zoning to be consistent with the proposed project. The project would not conflict with City policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with relevant plans, policies, and zoning would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.10-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-1

3.11 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section includes a summary of applicable regulations related to noise and vibration, a description of ambient-noise conditions, and an analysis of potential short-term construction and long-term operational-source noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are recommended as necessary to reduce significant noise impacts. Additional data is provided in Appendix H, “Noise Measurement Data and Noise Modeling Calculations.” There were no comments received during the project’s scoping period related to noise (see Appendix A).

3.11.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate Federal noise control activities. In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at more local levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to state and local governments. However, documents and research completed by the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control continue to provide value in the analysis of noise effects.

Federal Transit Administration
To address the human response to ground vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has set forth guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines are presented in Table 3.11-1.

Table 3.11-1 Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria for General Assessment Land Use Category GVB Impact Levels (VdB re 1 micro-inch/second) Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 65 4 65 4 65 4 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 75 80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses. 75 78 83 Notes: VdB = vibration decibels referenced to 1 microinch per second and based on the root mean square velocity amplitude. 1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day. 4 This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define acceptable vibration levels.

Source: FTA 2018: 123–126.

STATE
California General Plan Guidelines
The State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (2017), provides guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. Acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories have been determined to help guide new land use decisions in California communities. In many local jurisdictions, these guidelines are used to derive local noise standards and guidance. Citing EPA materials and the State Sound Transmissions Control Standards, the State’s general plan guidelines recommend interior and exterior CNEL of 45 and 60 decibels (dB) for residential units, respectively (OPR 2017: 378).

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
California Department of Transportation
In 2020, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) published the Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual (Caltrans 2020). The manual provides general guidance on vibration issues associated with construction and operation of projects in relation to human perception and structural damage. Table 3.11-2 presents recommendations for levels of vibration that could result in damage to structures exposed to continuous vibration.

Table 3.11-2 Caltrans Recommendations Regarding Levels of Vibration Exposure PPV (in/sec) Effect on Buildings

0.4-0.6 Architectural damage and possible minor structural damage

0.2 Risk of architectural damage to normal dwelling houses

0.1 Virtually no risk of architectural damage to normal buildings

0.08 Recommended upper limit of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected

0.006-0.019 Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type Notes: PPV= peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second.

Source: Caltrans 2020: 38.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2014) addresses noise and vibration within the Noise and Safety Element. The noise-related policies applicable to the proposed project include:

X Policy NS-1-a: Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dB Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise-sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dB Ldn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise sensitive uses. Maintain a 65 dB Ldn or CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dB Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.

X Policy NS-1-b: Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 (presented as Table 3.11-3, below).

Table 3.11-3 Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Source Noise Sensitive Land Use1 Outdoor Activity Areas (Ldn dB) 2 Interior Spaces (Ldn dB)2

Residential 65 45
Transient Lodging 65 45
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls - 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 45
Office Buildings - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums - 45
Notes: dB = decibels; Ldn = day-night average sound level. 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

Source: City of Fresno 2014: 9-18.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-3
Table 3.11-4 Stationary Noise Sources
Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dB 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dB 70 65
Note: dB = decibels.

Source: City of Fresno 2014: 9-18.

X Policy NS-1-c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by an acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 (presented as Table 3.11-3, above) as conditions of permit approval.

X Policy NS-1-g: Noise mitigation measures which help achieve the noise level targets of the General Plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
ƒ Facades with substantial weight and insulation;
ƒ Installation of sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; ƒ Installation of sound-rated doors for all exterior entries and primary sleeping and activity areas; ƒ Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers;
ƒ Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic, and gable ends; ƒ Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

The aforementioned measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

X Policy NS-1-i: Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustic analysis where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 9-2 and 9-3 [presented as Table 3.11-3 and Table 3.11-4 above] to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 9-2 and 9-3 [presented as Table 3.11-3 and Table 3.11-4 above] as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means. Noise mitigation measures may include:
ƒ The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
ƒ Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; ƒ Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; ƒ Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and ƒ Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when a compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Policy NS-1-j: Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City’s environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in the City’s General Plan.

X Policy NS-1-k: Proposal Review. Review all new public and private development proposals that may potentially be affected by or cause a significant increase in noise levels, per Policy NS-1-I, to determine conformance with the policies of the General Plan’s Noise and Safety Element. Require developers to reduce the noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means.

X Policy NS-1-l: Enforcement. Continue to enforce applicable State Noise Insulation Standards and Uniform Building Code noise requirements, as adopted by the City.

X Policy NS-1-m: Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportation-related station noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City’s adopted standards for noise sensitive land uses.

X Policy NS-1-n: Best Available Technology. Require new noise sources to use best available control technology to minimize noise emissions.

X Policy NS-1-o: Sound Wall Guidelines. Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise barriers. Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls, and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area.

X Policy NS-1-p: Airport Noise Compatibility. Implement the land use and noise exposure compatibility provisions of the adopted Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport Master and Environs Specific Plan, and the Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan to assess noise compatibility of proposed uses and improvements within airport influence and environs areas.

City of Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations) of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. Chapter 15, Article 25 (Section 15-2506, “Noise”) of the Fresno Municipal Code applies to noise sources resulting from or relating to new development or the expansion of a use or activity (City of Fresno 2022). The noise standards contained in Chapter 15 of the municipal code match those in the General Plan; therefore, those provisions are not duplicated below. Additionally, Section 15-1604, “Expressway Area Overlay District,” is intended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels from major streets that are classified as Expressways, Super Arterials, and other streets that may be designated by the City.

Section 10-102(b): Definitions, Ambient Noise
“Ambient Noise” is the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of 15 minutes, without inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of day at which comparison with the offending noise is to be made. Where the ambient noise level is less than that designated in this section (see Table 3.11-5), however, the noise level specified herein shall be deemed to be the ambient noise level for that location.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-5
Table 3.11-5 Acceptable Ambient Noise Level
Land Use Time Sound Level (dB)
Residential
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55
7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 60
Commercial 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 60
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65
Industrial Anytime 70
Note: dB = decibels.

Source: City of Fresno 2022.

Section 10-105: Excessive Noise Prohibited
No person shall make, cause, or suffer or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street, alley, or place within the city, any sound or noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorized by or in accordance with this article. The provisions of this section shall apply to, but shall be limited to, the control, use, and operation of the following noise sources:

X Radios, musical instruments, phonographs, television sets, or other machines or devices used for the amplification, production, or reproduction of sound or the human voice.

X Animals or fowl creating, generating, or emitting any cry or behavioral sound.

X Machinery or equipment, such as fans, pumps, air conditioning units, engines, turbines, compressors, generators, motors or similar devises, equipment, or apparatus.

X Construction equipment or work, including the operation, use or employment of pile drivers, hammers, saws, drills, derricks, hoists, or similar construction equipment or tools.

Section 10-109: Exceptions
The provisions of this article shall not apply to:

X Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

X Emergency work.

X Any act or acts which are prohibited by any law of the State of California or the United States.

Section 10-110: Permits
Projects that would generate noise prohibited by the code may apply for a discretionary permits. The Chief Administrative Officer shall issue the requested permit unless he finds that the public interest will suffer and that such public detriment exceeds the hardship to be suffered by the applicant if the permit is not issued.

Section 15-1604: Expressway Area (EA) Overlay District
A. Purpose. As used herein, the Expressway Area (EA) Overlay District means major streets that are classified as Expressways, Super Arterials, and other streets that may be designated by the City. The Expressway Area (EA) Overlay District is established to:

1. Protect land uses and residences proximate to designated major streets.

2. Limit development that may potentially be detrimental to the general health, safety, and welfare and to existing and future infrastructure operations and improvements.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

3. Mitigate noise to acceptable levels.

B. Use Regulations. Those uses permitted in the Base District, subject to the limitations and conditions set forth therein.

C. Development Standards. Development Standards shall be as required by the Base District, except as follows:

1. Residential Districts. No building shall be erected within 200 feet of the right-of-way line, except as follows:
a. An acoustical study determines that interior noise can be mitigated to acceptable levels. b. In no case shall the minimum building setback be less than 75 feet from the center line of the nearest moving traffic lane of the abutting roadway.
c. Any barrier necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels shall not be less than eight feet in height and may be a wall, an earth berm, or any combination of wall and earth berm. d. Where no frontage road is required along the expressway, any landscaped open space transition setback separating properties zoned for residential uses shall contain a wall, berm, or any combination of wall and berm, not less than eight feet high and located 50 feet from and parallel to the center line of the nearest moving lane of the abutting roadway.

2. Non-Residential Districts. No buildings, nor private signage, shall be erected within 30 feet of the right-ofway.

Section 15-2506: Noise
…
h) Exemptions. The following are exempted from conformance to the noise standards of this section. ...

6. Public Works Construction Projects, Maintenance, and Repair. Street, utility, and similar construction projects undertaken by or under contract to the City, or the State of California or a public utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, as well as maintenance and repair operations conducted by such parties, including street sweeping, debris and litter removal, removal of downed wires, restoring electrical service, repairing traffic signals, unplugging sewers, vacuuming catch basins, repairing of damaged poles, removal of abandoned vehicles, repairing of water hydrants and mains, gas lines, oil lines, sewers, storm drains, roads, and sidewalks.

Section 15-2507: Vibration
No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.

3.11.2 Environmental Setting

ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS
Prior to discussing the noise setting for the project, background information about sound, noise, vibration, and common noise descriptors is needed to provide context and a better understanding of the technical terms referenced throughout this section.

Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, annoying, or unwanted sound.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-7
In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determines the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound.

Frequency
Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low-frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz, or thousands of hertz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro-Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this large range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB).

Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPLs cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness at the same time, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than if only one of the sound sources was producing sound under the same conditions. For example, if one idling truck generates an SPL of 70 dB, two trucks idling simultaneously would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level approximately 5 dB louder than one source.

A-Weighted Decibels
The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.

Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives the SPL in that range. In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000–8,000 Hz and perceive sounds within this range better than sounds of the same amplitude with frequencies outside of this range. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an “A-weighted” sound level (expressed in units of A-weighted decibels) can be computed based on this information.

The A-weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgment correlates well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Thus, noise levels are typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibels. All sound levels discussed in this section are expressed in A-weighted decibels. Table 3.11-6 describes typical A-weighted noise levels for various noise sources.

Table 3.11-6 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB) Common Indoor Activities — 110 — Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet — 100 —
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet — 90 —
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour — 80 — Food blender at 3 feet, Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime, Gas lawn mower at 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet, Normal speech at 3 feet Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB) Common Indoor Activities Commercial area, Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 —
Quiet urban daytime — 50 — Large business office, Dishwasher next room Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime — 30 — Library, Bedroom at night Quiet rural nighttime — 20 —
— 10 — Broadcast/recording studio
Lowest threshold of human hearing — 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing Notes: dB= decibels
Source: Caltrans 2013: Table 2-5.

Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
The doubling of sound energy results in a 3-dB increase in the sound level. However, given a sound level change measured with precise instrumentation, the subjective human perception of a doubling of loudness will usually be different from what is measured.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear can discern 1-dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 and 5,000 Hz and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity (Caltrans 2013: 2-18). In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1–2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013: 2-10). Therefore, a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dB increase in sound would generally be perceived as barely detectable.

Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object with respect to a given reference point. Sources of vibration include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) and those introduced by human activity (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, (e.g., operating factory machinery) or transient in nature (e.g., explosions). Vibration levels can be depicted in terms of amplitude and frequency, relative to displacement, velocity, or acceleration.

Vibration amplitudes are commonly expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root-mean-square (RMS) vibration velocity. PPV and RMS vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec) or in millimeters per second. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is typically used in the monitoring of transient and impact vibration and has been found to correlate well to the stresses experienced by buildings (FTA 2018: 110; Caltrans 2020: 6).

Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, typically calculated over a 1-second period. As with airborne sound, the RMS velocity is often expressed in decibel notation as vibration decibels (VdB), which serves to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration (FTA 2018: 110, 199; Caltrans 2020: 7). This is based on a reference value of 1 micro inch per second.

The typical background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Ground vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels (FTA 2018: 120; Caltrans 2020: 27).

Table 3.11-7 summarizes the general human response to different ground vibration-velocity levels.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-9
Table 3.11-7 Human Response to Different Levels of Ground Noise and Vibration Vibration-Velocity Level Human Reaction
65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception.
75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.

Note: VdB = vibration decibels referenced to 1 microinch per second and based on the root mean square velocity amplitude.

Source: FTA 2018: 120.

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur to fragile buildings.

Vibrations generated by construction activity can be transient, random, or continuous. Transient construction vibrations are generated by blasting, impact pile driving, and wrecking balls. Continuous vibrations are generated by vibratory pile drivers, large pumps, and compressors. Random vibration can result from jackhammers, pavement breakers, and heavy construction equipment. Construction activities can generate sufficient ground vibrations to pose a risk to nearby structures. Constant or transient vibrations can weaken structures, crack facades, and disturb occupants (FTA 2018: 113).

Table 3.11-8 presents vibration levels for typical pieces of equipment used during construction.

Table 3.11-8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft, in/sec Approximate Lv at 25 ft
Pile Driver (impact) upper range 1.518 112
typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (sonic) upper range 0.734 105
typical 0.17 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall)
in soil 0.008 66
in rock 0.017 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drilling 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Note: PPV = peak particle velocity; Lv = root mean square vibration velocity level in decibels, vibration decibels referenced to 1 microinch per second Source: FTA 2018: 184.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Common Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe timevarying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors used throughout this section.

Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level that occurs during the same period (Caltrans 2013: 2-48). For instance, the 1-hour equivalent sound level, also referred to as the hourly Leq, is the energy average of sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period and is the basis for noise abatement criteria used by Caltrans and FTA (Caltrans 2013: 2-47; FTA 2018: 210).

Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period (Caltrans 2013: 2-48; FTA 2018: 207–208).

Day-Night Level (Ldn): Ldn is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB “penalty” applied to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013: 2-48; FTA 2018: 214).

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and a 5-dB penalty applied to the sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Caltrans 2013: 2-48).

Sound Propagation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which a noise level decreases with distance depends on the following factors.

Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Roads and highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources, thus propagating at a slower rate in comparison to a point source. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.

Ground Absorption
The propagation path of noise from a source to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective-wave canceling (i.e., when sound energy bounces off a nonabsorbent material) provides additional attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, this additional attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), additional ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the attenuate rate associated with cylindrical spreading, the additional ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. This would hold true for point sources, resulting in an overall drop-off rate of up to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance.

Atmospheric Effects
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels, as wind can carry sound. Sound levels can be increased over large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) from the source because of atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also affect sound attenuation.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-11
Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content, or pitch, of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. 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). Vegetation between the source and receiver is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier unless there are multiple rows of vegetation (FTA 2018: 15, 104, 106).

EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Existing Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in healthrelated risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels, and because of the potential for nighttime noise to result in sleep disruption.

Additional land uses such as schools, transient lodging, historic sites, cemeteries, and places of worship are also generally considered sensitive to increases in noise levels. These land use types are also considered vibrationsensitive land uses in addition to commercial and industrial buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptors include a neighborhood of single-family residences located west of the project site, the closest of which is approximately 90 feet from the project site boundary on the opposite side of North Riverside Drive. Other noise-sensitive receptors in the area include Rio Vista Middle School and River Bluff Elementary School. Rio Vista Middle School and River Bluff Elementary School are located approximately 850 feet and 1,230 feet south of the project site boundary, respectively. See Figure 3.11-1 for locations of sensitive land uses relative to the project site.

Existing Noise Sources
The predominant noise source in the project area is vehicle traffic on the surrounding roadway network [e.g., North Riverside Drive, West Herndon Avenue, North Golden State Boulevard, and State Route (SR) 99]. To assess existing traffic noise and potential long-term (operation-related) noise impacts due to project-generated increases in traffic, noise levels were estimated using proprietary calculators based on Caltrans’ and the FHWA’s traffic noise propagation equations and recommended methods, using project-specific traffic data. The analysis is based on the reference noise emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and ground attenuation factors. Truck usage and vehicle speeds on area roadways were estimated from field observations and the project-specific TIA. Unless noted, the modeling conducted does not account for any natural or human-made shielding (e.g., the presence of walls or buildings) or reflection off building surfaces. Additionally, average daily traffic (ADT) along specific roadway segments were provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and included in Appendix D. Table 3.11-9 summarizes the modeled existing traffic noise levels at 50 feet from the centerline of each area roadway segment identified for analysis, and lists distances from each roadway centerline to the 70, 65, and 60 Ldn traffic noise contours. For further details on traffic-noise modeling inputs and parameters, refer to Appendix H.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.11-9 Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment/Segment Description Ldn at 50 feet from Roadway Centerline
Distance (feet) from Roadway
Centerline to Ldn Contour
Exceeds 65 Ldn/CNEL
Exterior Noise Standard for
Residential Uses?2 70 65 60
North Riverside Drive (between Spruce
Avenue and the northernmost project
driveway)1

52.0 2 8 25
No
North Riverside Drive (between the
northernmost project driveway and Fir
Avenue)1

53.6 4 11 36
No
North Riverside Drive (between Fir
Avenue and the southernmost project
driveway)1

54.0 4 12 39
No
North Riverside Drive (between the
southernmost project driveway and West
Herndon Avenue)1

54.0 4 12 39
No
West Herndon Avenue (west of North
Riverside Drive) 1 65.8 61 191 605
Yes
West Herndon Avenue (between North
Riverside Drive and North Arthur Avenue)
1 66.4 70 221 698
Yes
West Herndon Avenue (east of North
Arthur Avenue) 1 66.4 70 221 698
Yes
Notes: Ldn = day-night level.

All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow, and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All noise levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. For additional details, refer to Appendix H for detailed traffic data, and traffic-noise modeling input data and output results. 1 Noise levels include a 5 dB reduction to account for attenuation from cinderblock wall/soundwall along residential property line. 2 The 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn residential noise standards are summarized in Table 3.11-3. These are the City of Fresno’s noise standards adopted for evaluating long-term noise associated with traffic.

Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-13
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 3.11-1 Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

3.11.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Construction Noise and Vibration
To assess potential short-term (construction-related) noise and vibration impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure were identified. Project-generated construction source noise and vibration levels were determined based on methodologies, reference emission levels, and usage factors from FTA’s Guide on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (FTA 2018) and FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006).

Reference levels for noise and vibration emissions for specific equipment or activity types are well documented and the usage thereof common practice in the field of acoustics.

Operational Noise and Vibration
With respect to non-transportation noise sources (e.g., stationary) associated with proposed project implementation, the assessment of long-term (operational-related) impacts was based on reconnaissance data, reference noise emission levels, and measured noise levels for activities and equipment associated with project operation (e.g., heating, ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] units, delivery docks), and standard attenuation rates and modeling techniques.

To assess potential long-term (operation-related) noise impacts due to project-generated increases in traffic, noise levels were estimated in using calculations consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (FHWA 2004) and project-specific traffic data (see Appendix H for further information). The analysis is based on the reference noise emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and ground attenuation factors. Truck usage and vehicle speeds on area roadways were estimated from field observations and the project-specific traffic report. Note that the modeling conducted does not account for any natural or human-made shielding (e.g., the presence of walls or buildings) or reflection off building surfaces.

Selection of Noise Metrics for Thresholds of Significance The thresholds of significance used in this analysis utilize different noise metrics, including Ldn, Leq, Lmax, CNEL, and single-event noise level (SENL); that allow evaluation of a range of noise impacts. The type of noise metric applied to each noise source analyzed is dependent on the nature and duration of the noise generated by the source. Generally, Ldn and CNEL standards are used to evaluate noise sources that generate consistent noise levels throughout the day.

Leq metrics are generally used to evaluate noise-generating activities that do not persist all day but do last for most of an hour or longer. Lmax metrics are used to evaluate the loudest noise levels generated by sources that produce a range of noise levels over time. The SENL metric is used to evaluate noise sources that expose receptors for a relatively short period (i.e., less than 1 minute) because it captures both the magnitude and the duration of a sound event. Noise standards established by the City are applied as significance criteria if they are expressed in the appropriate metric for the noise source being analyzed. The City has established noise standards using the Ldn/CNEL, Lmax, and Leq metrics. However, because the City has not established SENL standards for analyzing heavy vehicle activity that expose receptors for a relatively short period, this noise impact analysis applies SENL standards recommended by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN).

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Thresholds are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, noise policies and standards in the City’s Municipal Code, City of Fresno General Plan policies, and Caltrans and FTA vibration and noise standards. A noise or vibration impact is considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:

X generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-15
ƒ result in short-term construction-related activity occurring outside of exempt daytime hours (i.e., 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday) as identified in the City’s Municipal Code Section 10-109 and would exceed the City’s ambient noise standard of 50 dB Leq for residential uses between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Table 3.11-5);
ƒ expose nearby sensitive receptors to operational non-transportation noise sources exceeding the City’s stationary noise standards of 50 dB Leq or 70 Lmax between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dB Leq or 65 Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Table 3.11-4) and/or ambient noise standards as applicable (Table 3.11-5);
X generate a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses in excess of the following standards:
ƒ where noise levels currently do not exceed applicable noise standard of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL for residential uses from transportation sources (Table 3.11-3) but would exceed Table 3.11-3 standards for the same land use as a result of project implementation; or
ƒ where Table 3.11-3 transportation noise standards are currently exceeded, result in substantial increases in noise of at least 3 dB (City of Fresno General Plan Policy NS-1-j); ƒ expose nearby residential structures to SENLs generated by truck pass-bys resulting from the project higher than an interior noise level of 65 SENL (FICAN 1997);
X generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; ƒ result in construction-generated vibration levels exceeding Caltrans’ recommended standards with respect to the prevention of structural building damage (0.2 and 0.08 in/sec PPV for normal and historical buildings, respectively) or FTA’s maximum-acceptable-vibration standard with respect to human response (80 VdB for residential uses) at nearby existing vibration-sensitive land uses; or ƒ for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
For a Project Located Within the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip or an Airport Land Use Plan or, Where Such a Plan has Not Been Adopted, Within 2 Miles of a Public Airport or Public Use Airport, Expose People Residing or Working in the Project Area to Excessive Noise Levels The project site is located approximately 1.8 miles west of Sierra Sky Park Airport. The Sierra Sky Park Airport is a private airstrip and is subject to the adopted Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan. The Sierra Sky Park Airport Land Use Policy Plan identifies normally acceptable exterior and interior noise levels of 60 CNEL and 45 CNEL, respectively, for residential land uses (Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission 1995: 2). Based on noise contour maps provided in the Sierra Sky Park Airport Land Use Policy Plan and Fresno Council of Governments’ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project area is outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour (Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission 1995: Figure 1; Fresno COG 2018: Exhibit H2). Operation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft-related noise levels, and any impact would be less than significant. Therefore, no further analysis is required under CEQA.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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. 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. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would implement noise reduction measures to minimize construction noise and reduce noise exposure during the nighttime. However, it cannot be ensured that all impacts would be reduced to meet City noise standards during construction activity. Thus, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

On-Site Construction
As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” construction activities would consist of grading and site preparation; utility installation and connection; roadway, driveway, and parking lot construction; building construction and equipment installation; and landscape installation. The construction staging area would be located on-site.

Construction would last approximately 170 days. Construction activities would primarily occur during daytime hours; however, limited activities, such as pouring concrete slabs, could require work to start as early as 2:00 a.m. No pile driving or blasting would take place.

Construction-generated noise levels would fluctuate depending on the type, number, and duration of equipment used. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day, noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise-sensitive receptors, and the ambient noise environment at nearby receptors. Construction equipment would vary by phase, but the entire construction process would include operation of the following types of equipment: loaders, scrapers, compactors, rollers, graders, pavers, excavators, and forklifts. Noise generated from these pieces of equipment would be intermittent and short in duration, as typical use is characterized by short periods of full-power operation followed by extended periods of lower power, idling, or powered-off conditions.

The grading and site preparation phases typically generate the most substantial noise levels because of the associated on-site equipment. Site preparation equipment and activities include graders and excavators. Additionally, approximately 325 loads of aggregate base would be imported onto the site and approximately 3,000 cubic yards of utility and foundation spoils would be off-hauled.

It is expected that the primary sources of noise would include rollers, graders, scrapers, pavers, and excavators. Noise emission levels from these types of construction equipment as well as other common equipment types are shown in Table 3.11-10, below. Modeling for on-site construction noise conservatively assumed simultaneous operation of four pieces of heavy equipment (a scraper, paver, roller, and grader) within close proximity at the edge of the project site.

These four pieces of equipment would generate a combined noise level of 87.6 dB Leq at 50 feet. Construction noise would attenuate to the City of Fresno’s daytime noise standard for residential uses of 60 dB Leq at a distance of 1,193 feet. Calculations of these combined noise levels are provided in Appendix H.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-17
Table 3.11-10 Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dB) at 50 feet
Backhoe 80
Compactor 80
Excavator 85
Forklift/Manlift 85
Grader 85
Paver 85
Roller 85
Scraper 85
Note: dB = decibel.

Source: FHWA 2006: 3.

Noise-sensitive receptors that could be adversely affected by construction noise are shown in Table 3.11-11. The distance to, and daytime noise exposure levels at, each receptor location were estimated for the closest possible construction activities (at the project boundary) and are summarized in Table 3.11-11.

The attenuated noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor, a single-family residence located approximately 90 feet from the western project boundary, would be 82.4 dB Leq. Based on documented noise attenuating features of noise barriers, a barrier that is just tall enough to break the line of sight between a noise source and a receptor provides at least 5 dB of noise reduction and can achieve an approximate 1 dB additional reduction for each 2 feet of height above where the sound barrier breaks the line of sight (with a maximum theoretical total reduction of 20 dB) (FHWA 2010: 56). An approximately 6-foot-tall cinderblock wall is located along the property line of the residences west of North Riverside Drive functioning as a noise barrier between the project site and the residential noisesensitive receptors. Therefore, the noise level generated by construction activity would be further reduced to 77.4 dB Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor. Assuming the average exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 24 dB typically provided by residential buildings with the windows closed (EPA 1978: 11), the interior noise level at the sensitive receptor nearest to where the construction activity could occur would be approximately 53.4 dB Leq. Detailed inputs and parameters for the estimated construction noise attenuation calculations are also provided in Appendix H.

Table 3.11-11 Levels of Noise Exposure at Noise-Sensitive Receptors during Typical Daytime Construction Activity
Sensitive Receptor
1 Distance to
Sensitive
Receptor (feet)
Exterior Daytime
Construction Noise Level at
Sensitive Receptor (Leq)

Interior Daytime Construction
Noise Level at Sensitive
Receptor (Leq)

Exceeds 60 dB Leq
Exterior Daytime Noise
Standard?3
Single-Family Residence
(adjacent to North Riverside
Drive west of project site)
90 772 532
Yes
Rio Vista Middle School 850 63 39 Yes
River Bluff Elementary
School 1,230 60 36 No
Notes: Leq = Hourly Equivalent Sound Level; dB = decibel Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment. 1 See Exhibit 3.11-1 for locations of sensitive land uses relative to the project site. 2 Noise levels include a 5 dB reduction to account for attenuation from cinderblock wall along residential property line. 3 60 dBA Leq is the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) acceptable ambient noise level, as summarized in Table 3.11-5.

Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-18 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
The City of Fresno Noise Ordinance (City of Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 10, Section 10-109) exempts constructionrelated noise, provided that all construction activities are performed between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., any day except Sunday. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” construction would primarily occur during the day and, thus, would be exempt from City noise standards; however, some construction activities would be required to start as early as 2:00 a.m.

Construction activities would only be permitted during the nighttime hours if there are no other reasonable options.

For example, some foundation designs require that once the pouring of concrete begins, the pour must continue without pause until complete. In some instances, such a concrete pour may take 20 or more hours, requiring work to occur during the nighttime hours. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of potential environmental effects, this EIR assumes the potential for limited outdoor nighttime construction activity.

As shown in Table 3.11-12, if a continuous nighttime concrete pour were required (likely the most noise intensive nighttime construction activity that might occur), associated noise could expose nearby noise-sensitive receptors, including locations where people normally sleep, (e.g., single-family residences west of the project site) to noise levels that exceed applicable standards. The exterior noise level at the sensitive receptor located closest to the project site would reach 68 dB Leq. As discussed above, a barrier breaking the line of sight between a noise source and a receptor provides at least 5 dB of noise reduction (FHWA 2010: 56). An approximately 6-foot-tall cinderblock wall is located along the property line of the residences west of North Riverside Drive functioning as a noise barrier between the project site and the residential noisesensitive receptors. Therefore, applying a 5 dB of noise reduction the noise level generated by nighttime construction activity would be 63 dB Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor. However, noise associated with nighttime construction would still exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 50 dB between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Table 3.11-12 Levels of Noise Exposure at Noise-Sensitive Receptors during a Nighttime Concrete Pour Sensitive Receptor
Distance to
Sensitive
Receptor (feet)
Exterior Nighttime
Construction Noise Level at
Sensitive Receptor (Leq)¹
Interior Nighttime
Construction Noise Level
at Sensitive Receptor (Leq)¹
Exceeds Nighttime
Noise Standards?
Single-family Residence (along
North Riverside Drive west of
project site)
400 63 39 Yes
Notes: Leq = Hourly Equivalent Sound Level
Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment. ¹ Assumes 2 concrete mixer trucks, 1 concrete pump truck, and 1 tractor. Noise levels incorporate a 5 dB noise reduction due to existing sound wall located along North Riverside Drive.

Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Assuming the average exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 24 dB typically provided by residential buildings with the windows closed (EPA 1978: 11), the highest Leq in the interior of rooms for all nearby sensitive receptors where people normally sleep, could reach 39 dB Leq. This does not exceed the local interior noise standard of 45 dB. However, because 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 construction, this impact would be a potentially significant.

Off-Site Construction
As portrayed in Figure 2-10 located in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” off-site construction activities would include intersection improvements at West Fir Avenue and North Riverside Drive, West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive, and West Herndon Avenue and a proposed private driveway along the eastern boundary of the project site (North Arthur Avenue). Additionally, the proposed project would involve the construction of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to North Sandrini Avenue and a private north-south right-of-way, North Arthur Avenue, along the project’s eastern boundary. Off-site improvements would also include utility connections and the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the project’s western and southern frontages.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-19
As previously stated, construction noise would be short-term; however, off-site construction activity would occur in close proximity to the single-family residences to the west of the project site. Modeling of off-site construction noise included simultaneous operation of two pieces of heavy equipment (i.e., a paver and grader) due to the spatial constraints associated with simultaneously operating heavy equipment in close proximity to one another on a smaller project site such as a linear alignment or intersection. Table 3.11-13 presents anticipated noise levels from off-site construction at each of the intersections where construction would take place.

Table 3.11-13 Levels of Noise Exposure at Noise-Sensitive Receptors during Off-Site Construction Off-Site Improvement
Intersection Location
Distance to Nearest
Sensitive Receptor (feet) Exterior Construction Noise Level at Sensitive Receptor (Leq) Interior Construction Noise Level at
Sensitive Receptor (Leq)
West Fir Avenue, North Riverside
Drive, main Costco driveway
60 84 60
West Herndon Avenue and
North Arthur Avenue
1,000 60 36
West Herndon Avenue and
North Riverside Drive
80 80 58
Notes: Leq = Hourly Equivalent Sound Level
Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment.

Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

As detailed above, the City Municipal Code exempts construction activity that takes places between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, from local noise standards (Chapter 10, Section 10-109). Additionally, as detailed in Section 15-2506 of the City’s Municipal Code, development noise standards are exempt for “street, utility, and similar construction projects undertaken by or under contract to the City.” Summary
Construction activities would primarily occur during daytime hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and thus would be exempt from the City’s noise control ordinance. However, 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. Therefore, the impact related to construction noise would be potentially significant.

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:

X 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.

X 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 and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-20 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Noise-reducing enclosures and techniques shall be used around stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g., concrete mixers, generators, compressors).

X 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.

X 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.

X 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.

Significance after Mitigation
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.

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. Thus, the impact would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project would not result in any new long-term operational sources of ground vibration.

Some ground vibration would be generated during project construction.

On-Site Construction
Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as jackhammers and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks. The effects of ground vibration may be unnoticeable at the lowest levels, result in low-rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and cause sleep disturbance in places where people normally sleep or annoyance in buildings that are primarily used for daytime functions.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-21
Construction activities would require the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment such as rollers, graders, excavators, and trucks (e.g., material and equipment haul trucks). No pile driving or blasting would take place. Table 3.11-8 presents vibration levels for typical pieces of equipment used during construction.

Of the heavy-duty equipment that could be used during project construction, the highest level of ground vibration would be generated by a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller operated within approximately 26 feet of an existing building or structure could expose that structure to levels of ground vibration that exceed Caltrans’ recommended level of 0.2 inches per section (in/sec) PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage. Also, a vibratory roller operated within 73 feet of a building could expose the building occupants to ground vibration levels that exceed the FTA maximum-acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB with respect to human annoyance for residential uses.

Because all construction activity would take place more than 73 feet from sensitive receptors (nearest receptor is approximately 90 feet from the project boundary), there would be no exceedance of Caltrans’ recommended level of

0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage or FTA’s standard of 80 VdB with respect to human annoyance for residential uses. Refer to Appendix H for detailed vibration modeling calculations. Furthermore, City of Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2507 exempts construction activity from the City’s vibration standard.

Therefore, the proposed project’s exposure of persons to excessive levels of groundborne vibration during construction would be less than significant.

Off-Site Construction
Off-site construction would involve construction equipment such as loaded trucks which generate vibration level of

0.076 in/sec PPV and 86 VdB at 25 feet (FTA 2018: 184). Vibration from operation of a loaded truck could exceed the threshold of significance of 0.2 in/sec PPV for structural damage within 14 feet of construction activity and the threshold with respect to human response of 80 VdB within 40 feet of bulldozing activity. Refer to Appendix H for detailed vibration modeling calculations. The nearest vibration-sensitive receptors at each off-site infrastructure improvement location are over 40 feet away from where construction associated with off-site improvements would occur. Thus, construction activities would not result vibration levels at sensitive receptors exceeding Caltrans- or FTArecommended standards with respect to the prevention of structural damage and human annoyance, respectively.

Additionally, Section 15-2507 of the City of Fresno municipal code exempts short-term construction from the City’s vibration standards. Therefore, the proposed project’s exposure of persons to excessive levels of groundborne vibration during off-site construction would be less than significant.

Summary
All construction activity associated with the project would be located further than necessary to avoid substantial structural damage and human annoyance due to vibration. Construction would not exceed 80 VdB or 0.2 PPV during on-site construction or off-site construction associated with the proposed project. Furthermore, the City’s municipal code exempts construction activity from local noise ordinance standards. Therefore, the impact related to construction vibration would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-22 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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 operational non-transportation noise sources. 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. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 would require the implementation of design features to reduce the noise levels anticipated from each noise source. For this reason, the impact related to long-term operational non-transportation noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

This impact analyzes potential exposure of existing sensitive receptors to noise generated by non-transportation activities associated with operation of the proposed project.

HVAC Equipment
Development of the proposed project would result in the installation of stationary noise sources used during building operation such as HVAC equipment. The proposed Costco warehouse would be located near the southwest corner of the project site. Based on proposed project site plans, all mechanical equipment associated with building operations, such as HVAC equipment and the emergency backup generator, would be located in enclosed areas on the eastern building façade. Noise levels from HVAC equipment vary substantially depending on unit efficiency, size, and location.

Noise levels from HVAC equipment range from 45 to 70 dB Leq at 50 feet (EPA 1971). The nearest sensitive receptor would be located approximately 900 feet from the eastern building façade of the proposed Costco warehouse. Using the highest noise level for HVAC equipment, the nearest sensitive receptors could be exposed to a noise level of 44.9 dB Leq (see Appendix H for detailed calculations). As previously discussed, a barrier that is just tall enough to break the line of sight between a noise source and a receptor provides at least 5 dB of noise reduction (FHWA 2010: 56). An approximately 6-foot-tall cinderblock wall is located along the property line of the residences west of North Riverside Drive functioning as a noise barrier between the project site and the residential noise-sensitive receptors. Accounting for a 5 dB noise reduction from the sound wall, noise generated by HVAC equipment would be reduced to 39.9 dB Leq. Applying an additional 24 dB noise reduction, following EPA guidance, the HVAC system would result in an interior noise level of 15.9 dB Leq. Additionally, the noise level would likely be even lower because the HVAC equipment would be enclosed. Therefore, noise generated by HVAC equipment would meet the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dB as well as the City’s most stringent noise standard of 45 dB Leq from stationary noise sources during nighttime hours.

For this reason, the impact related to HVAC equipment would be less than significant.

Heavy Vehicles (Loading and Delivery)
The proposed project would include the operation of heavy vehicles on-site (i.e., idling trucks, on-site truck circulation, trailer-mounted refrigeration units, doors slamming, and truck deliveries). Noise generated by these types of activities is considered a non-transportation noise source because it is not linear in nature. As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the Costco truck loading dock would be located along the southern façade of the building, and the bay doors would be equipped with sealed gaskets to limit noise. Additionally, the southwestern portion of the building would accommodate the loading of small box trucks for Costco’s online order and delivery service. The bay doors for this loading area would also be equipped with sealed gaskets to limit noise. It is estimated that fuel would be delivered to the gasoline facility in two to three trucks per day. Fuel delivery trucks would be parked over the underground tanks.

Based on reference noise levels and accounting for typical usage factors of individual pieces of equipment, such activities could result in noise levels of approximately 82 dB Leq and 86 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Additionally, the proposed land use and services provided on the project site (e.g., truck loading and deliveries of goods, tires, and fuel) could result in many on-site heavy vehicles operating simultaneously. Thus, these activities could generate a combined hourly average noise level of approximately 84 dB Leq and a maximum noise level as high as 86 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Detailed inputs and parameters for the estimated operational non-transportation noise exposure levels are provided in Appendix H.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-23
The noise-sensitive receptor nearest to the proposed project that could be adversely affected by operational nontransportation noise is shown in Table 3.11-14 and is located approximately 500 feet west of the project boundary.

Table 3.11-14 Levels of Noise Exposure at Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Receptors during Operational NonTransportation Activity Sensitive Receptor
Distance to
Nearest
Sensitive
Receptor
(feet)
Operational Non-Transportation Noise Exposure Level at
Sensitive Receptor (Exterior)

Potentially Exceeds Exterior
Noise Standard? Leq (dB)
Lmax (dB)
Single-Family Residence
(along North Riverside
Drive west of project site)
500 591 611 Yes
Notes: Leq = Hourly Equivalent Sound Level; dB = decibel; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level 1 Noise levels include a 5 dB reduction to account for attenuation from cinderblock wall along residential property line.

Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Operational non-transportation noise levels could be as high as 64 dB Leq and 66 dB Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor.

Based on documented noise attenuating features of noise barriers, a barrier that is just tall enough to break the line of sight between a noise source and a receptor provides at least 5 dB of noise reduction (FHWA 2010: 56). An approximately 6-foot-tall cinderblock wall is located along the property line of the residences west of North Riverside Drive functioning as a noise barrier between the project site and the residential noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, the noise level generated by loading dock activity would be further reduced to 59 dB Leq and 61 dB Lmax, as shown in Table 3.11-14.

An additional exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 24 dB typically provided by residential buildings with the windows closed (EPA 1978: 11) would result in interior noise levels at the nearest surrounding residences of approximately 35 dB Leq and would, thus, not exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dB. Although noise generated by the loading dock would not exceed the City’s interior noise standard, it may potentially exceed exterior noise standards (i.e., 50 dB between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 55 dB between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 60 dB between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.). For this reason, the impact related to loading and delivery would be potentially significant.

Parking and Gas Station
Based on the current conceptual plan the proposed project would include 829 parking spaces to accommodate Costco members and employees. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence located approximately 90 feet from the parking area. Additionally, the proposed project would include a Costco members-only gas station adjacent to West Spruce Avenue. The gas station would accommodate a total of 32 fueling positions and operate from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Noise generated from parking lots and gas stations is associated with people talking, horns honking, engines starting, doors slamming, engines idling, car alarms sounding, and various other sounds associated with moving vehicles. These noise sources are typically short, intermittent throughout the day, and vary as a function of the number of vehicles present throughout the day (i.e., peak hours would result in more noise). Noise associated with the proposed parking lot and gas station was calculated using weekend midday peak hour traffic volumes (i.e., 2,130 trips). It is anticipated that the parking and fueling area would result in daytime noise levels of 65.7 dB Leq at 50 feet and 47.6 dB Leq the nearest sensitive receptor, approximately 400 feet away from a center point of the parking area. See Appendix H for detailed modeling. As discussed, the approximately 6-foot cinderblock sound wall along the property line of the residences west of North Riverside Drive would provide an additional noise reduction of 5 dB. Therefore, the noise from the parking area would attenuate to 42.6 dB Leq; and thus, not exceed the City’s ambient noise standard of 60 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and 55 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Some operational activity would also occur in the early morning hours prior to 7:00 a.m. These noise levels (primarily associated with the gas station and parking) are anticipated to be substantially lower than the modeled noise level of 42.6 dB Leq for project operation, which would not exceed the City’s nighttime noise standard of 45 dB Leq between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore, considering the 24 dB noise attenuation for residential building with the windows closed, the noise generated by parking would remain well Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-24 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
below interior noise standards for sensitive land uses at 18.6 Leq. Therefore, noise generated by parking associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Car Wash
The proposed project would involve the implementation of a Costco members-only automated carwash located at the northern boundary of the project site, adjacent to the gas station. The proposed hours of operation for the project are Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Noise from automated car wash facilities occurs as a result of the general operating of pumps, compressors, highpressure applicators and spray nozzles, scrubbers, and dryers. The majority of the mechanical equipment (such as pumps and compressors) would be fully enclosed within an equipment room adjacent to the car wash tunnel, which would limit noise. The dryers, however, are the dominant noise source associated with car wash systems.

The proposed project includes a drying assembly at the exit of the car wash tunnel which would face the single-family residences west of North Riverside Drive. The distance from the car wash exit to the nearest residential property line is approximately 350 feet. An 80 HP Stealth High Powered Quiet Drying System generates a noise level of 69 dB at 50 feet (City of Sacramento 2018: 7). The noise generated by the car wash would therefore attenuate to a noise level of

52.1 dB Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor. Thus, the noise level would not exceed the City’s ambient noise standard of 60 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and 55 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Therefore, noise generated by the car wash would be less than significant.

Tire Center
The tire center would operate Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The primary source of noise from a tire service center is from air wrenches used to loosen and tighten the lug nuts on a tire. Other common sources of noise from a tire center could include air compressors, tire inflation, on-vehicle tire balancing at a high spin rate, and brake drum resurfacing. The noises generated by the tire center are short-term heightened levels of noise and would not all occur simultaneously.

The traditional Costco warehouse tire center layout is for a row of service bays with individual roll-up doors typically facing the parking lot and vehicle staging area. The proposed project’s tire center would have all its service areas located inside the building with the roll-up doors located along the northern façade.

Although noise measurements at tire service centers throughout California have shown some variation because of differences in activity, intensity, and layout, they tend to cluster in a fairly narrow band. The combination of lug wrench operation plus numerous other noise sources (e.g., car starts, car horn, dropped tools, banging hammer on a stuck brake drum, air compressor, phone ringing, boom box music) comprise the total noise generation expected from the tire facility associated with the proposed project. Table 3.11-15 presents reference noise measurements at various tire center facilities.

Table 3.11-15 Noise Measurements at Similar Tire Centers in California Tire Center Measurement Distance (feet) Measurement Period Noise Level (Leq) American Tire Depot, Orange 50 65 dB
American Tire Depot, Costa Mesa 50 62 dB
Costco Tire Center, Culver City 70 60 dB
Firestone, Chino Hills 52 58 dB
Les Schwab, Yuba City 75 57 dB
Costco Tire Center, Tustin 60 59 dB
Notes: Leq = Hourly Equivalent Sound Level; dB = decibel Source: City of Redding 2018: Table 4.10-17.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-25
Based on the measured noise levels shown in Table 3.11-15, a reference noise level of 65 dB Leq at 50 feet from the tire center façade is a reasonably conservative input assumption. The shortest distance between the Costco warehouse building boundary and the nearest sensitive receptor west of the project is approximately 400 feet.

Therefore, the noise level from the tire center would attenuate to a level of 46.9 dB Leq at the closest sensitive receptor, and thus, not exceed the exterior noise City standard of 60 dB Leq for residential areas between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. or the 55 dBA Leq evening time (i.e., 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise standard. Therefore, the noise impacts associated with the Costco warehouse tire center would be less than significant.

Transformer and Trash Compactors
As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” a transformer and two trash compactors would be located along the southern edge of the building near the loading dock. Trash compactors would generally be operated in the early morning hours (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) or evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) but could also be operated on a limited basis during facility hours of operation. There would be no direct line-of-sight to residences. At most modern stores, compactors are located near the receiving area to provide indoor storage of baled material, simplify any clean-up of spills, and to address noise, odor, and rodent control issues. The measured noise level of a Marathon Vert-I-Pack compactor was measured at 74 dB at 3 feet or 50 dB at a distance of 50 feet (City of Cypress 2018). The trash compactor noise level would attenuate to a level of 32 dB at a distance of 400 feet, which is the distance between the nearest sensitive receptors west of the project site measured from the project’s southwestern boundary.

See Appendix H for detailed modeling. Noise generated by the transformer and trash compactors would not exceed the City’s most stringent exterior noise standard of 45 dB Leq from stationary sources; therefore, the noise impacts associated with trash handling would be less than significant.

Summary
The proposed project’s operational activity would involve various non-transportation noise sources which would affect nearby sensitive receptors. 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 analyzed above, it is unlikely that combined noise levels would increase to levels that exceed the City’s noise standards at nearby sensitive receptors. As detailed in Section 3.11.2, “Environmental Setting,” above, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. Thus, two identical sources each producing sound of the same loudness at the same time would need to occur to result in a 3 dB increase in noise which is perceptible and would result in an adverse effect to humans. The HVAC equipment, parking area, gas station, car wash, tire center, and transformer and trash compactors would not exceed ambient noise standards for residential uses during daytime hours (i.e., 60 dB Leq) and/or daytime noise standards from stationary sources (i.e., 50 dB Leq). Operation of the loading dock area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding applicable City standards. Therefore, the impact related to long-term operational non-transportation noise would be potentially significant.

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 or other noise attenuating feature west of the loading docks with a demonstrated ability to result in a 4 dB noise decrease at the existing residences along North Riverside Drive Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 would reduce noise levels to meet required standards. Therefore, the impact after mitigation would be less than significant.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-26 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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. Additionally, although existing noise levels on West Herndon Avenue exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dB Ldn/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. Thus, the impact would be less than significant.

Project-generated vehicle trips would result in an increase in average daily traffic volumes and associated increases in traffic noise levels along affected roadway segments near the project site. To analyze the impact of project-generated operational transportation noise sources, traffic noise levels under existing and existing-plus-project conditions were modeled for affected roadway segments. For further details on traffic volumes and conditions, see Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation.” Refer to Appendix H for detailed noise modeling input parameters.

The general plan includes maximum average exterior noise levels (Table 9-25 of the General Plan Noise and Safety Element, presented as Table 3.11-3 above) that are designed to protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise levels. These noise standards vary based on the land use type; and thus, are dependent on the land use type and proximity to existing freeways and roadways. Traffic volume increases could result in potentially significant impacts if traffic noise levels exceed the City’s exterior noise compatibility standard of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL for residential uses. Additionally, the project would result in potentially significant impacts if there were a traffic noise increase of 3 dB Ldn/CNEL or greater at locations with existing noise levels exceeding the City’s 65 dB Ldn/CNEL exterior noise standard (General Plan Noise and Safety Element Policy NS-1-j t).

Table 3.11-16 summarizes the modeled traffic noise levels at the nearest applicable off-site receptors from the roadway centerlines under existing and existing plus project conditions, along with the overall net change in noise level as a result of project-generated traffic.

Table 3.11-16 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions Segment Description
Noise (dB Ldn/CNEL) at 50 feet from
Roadway Significant Change? Existing Plus
Project
Change
1 North Riverside Drive (between Spruce Avenue and
the northernmost project driveway)1

52.0 56.3 NA2 No
2 North Riverside Drive (between the northernmost
project driveway and Fir Avenue)1

53.6 59.3 NA2 No
3 North Riverside Drive (between Fir Avenue and the
southernmost project driveway)1

54.0 63.3 NA2 No
4 North Riverside Drive (between the southernmost
project driveway and West Herndon Avenue)1

54.0 63.6 NA2 No
5 West Herndon Avenue (west of North Riverside Drive) 1 65.8 67.6 1.8 No 6 West Herndon Avenue (between North Riverside Drive
and North Arthur Avenue)1

66.4 67.4 1 No
7 West Herndon Avenue (east of North Arthur Avenue)1 66.4 67.4 1 No Notes: dB = decibel.
1 Noise levels include a 5 dB reduction to account for attenuation from cinderblock wall/soundwall along residential property line. 2 NA indicated where existing noise levels do not exceed the City’s 65 dB Ldn/CNEL exterior noise standard and change is not used to determine potential for impact.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2022 based on traffic data provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. in 2022.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-27
Existing noise levels on West Herndon Avenue could potentially exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL for nearby residential uses. However, interior noise levels for residential buildings along this roadway would not exceed the City of Fresno General Plan interior noise standard of 45 Ldn/CNEL because the existing and existing plus-project-noise levels are below 68 Ldn/CNEL; and thus, when the 24 dB noise attenuation for residential building with the windows closed is applied, the interior noise levels would not exceed 45 Ldn/CNEL (68-24=44). Additionally, 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 (i.e., greater than 3 dB).

As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the proposed project includes the construction of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue. This extension of West Spruce Avenue would improve access to the project site but would also likely result in the redistribution of some existing and future trips in the vicinity of the project site. The extension of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue would introduce a new roadway that would abut Riverside Golf Course to the north and the proposed project site to the south. Although neither of these uses are considered noise sensitive receptors for the purposes of this analysis, there are residences located east and west of this proposed roadway segment that would experience an increase in traffic noise associated with the redistribution of trips along the surrounding roadway network and the introduction of a new noise source (i.e., the proposed roadway segment).

Based on the surrounding land use context and roadway network, the likely redistribution of trips due to the extension of West Spruce Avenue would be associated with the new routes available to vehicles traveling between the development in the vicinity of the projects site and West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive. Additionally, the proposed roadway segment could be used by cut through traffic during peak travel times when roadway facilities along West Herndon Avenue in the vicinity of the project site are experiencing increases in delay. However, this redistribution would likely be minimal in that the most direct route to the primary surrounding roadways (i.e., West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive) from existing and proposed development north of West Herndon Avenue would remain via existing roadways. The exception to this would be for the residential development north of West Spruce Avenue between North Hayes Avenue and North Sandrini Avenue (approximately 155 single family homes). Due to the location of the westernmost roadway used to access this development (i.e., North Sandrini Avenue), a high percentage of westbound trips exiting, and eastbound trips entering the development would likely use the West Spruce Avenue extension. In order to provide a conservative analysis, it was assumed that all of the daily trips associated with this residential development would use the West Spruce Avenue extension to access the surrounding roadway network. This is conservative because the West Spruce Avenue extension would not provide the shortest or most direct route for trips headed south or east would from the existing residential development. Using the weekday daily trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) for single-family detached housing (ITE Land Use Code 210), this development likely produces approximately 1,500 trips per day.

In order to not exceed the City’s 65 dB Ldn/CNEL exterior noise standard (General Plan Noise and Safety Element Policy NS-1-j t) at the homes nearest to where this new roadway segment would be located, ADT should not exceed 9,000 ADT. Because of the relatively low volume of vehicles from existing development that would likely use this roadway segment (see trip generation quantification above), although the travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site would change with the extension of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue, it can be assumed that the number of trips along this roadway segment with implementation of the proposed project would not exceed 9,000 ADT.

As detailed above, existing noise levels along North Riverside Drive (between Spruce Avenue and West Herndon Avenue) are below the City’s exterior standard of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL for residential uses (i.e., maximum 54 dB Ldn/CNEL).

Additionally, as detailed above, the extension of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue would not result in an exceedance of the City’s exterior standard of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL at nearby residential uses. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-28 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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 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.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 (as detailed under Impact 3.11-3) and Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 would require the use of design interventions. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-3 and 3.11-5 would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The proposed project would result in heavy vehicles (ranging in size from 26-foot-long single-axle trailers to 70-foot-long double-axle trailers) entering and exiting the project site using the surrounding roadway network during more noisesensitive early-morning hours. In addition to increases in average daily traffic noise, intermittent SENLs associated with the operation of heavy vehicles on the surrounding roadway network and increases in the frequency of occurrence of such levels would be of additional concern, particularly during the more noise-sensitive nighttime and early morning hours.

Although the average daily noise descriptors (i.e., Ldn and CNEL) incorporate a nighttime weighting or “penalty” that is intended to reflect the expected increased sensitivity to noise annoyance at night, Ldn and CNEL standards do not fully protect residents from sleep disturbance. The SENL describes a receiver’s cumulative noise exposure from a single impulsive noise event (e.g., a passing truck, a truck downshifting to engine brake, or an aircraft flying overhead), which is a rating of a discrete noise event that compresses the total sound energy of the event into a 1- second period, measured in decibels (Caltrans 2011). These noise events can be more startling to receptors if they occur when ambient noise levels are quieter, such as during nighttime hours.

Many studies have been conducted regarding the effects of single-event noise on sleep disturbance, but because of the wide variation in the reaction of test subjects to SENLs of various levels, no definitive consensus has been reached with respect to a universal criterion to apply. Upon a review of studies about sleep disturbance and aircraft-generated SENLs, the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) provided estimates of the percentage of people expected to be awakened when exposed to specific SENLs inside a home (FICAN 1997). According to FICAN’s review, 10 percent of the population is estimated to be awakened when the SENL interior noise level is 81 dB. An estimated 5 to 10 percent of the population is affected when the SENL interior noise level is between 65 and 81 dB, and few sleep awakenings (less than 5 percent) are predicted if the interior SENL is less than 65 dB. However, FICAN did not recommend a threshold of significance based on the percent of people awakened.

For the purposes of this analysis, exposure of interior rooms of residential structures, regardless of location, to SENLs from truck pass-bys generated by the project that exceed 65 SENL, which is the level determined by FICAN to result in sleep disturbance to 5 percent of the exposed population (FICAN 1997), would be considered significant.

Noise levels generated by passing haul trucks typically range from approximately 87 to 90 SENL at 50 feet (EPA 1971).

The southernmost driveway along a new private roadway, North Arthur Avenue, would serve as primary truck access.

Secondary truck access would be along the southernmost driveway along North Riverside Drive. The nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 40 feet from where the SENL’s could occur (a single-family residence located west of North Riverside Drive). Additional noise attenuation could be provided by a cinderblock sound wall observed between the roadway and receptor; however, it may not be tall enough to break the line of sight between where SENLs could occur and the residences’ second floor where bedrooms are typically located. Although studies have found that human-made barriers can provide additional noise reduction of 5 dB between a receiver and a noise source (Caltrans 2013: 2-41; FTA 2018: 42), a 5 dB noise reduction was not applied for the cinderblock wall to maintain a conservative analysis. Assuming the average exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 24 dB typically provided by residential buildings with the windows closed (EPA 1978: 11), the interior SENL at the sensitive receptor nearest to where the heavy vehicle activity could occur would be approximately 66.4 SENL. Thus, SENL’s at the nearest noisesensitive receptors would exceed 65 SENL. Therefore, noise generated by SENLs would be potentially significant.

Ascent Environmental Noise and Vibration
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.11-29
Mitigation Measures
The project applicant shall incorporate one of the following mitigation measures to reduce potential noise impacts from SENLs:

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 exterior 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 Ldn/CNEL 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:

X Pave the roadway segment with rubberized hot-mix asphalt or equivalent surface treatment with known noisereducing 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.

X 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. If the sound barriers ensure that exterior traffic noise levels on the residential properties would not exceed 60 dB Leq, then the applicant shall not be required to pave the roadway with a special low-noise surface treatment. Sound wall construction 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 mitigation.

Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 would require the project applicant to construct a sound wall and/or pave North Riverside Drive with noise reducing materials. The implementation of one of this mitigation measure would ensure residents near North Riverside Drive would not experience SENL above 65. For this reason, the impact related to SENLs would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Noise and Vibration Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.11-30 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Public Services and Recreation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.12-1

3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This section provides an overview of existing public services and evaluates the potential for implementation of the project to affect availability, service level, or capacity of public services, including fire-protection services, police-protection services, parks and recreation, and public schools, and, if such an effect is determined to occur, whether new or expanded facilities would be required that could result in a potentially significant impact to the environment. Other publicly provided utility services, such as water and wastewater treatment, and stormwater management are addressed in Section 3.14, “Utilities.” Comments received in response to the notice of preparation released for this draft EIR expressed concern about the potential for the proposed project to impede access to the San Joaquin River or otherwise interfere with existing recreational opportunities in the project area. This issue is discussed below.

3.12.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws are applicable to the provision of public services for the project.

STATE
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire-suppression training.

California Fire Code
An important requirement for fire suppression is adequate fire flow, which is the amount of water, expressed in gallons per minute (gpm), available to control a given fire and the length of time this flow is available. The total fire flow needed to extinguish a structural fire is based on a variety of factors, including building design, internal square footage, construction materials, dominant use, height, number of floors, and distance to adjacent buildings. Minimum requirements for available fire flow at a given building are dependent on standards set in the California Fire Code.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan includes the following policies that pertain to hydrology and water quality and are relevant to this analysis.
f Policy POSS-1-a: Parkland Standard. Implement a standard of at least three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city, while striving for five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the city, subject to identifying additional funding for Regional Parks, Open Space/Natural Areas, and Special Use Parks/Facilities. f Policy POSS-3-c: Link Parks with Walkways. Link public open space to adjacent, schools, and residential uses and Activity Centers through a series of landscaped linear walkways and bikeways that enhance and encourage pedestrian use.

Public Services and Recreation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.12-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
f Policy POSS-7-h: Interlink City and San Joaquin River Parkway Trail Networks. Strive to connect the parkway trail network to other trails in the vicinity, in order to create a community and regional trail system that offers a variety of different route combinations and enhances public access to the parkway. f Policy PU-1-c: Safety Considerations in Development Approval. Continue to identify and apply appropriate safety, design and operational measures as conditions of development approval, including, but not limited to, street access control measures, lighting and visibility of access points and common areas, functional and secure onsite recreational and open space improvements within residential developments, and use of State licensed, uniformed security. f Policy PU-1-g: Plan for Optimum Service. Create and adopt a program to provide targeted police services and establish long-term steps for attaining and maintaining the optimum levels of service - 1.5 unrestricted officers per 1,000 residents.
f Policy PU-1-i: Crime and Nuisances. Assist community and neighborhood groups seeking to reduce crime and nuisances they associate with high concentrations of establishments with off-sale or on-sale liquor licenses through Police Department consultations, other available services, and programs such as Neighborhood Watch. f Policy PU-1-j: Lighting and Safety. Ensure adequate lighting at off-sale liquor stores to help deter crime and to promote a more inviting and safe atmosphere around them. f Policy PU-2-e: Service Standards. Strive to achieve a community wide risk management plan that include the following service level objectives 90 percent of the time:
ƒ First Unit on Scene – First fire unit arriving with minimum of three firefighters within 5 minutes and 20 seconds from the time the unit was alerted to the emergency incident. ƒ Effective Response Force – Provide sufficient number of firefighters on the scene of an emergency within 9 minutes and 20 seconds from the time of unit alert to arrival. The effective response force is measured as 15 firefighters for low risk fire incidents and 21 firefighters for high risk fire incidents and is the number of personnel necessary to complete specific tasks required to contain and control fire minimizing loss of life and property. f Policy PU-2-f: Plan for Optimum Service. Create and adopt a program to provide appropriate number of employees to effectively respond to call volume and type; and establish a long-term plan to attain a level of service of 0.81 firefighters per 1,000 residents.
f Policy PU-3-d: Review Development Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided.

City of Fresno Municipal Code, Sections 12-4.801 and 12-4.901 In order to implement the goals and objectives of the general plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain fire department and police facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Fire Facilities Fee and Police Facilities Fee are needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share.

3.12.2 Environmental Setting

FIRE PROTECTION
The City of Fresno Fire Department provides fire suppression, fire prevention, hazardous materials mitigation, rescue, and emergency medical services. The fire department aims to respond to the scene of an emergency within 4 minutes of notification (City of Fresno 2020: 4.15-2). Nearby fire stations include 6239 North Polk Avenue (Station 14) and the temporary station at 5983 North La Ventana (Station 18), each of which have an engine operated by a threeperson crew. Station 14 also has a brush rig (City of Fresno 2020: 4.15-4). The project site is served by Station 14. In 2021, Station 14 responded to 970 incidents (including fire, emergency medical calls, traffic collisions, other hazards, and false alarms); 28 percent of these calls were responded to within 4 minutes (City of Fresno 2022).

Ascent Environmental Public Services and Recreation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.12-3

LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Fresno Police Department provides a full range of police services including uniformed patrol response, crime prevention, tactical crime enforcement, and traffic enforcement and accident prevention. The police department has a target ratio of 1.5 unrestricted officers per 1,000 residents. The project site is in the northwest policing district. The police station for this district is located at 3080 West Shaw Avenue, approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site (City of Fresno 2020: 4.15-5).

SCHOOLS
The project site is within an area served by Central Unified School District. The district has 24 school sites that serve over 16,000 students.

RECREATION
The City of Fresno owns and operates a park system that includes more than 80 public parks, trails, regional parks, neighborhood parks, educational facilities, community pools, splash parks, and dual-use ponding basins. School facilities supplement the City’s park system and are available for recreational use through joint-use agreements (City of Fresno 2020: 4.15-8).

The closest recreation amenity to the project site, Riverside Golf Course is located immediately north of the project site and is one of three courses owned by the City of Fresno. Riverbottom Park is located in the floodplain of the San Joaquin River adjacent to the Santa Fe Railroad, approximately 1 mile northeast of the project site. The park is a component of the San Joaquin River Parkway, a planned 22-mile natural and recreational area extending from Friant Dam to State Route 99, that is managed by the San Joaquin River Conservancy and provides open space and passive recreation opportunities. Trails connect Riverbottom Park to parking at the northern terminus of North Riverside Drive.

3.12.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Impacts on public services that would result from the project were identified by comparing existing service capacity and facilities against future demand associated with project implementation. The project proposes construction of a commercial facility in an area with existing City services. For the purpose of this analysis, the project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly contribute residents to the city. Rather, the project would serve the existing population that is currently afforded public services.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on public services and recreation would be significant if implementation of the project would:
f result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services (i.e., fire, police, schools, or other public facilities); f increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; and/or f include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Public Services and Recreation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.12-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Governmental Facilities, or the Need for New or Physically Altered Governmental Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts in Order to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios, Response Times, or other Performance Objectives for Schools, Libraries, and Other Public Facilities The project would not include additional housing. Employees of the existing Costco warehouse and MDO would transfer to the proposed facility. Due to proximity, employees would not need to move and would remain in the community. The project would not result in population growth that would substantially increase demand for public amenities such as schools and libraries. For these reasons, the project would not have significant impacts associated with provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Increase the Use of Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or Other Recreational Facilities Such That Substantial Physical Deterioration of the Facility Would Occur or Be Accelerated; and/or Include Recreational Facilities or Require the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities
The project would not include additional housing and would not result in additional employees that would increase use of, or demand for, recreational facilities. Because the project is non-residential, it is not required to provide recreation facilities. The project would not substantially increase demand for, or use of, existing parks and would not result in significant recreation impacts. In addition, the minor modifications to River Golf Course required to accommodate the project would not substantially affect the use of the golf course. The required modifications to the existing irrigation system, relocation of the path for the golf carts, and installation of new fence and nets have been evaluated in this EIR and would not constitute a substantial physical deterioration or construction or expansion with the potential to result in additional, adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Limit Access to Existing Recreational Facilities
As noted above, the City received public comments during the scoping period regarding the potential for the project to limit access to recreational facilities, including trails. Although not explicitly required by CEQA, the following information is provided for informational purposes.

Development of the proposed project would not physically obstruct access to existing recreational opportunities, including the trails along the San Joaquin River that connect to Riverbottom Park. Moreover, the project would facilitate multi-modal access to these existing facilities because it would include construction of 12-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle paths along the project’s frontage with West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive.

These paths would be consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan and would support General Plan Policies POSS-3-c and POSS-7-h regarding linking city pathways with parks and the San Joaquin Parkway Trail Networks. The project would not preclude access to existing or planned recreational facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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 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. Therefore, impacts to public services would be less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Public Services and Recreation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.12-5
The project would construct a commercial facility on vacant land identified for commercial development in the City of Fresno General Plan. 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 Costco facility would serve the city’s existing population in northwest Fresno and is consistent with the type of development the City has planned for the site. The project would not introduce new residents to the area and would not affect service ratios. For these reasons, the demand for public services generated by the project would be within the planned service demand of the existing providers.

All site plans and building designs would be reviewed by the City Fire Department to verify that the project would comply with City fire code and other standards pursuant to General Plan Policy PU-3-d. This process would ensure that the project would include appropriately designed fire suppression facilities (i.e., sprinklers, extinguishers, fire hydrants) and adequate emergency access, as noted in Fresno Fire Department Policy. The City would identify and apply appropriate safety, design, and operational measures as conditions of development approval pursuant to General Plan Policies PU-1-c and PU-1-j.

Further, impact fees are collected from new development for the construction of fire and police facilities (as established in Sections 12-4.901 and 12-4.801 of the Fresno Municipal Code). The project would be required to deposit a Fire Service Fee and a Police Service Fee with the City prior to occupancy of the facility. Payment of the required fees would provide funding to supplement staff and equipment and reduce impacts to fire and police protection services.

The project would not introduce new residents to the area, is consistent with the type of land use planned for the site, is mostly surrounded by existing development currently served by fire and police services, and would pay impact fees that contribute funds for public services. New or physically altered facilities would not be required. Further, the project would comply with all applicable fire safety regulations. For these reasons, substantial adverse physical effects associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire or police facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities are not anticipated. Therefore, impacts to public services would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Public Services and Recreation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.12-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-1

3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This section describes the applicable federal, state, and local transportation regulations and policies; discusses the existing roadway network and transportation facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project; and analyzes the potential impacts from implementation of the proposed project on transportation. Mitigation measures that would reduce impacts, where applicable, are also discussed. Information contained within this section was provided primarily in the Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project (Kittelson & Associates 2023), which is included as Appendix D of this EIR and incorporated herein.

Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.3(a), generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and a project’s effect on automobile delay shall no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA.

Therefore, the transportation analysis herein evaluates impacts using VMT and does not include level of service (LOS) analysis. Although not addressed in this EIR, an analysis of traffic operations (i.e., intersection and freeway LOS analysis) for the proposed project was conducted by Kittelson & Associates and is included in the TIA (Kittelson & Associates 2023) attached as Appendix D.

Comments received regarding transportation in response to the notice of preparation include concerns related to increased traffic and safety, including safety concerns along Golden State Boulevard, grade separation for High Speed Rail, and the number of driveways into the project site. Comments also provide access and roadway design suggestions for the vicinity of the proposed project site. Because a project’s effects on automobile delay no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA, comments related to automobile delay (e.g., LOS, congestion) are not addressed herein. See Appendix A for all notice of preparation comments received.

3.13.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, provides stewardship over the construction and preservation of the nation’s highways, bridges, and tunnels. FHWA also conducts research and provides technical assistance to state and local agencies to improve safety, mobility, and livability and to encourage innovation in these areas. FHWA also provides regulation and guidance related to work zone safety, mobility, and temporary traffic control device implementation.

STATE
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the state agency responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the California State Highway System, as well as the segments of the Interstate Highway System that lie within California. Caltrans District 6 is responsible for the operation and maintenance of State Route (SR) 99 in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Caltrans requires a transportation permit for any transport of heavy construction equipment or materials that necessitates the use of oversized vehicles on state highways.

The Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG) was prepared to provide guidance to Caltrans Districts, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants regarding Caltrans’ review of a land use project or plan’s transportation analysis using a VMT metric. This guidance is not binding on public agencies, and it is intended to be a reference and informational document. The TISG replaces the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies and is for use with local land use projects, not for transportation projects on the State Highway System (Caltrans 2020).

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new State CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.”
OPR published its proposal for the comprehensive updates to the State CEQA Guidelines in November 2017 which included proposed updates related to analyzing transportation impacts pursuant to Senate Bill 743. These updates indicated that VMT would be the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts. In December of 2018, OPR published the most recent version of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) which provides guidance for VMT analysis.

In December 2018, OPR and the State Natural Resources Agency submitted the updated CEQA Guidelines to the Office of Administrative Law for final approval to implement SB 743. The Office of Administrative Law subsequently approved the updated CEQA Guidelines. As of July 1, 2020, implementation of Section 15064.3 of the updated CEQA Guidelines apply statewide.

REGIONAL
Fresno Council of Governments
The Fresno County Council of Governments (Fresno COG) is a voluntary association of local governments and a regional planning agency composed of 16 member agencies, including the City of Fresno. Fresno COG is one of 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) across California. The primary functions of Fresno COG involve transportation planning and programming. Fresno COG is responsible for developing and adopting the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in an effort to meet state goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through coordinated land use and transportation planning.

Regional Transportation Plan
The most recent RTP was adopted by the Fresno COG board of directors in July 2022. The RTP serves as a blueprint establishing long term goals and policies to meet a regional vision for the future transportation system. The SCS is a state-mandated component of the RTP which requires MPOs to determine an approach to meet greenhouse gas emission reductions through land use and transportation planning strategies. The 2022 RTP includes goals and policies streamlined to focus on five key policy areas: equity, sustainability and resiliency, infrastructure and safety, economy, and innovation (Fresno COG 2022).

Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines The Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, adopted in July 2020, was developed as a guide for Fresno COG’s member agencies choosing to establish their own VMT guidance and thresholds as appropriate for their individual jurisdictions (Fresno COG 2021). The document contains recommended project screening criteria, threshold and VMT analysis for development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans, and potential mitigation strategies.

Fresno County Transportation Authority and Measure C
The Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) is a regional agency that was created to administer the voter-passed Measure C program in 1986. Measure C was a 20-year program that achieved a half-cent sales tax for transportation expenditures and infrastructure. After its 20-year duration, the program was extended in 2006 for another 20 years. The FCTA established goals and core values for using these funds for building roads, expanding the bicycling network, expanding the transit network and transit services, and supporting vanpools and ride hailing services.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-3
Fresno County Congestion Management Process
The Fresno County Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a systematic and regionally acceptable approach for managing congestion. Its responsibilities are to provide information on transportation system performance and assess alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and improving mobility. The CMP has identified a CMP network that includes SR 41 from the SR 99 interchange to the Madera/Fresno County line, SR 99 from the Madera/Fresno County line to the Jensen Avenue interchange, SR 168 from the SR 180 interchange to the West Herndon Avenue interchange, and SR 180 from the SR 99 interchange to the SR 168 interchange.

Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan
The Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was adopted in January 2018. The Fresno County ATP serves as a guide for planning and program development involving biking, walking, and other human-powered transportation in the region (Fresno COG 2018: ES-1). The Fresno County ATP proposed several projects to build out the active transportation network and meet regional goals to increase safety and walking and bicycling trips. The Fresno County ATP recommends specific improvements for jurisdictions without their own adopted ATPs and reproduces the planned bicycle and pedestrian network maps for the four jurisdictions that had already developed their own ATPs at the time. The City’s planned bicycle and pedestrian networks are included in Chapter 18.

LOCAL
City of Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code provides regulations related to Fire Prevention including the City’s adoption of the 2019 California Fire Code. Chapter 13 addresses the general provisions for sidewalks streets, parkways, and underground utilities. Chapter 14 addresses traffic and circulation. Chapter 15 includes the citywide development code.

City of Fresno General Plan
The General Plan, adopted in December 2014, is the City’s blueprint for future growth and development. The General Plan’s Mobility and Transportation Element, identifies objectives and policies to meet goals for the local transportation and circulation system (City of Fresno 2014). The following Mobility and Transportation policies pertain to the proposed project:

X Policy MT-1-a: Transportation Planning Consistent with the General Plan. Continue to review local, regional, and interregional transportation plans and capital improvement plans, and advocate for the approval and funding of State highway and rail projects, consistent with the General Plan and discourage projects inconsistent with the General Plan.

X Policy MT-1-b: Circulation Plan Diagram Implementation. Design and construct planned streets and highways that complement and enhance the existing network, as well as future improvements to the network consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, as shown on the Circulation Diagram (Figure MT-1), to ensure that each new and existing roadway continues to function as intended.

X Policy MT-1-f: Match Travel Demand with Transportation Facilities. Designate the types and intensities of land uses at locations such that related travel demands can be accommodated by a variety of viable transportation modes and support Complete Neighborhoods while avoiding the routing of excessive or incompatible traffic through local residential streets.

X Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.

X Policy MT-1-i: Local Street Standards. Establish and implement local roadway standards addressing characteristics such as alignment, width, continuity and traffic calming, to provide efficient neighborhood circulation; to allow convenient access by residents, visitors, and public service and safety providers; and to promote neighborhood integrity and desired quality of life by limiting intrusive pass-through traffic.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Policy MT-1-j: Transportation Improvements Consistent with Community Character. Prioritize transportation improvements that are consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods and supportive of safe, functional and Complete Neighborhoods; minimize negative impacts upon sensitive land uses such as residences, hospitals, schools, natural habitats, open space areas, and historic and cultural resources. In implementing this policy, the City will design improvements to:
ƒ Facilitate provision of multi-modal transportation opportunities; ƒ Provide added safety, including appropriate traffic calming measures; ƒ Promote achievement of air quality standards;
ƒ Provide capacity in a cost effective manner; and
ƒ Create improved and equitable access with increased efficiency and connectivity.

X Policy MT-2-b: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trips. Partner with major employers and other responsible agencies, such the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the Fresno Council of Governments, to implement trip reduction strategies, such as eTRIP, to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips, thereby making better use of the existing transportation system.

X Policy MT-2-i: Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements. ƒ When a project includes a General Plan amendment that changes the General Plan Land Use Designation. ƒ When the project will substantially change the off-site transportation system (auto, transit, bike or pedestrian) or connection to the system, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. ƒ Transportation impact criteria are tiered based on a project’s location within the City’s Sphere of Influence.

This is to assist with areas being incentivized for development… X Policy MT-4-b: Bikeway Improvements. Establish and implement property development standards to assure that projects adjacent to designated bikeways provide adequate right-of-way and that necessary improvements are constructed to implement the planned bikeway system shown on Figure MT-2 to provide for bikeways, to the extent feasible, when existing roadways are reconstructed; and alternative bikeway alignments or routes where inadequate right-of-way is available.

X Policy MT-4-c: Bikeway Linkages. Provide linkages between bikeways, trails and paths, and other regional networks such as the San Joaquin River Trail and adjacent jurisdiction bicycle systems wherever possible.

X Policy MT-4-e: Minimum Bike Lane Widths. Provide not less than 10 feet of street width (five feet for each travel direction) to implement bike lanes for designated Class II bikeways along roadways. Strive for 14 feet of street width (seven feet for each travel direction) for curbside bike lanes where right-of-way is available.

X Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development. Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.

X Policy MT-5-d: Pedestrian Safety. Minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts on both major and non-roadways through implementation of traffic access design and control standards addressing street intersections, median island openings and access driveways to facilitate accessibility while reducing congestion and increasing safety.

Increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities through the installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals at signalized intersections.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-5
X Policy MT-6-g: Path and Trail Development. Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose path and trail development standards and corridor linkages consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-bycase determinations as a condition of project approval.

X Policy MT-6-i: Path and Trail Design Standards. Designate and design paths and trails in accordance with design standards established by the City that give consideration to all path and trail users (consistent with design, terrain and habitat limitations) and provide for appropriate widths, surfacing, drainage, design speed, barriers, fences, signage, visibility, intersections, bridges, and street cleaning.

X Policy MT-6-j: Variety in Path and Trail Design. Provide for different levels and types of usable pedestrian and bicycle corridors, including broad, shaded sidewalks; jogging paths; paved and all terrain bicycle paths; through block passageways; and hiking trails. Where a designated multipurpose path route is adjacent to a public rightof-way which accommodates bike lane, allow for flexibility in path design, so that bike lanes may be substituted for the bicycle component of the multipurpose path where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

X Policy MT-6-k: Path and Trail Buffers. Use landscaping with appropriate and adequate physical and visual barriers (e.g., masonry walls, wrought iron, or square-tube fencing) to screen path and trail rights-of ways and separate paths and trails from mining operations, drainage facilities, and similar locations as warranted.

X Policy MT-6-l: Environmentally Sensitive Path and Trail Design. Develop paths and trails with minimum environmental impact by taking the following actions:
ƒ Surface paths and trails with materials that are conducive to maintenance and safe travel, choosing materials that blend in with the surrounding area;
ƒ Design paths and trails to follow contour lines where the least amount of grading (fewest cuts and fills) and least disturbance of the surrounding habitat will occur; ƒ Beautify path and trail rights-of-way in a manner consistent with intended use, safety, and maintenance; ƒ Use landscaping to stabilize slopes, create physical or visual barriers, and provide shaded areas; and ƒ Preserve and incorporate native plant species into the landscaping.

X Policy MT-8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit. Continue to review development proposals in transportation corridors to ensure they are designed to facilitate transit. Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decision-making.

Bullard Community Plan
The Bullard Community Plan, adopted in 1988, tiers from the City’s 1984 General Plan by providing specificity necessary to guide the day-to-day development decisions for the community plan area. Additionally, the Bullard Community Plan seeks to focus on and address challenges unique to the Bullard Community Plan area. Similar to the General Plan, the Bullard Community Plan states the public land use policy that directs the physical growth of the Bullard Community. The following Bullard Community Plan policy from Section 4.2.4 is applicable to the proposed project (City of Fresno 1988):

X Policy 4. Commercial areas shall be designed such that commercial traffic will not route through local residential streets.

City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds In 2020, City Council adopted the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds. The CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds was developed to provide guidance for analyzing transportation impacts of proposed projects to comply with CEQA pursuant to SB 743 as well as to ensure alignment with local policies and regulations established in the General Plan. This document serves as a detailed guideline for preparing VMT analysis for development projects, transportation projects, and plans consistent with SB 743 requirements. The CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds identifies a significance threshold for retail projects of no net increase in regional VMT.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan
The City of Fresno’s ATP, adopted in March 2017, provides a comprehensive guide outlining the vision for active transportation in the city. The plan lays out the following goals to improve bicycle access and connectivity in Fresno:

X Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno; X Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user-friendly facilities; X Improve the geographical equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno; and X Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks (City of Fresno 2016).

Complete Streets Policy
The City’s Complete Streets Policy was adopted by the City Council on October 10, 2019, to guide the implementation of the City’s complete streets and multimodal objectives and policies within the Fresno General Plan. The Complete Streets policy aids the planning, design, and construction of transportation facilities that balance safety, access, and mobility for users of all abilities and ages (City of Fresno 2019a). The City has integrated complete streets designs into its policies in compliance with Assembly Bill 1358.

City of Fresno Public Works Department Policies and Procedures Policy number 210.01, “Traffic Control Policies and Procedures,” was issued in June 2019 to govern the preparation and submittal of a temporary Traffic Control Plan (TCP). This policy was enacted to ensure consistent and efficient submittal and review of TCPs and ensure that they are prepared and submitted in accordance with the current edition of the California Manual on Traffic Control Devices, the City of Fresno Standard Specifications, and City of Fresno Policies (City of Fresno 2019b).

Policy number 210.1, “Conditions for Roadway Closures and Lane Closures,” was issued in March 2019 to govern the issuance of Street Work and TCPs to close roadways to through traffic or close travel lanes on roadways within the city of Fresno. This policy was enacted pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code which requires applicants seeking to encroach upon, or work within, a public right-of-way to first obtain a permit from the Director of Public Works and comply with the applicable terms, conditions, and restrictions (City of Fresno 2019c).

3.13.2 Environmental Setting

ROADWAY SYSTEM
There are several types of roadways in the city which include freeways, expressways, superarterials, arterials, collectors, local, and drive streets. A description of each is provided below. Existing roadway classifications are also provided in Figure 2-7 in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” Freeway
Multiple-lane divided (median island separation) roadways on adopted state route alignments servicing through and crosstown traffic, with no access to abutting property and no at-grade intersections. Freeways are under the jurisdiction of the state, and outside the control of the City. In the proposed project area, SR 99, also known as Golden State Highway, is a north-south freeway traversing the Central Valley. SR 99 connects to Interstate 5 near Wheeler Ridge to the south and ends at SR 36 near Red Bluff to the north. In the City of Fresno, SR 99 has six lanes.

The nearest interchange is at West Herndon Avenue approximately 0.5 miles west of the proposed project site.

Expressway
Four- to six-lane divided (median island separation) roadways primarily serving through and crosstown vehicle traffic, with at-grade major street intersections located at approximately one-half mile intervals and no driveways for direct motor vehicle access to abutting property. West Herndon Avenue is an east-west roadway with four to six lanes and a Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-7
raised planted median from the southwest corner of the proposed project site to the east. West Herndon Avenue is designated an expressway east of North Riverside Drive. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph).

Superarterial
Four- to six-lane divided (median island separation) roadways with a primary purpose of moving multiple modes of travel traffic to and from major traffic generators and among subregions. A select number of motor vehicle access points to adjacent properties or local streets between the major street intersections may be approved by the City.

Access points will be limited to right-turn entrance and exit vehicular movements, as well as select left-turn partial openings in medians from the superarterials to surrounding properties or neighborhoods, limited to one location per half-mile. No left turns are allowed out of local streets or properties. West Herndon Avenue is designated as superarterial from the southwest corner of the proposed project site, where the roadway intersects with North Riverside Drive, to its terminus west of SR 99.

Arterial
Four- to six-lane divided (median island separation) roadways with somewhat limited motor vehicle access to abutting properties, and with the primary purpose of moving traffic within and between neighborhoods and to and from freeways and expressways. In addition to major street intersections, appropriately designed and spaced local street intersections may allow left-turn movements to and from the arterial streets. In the proposed project area, North Riverside Drive is a north-south roadway with two lanes north of West Herndon Avenue and four lanes south of West Herndon Avenue. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. North Riverside Drive becomes West Bullard Avenue south of North Veterans Boulevard.

Collector
Two- to four-lane undivided (opposing travel lanes generally not separated by a median island) roadways, with the primary function of connecting local streets and arterials and neighborhood traffic generators and providing access to abutting properties. Local street intersections and motor vehicle access points from abutting properties are allowed consistent with the City’s engineering standards and accepted traffic engineering practices. Collectors typically have a center two-way leftturn lane. In the proposed project area, West Spruce Avenue is an east-west collector street with two lanes west of North Riverside Drive and four lanes within the residential development east of the proposed project site. The road does not currently connect through from North Riverside Drive, along the north perimeter of the proposed project site, to the residential development to the east. The posted speed limit is 40 mph to the east of North Riverside Drive with unposted speed limit to the west. West Spruce Avenue provides access to residential areas around the proposed project site.

Local
Two- to three-lane roadways designed to provide direct access to properties, while discouraging excessive speeds and volumes of motor vehicle travel incompatible with neighborhoods being served through the implementation of multiple, well-connected routes and traffic calming measures. The alignments of future local streets are typically not specified by the General Plan Circulation Diagram, but existing local streets may be depicted for informational purposes. In specific circumstances, local streets are designated where necessary to assure adequate access and implementation of Complete Neighborhoods with well-connected routes for motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian travel. The existing neighborhoods east and west of the proposed project site are served by local streets.

TRANSIT SYSTEM
Public transportation in the city consists of public buses, express bus service, demand-response paratransit, and passenger rail. Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the principal transit provider in the city operated by the Fresno Department of Transportation. FAX operates 18 routes with a fleet of over 100 buses. Handy Ride is a demandresponse service for seniors and persons with disabilities, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

FAX is the largest transit provider in the region with over 10 million annual boardings (Fresno COG 2019: 21).

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
FAX bus Route 3 and bus Route 20 provide service near the proposed project site. The 3 line runs between the Marketplace at El Paseo and the Clovis Community College/Herndon area east of the proposed project site. Service frequency is approximately every 15 minutes between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends. The Route 20 line operates between the Marketplace at El Paseo and Fresno City College north of downtown. Buses operate on approximately 45 minutes headways between 5:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. on weekends. The nearest bus stops for both lines are located on North Riverside Drive, in front of the Marketplace at El Paseo, approximately 0.2 miles from the southwest corner of the proposed project site.

The Fresno County Rural Transit Agency and Amtrak also provide services for regional travel outside of the FresnoClovis Metropolitan Area. Fresno County Rural Transit Agency provides service to many of the unincorporated communities in Fresno County such as Coalinga and Mendota. The San Joaquin Line is one of Amtrak’s passenger rail services with connections between the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and Los Angeles. Greyhound provides similar bus service to these regions.

BICYCLE SYSTEM
The bicycle and pedestrian transportation system in the City of Fresno is composed of bikeways and trails. The city is generally flat, which provides a favorable environment for bicycling and walking as a mode of transportation. The General Plan classifies bicycle facilities into the following four types:

X Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Bike paths, often referred to as shared-use paths or trails, are off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for non-motorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. Bike paths have minimal cross flow with motorists and are typically located along landscaped corridors.

X Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): Class II bike lanes are on-street facilities that use striping, stencils, and signage to denote preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. On-street bikes lanes are located adjacent to motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are intended to alert drivers about the predictable movements of bicyclists and provide adequate space for comfortable riding. Current City standards require bike lanes on all new collectors and arterials; many existing collectors are already constructed with Class II bike lanes.

X Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): Class III bike routes are on-street pavement markings or signage that connect the bicycle roadway network. Class III bike routes can be utilized to connect bicycle lanes or paths along corridors that do not provide enough space for dedicated lanes on low-speed and low-volume streets. Shoulders are useful but not required on streets with Class III bike routes.

X Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeways): Class IV separated bikeways, commonly known as “cycle tracks,” are physically separated bicycle facilities that are distinct from the sidewalk and designed for exclusive use by bicyclists. They are located within the street right-of-way, but provide similar comfort when compared to Class I multi-use paths. The key feature of a separated bikeway is a vertical element that provides further separation from motor vehicle traffic (City of Fresno 2016).

As of 2016, the city’s bicycle system was comprised of 38 miles of Class I, 431 miles of Class II, and 22 miles of Class III bicycle facilities (City of Fresno 2016: 61). The following bicycle facilities are present in the vicinity of the project site:

X Class II bike lane on North Riverside Drive south of the proposed project site, from West Herndon Avenue to Carnegie Avenue;
X Class II bike lane on North Hayes Avenue east of the proposed project site, from West Herndon Avenue to West Spruce Avenue;
X Class II bike lane on West Spruce Avenue for approximately 1 mile from North Sandrini Avenue east to West Herndon Avenue; and
X Class II bike lane on Veterans Boulevard south of the proposed project site, from West Wathen Avenue to North Hayes Avenue.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-9

PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
As of 2016, the City of Fresno pedestrian system consisted of 1,984 miles of sidewalks (City of Fresno 2016). The following pedestrian facilities are present in the vicinity of the project site:

X A multiuse path is available on the north side of West Herndon Avenue starting east of the project site and continuing to the east; however, a sidewalk is not present on the north side of the street along the project site to North Riverside Drive. No sidewalk is present on the south side of West Herndon Avenue to the east of North Riverside Drive. West of North Riverside Drive, a sidewalk is present on the north side of West Herndon Avenue for approximately 350 feet, then discontinues. A sidewalk is continuously present on the south side of West Herndon Avenue west of North Riverside Drive in the vicinity of the project site.

X Sidewalks are present on the west side of North Riverside Drive, both north and south of West Herndon Avenue.

Sidewalks are not present along the project frontage (east side) of North Riverside Drive. They are present on the east side of North Riverside Drive to the south of West Herndon Avenue for approximately 500 feet.

X The North Riverside Drive/West Herndon Avenue signalized intersection has marked crosswalks on the west and south legs with pedestrian signal heads serving those crosswalks. These two crosswalks feature curb ramps with high-visibility truncated dome pads.

3.13.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The City has developed and adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds (i.e., CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds) to meet the State requirements set by SB 743 and address CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Therefore, the VMT analysis herein primarily relies on the guidance provided in the City’s VMT guidance and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. The City’s CEQA Guidelines align with the OPR Technical Advisory which establishes that any net increase in total VMT would indicate a significant impact.

The City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds Section 3.1 regarding Development Projects states that if a project includes a General Plan Amendment or a Rezone, none of the screening criteria may apply, and that the City must evaluate such projects on a case-by-case basis. The proposed project includes both a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone and does not meet the screening criteria. As such, a quantitative VMT analysis is required.

For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. The City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds includes thresholds of significance for development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans. These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide greenhouse gas reduction target of 15 percent, Fresno County must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent. The method of reducing greenhouse gas by 13 percent is to reduce VMT by 13 percent as well.

The City’s adopted VMT thresholds for development projects are consistent with the regional VMT thresholds set by Fresno COG. For residential and non-residential (except retail) development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13 percent reduction, which means that projects that generate VMT in excess of a 13 percent reduction from the existing regional VMT per capita or per employee would have a significant environmental impact. Projects that reduce VMT by more than 13 percent would be presumed to result in a less than significant impact. For retail projects, the adopted threshold is any net increase in VMT per employee compared to existing VMT per employee.

Quantitative assessments of the VMT generated by a development project are determined using the COG Activity Based Model (ABM), which is a tour-based model.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
As previously described, Kittleson & Associates prepared the project TIA analyzing potential impacts to the transportation system. The VMT analysis methodology utilized a market-based GIS approach using data obtained from the applicant, as detailed below.

The following trip types characterize the proposed project trips:

X Primary trips: an entirely new trip on the roadway system for the express purpose of driving to and from the Costco facility;
X Pass-by trips: existing trips that are on roadways adjacent to the proposed project site, which allow motorists to turn into the Costco development and continue to their ultimate destination when their shopping is concluded; and
X Diverted trips: existing trips on nearby roadways in which a motorist decides to drive out-of-direction for a distance to stop at the Costco facility, and when their shopping is concluded, continues to their trip to the ultimate destination.

The methodology for VMT analysis uses the anticipated travel characteristics of the proposed project, trip generation and trip length assumptions, and vehicle trip distribution for Costco members and employees, as described below:

X Assessment of project trip generation
ƒ Including: members (accounting for primary and diverted member trips), warehouse employees, and gas station employees for the proposed project, as well as car wash employees, market delivery operation (MDO) on-site employees, and MDO delivery employees.
ƒ Excluding: members making pass-by trips, warehouse delivery trucks and fuel delivery trucks for the proposed Costco facility, as well as MDO delivery trucks from the depot and MDO delivery-tomembers/other warehouse trucks. VMT is not affected by pass-by trips; thus, they were not assessed in the VMT analysis. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states that VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The City’s CEQA Guidelines and the OPR Technical Advisory describe that the term “automobile” as used in Section 15064.3(a), refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks; heavy vehicles are not included in the definition. Therefore, heavyduty trucks (i.e., delivery trucks) were not included in the VMT analysis. However, it should be noted that the LOS analysis presented in the TIA considers all vehicle types, including heavy duty trucks. See Appendix D.

X Assessment of members’ average primary trip length based on customers’ approximate home locations.

X Assessment of customers’ diverted trip length based on expected routes drivers of these trip types would take for the proposed project.

X Assessment of warehouse, gas station, and car wash employee average trip length based on the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool average employee trip lengths for the relevant transportation analysis zones (TAZs).

X Assessment of MDO on-site and delivery employee average trip length based on the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool average employee trip length for the relevant TAZs.

X Calculation of overall expected change in regional VMT that would result from the proposed project.

See Appendix D for additional details related to the TIA methodology.

Safety
The City’s Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines do not contain formally adopted thresholds of significance for vehicle queuing at intersections as it pertains to transportation hazard impacts. For the purposes of this section, a vehicle queue that overflows the available storage for a turn pocket and blocks the adjacent travel lane or that queues to an upstream signal blocking through traffic is considered a potential safety hazard and would be considered a significant impact. Therefore, the transportation hazards impact discussion identifies a significant impact as occurring at locations where the proposed project traffic would cause the queue length for a turn pocket to overflow its available storage compared to no project conditions or cause a queue to spillback into an upstream Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-11
signalized intersection. An analysis of 95th percentile queue lengths was performed using Synchro software version 10.

The queue length that has only a 5 percent probability of being exceeded during a given analysis period (expressed in feet) is defined as the 95th percentile queue length. Queue lengths for the a.m., p.m., and Saturday midday peak hours were analyzed due to these typically being the times of day at which traffic along roadways would be greatest.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The significance criteria used to evaluate the proposed project impacts to transportation under CEQA are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. An impact to the transportation system would be significant if implementation of the proposed project would:

X conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
X conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b); X substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); and/or
X result in inadequate emergency access.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All topics related to transportation are evaluated in this section.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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. This impact would be less than significant.

As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the proposed project involves a general plan amendment to reclassify the portion of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue from expressway to superarterial, thus allowing for 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 proposed 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. West Herndon Avenue is currently designated as a superarterial from SR 99 to the southwest corner of the project site. Extending the superartial designation east by approximately 1,000 feet would be consistent with the overall intent of the circulation diagram established in the City’s general plan and would not result in any conflicts with the general plan as a whole. Additional analysis pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as transit service is provided below.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The general plan establishes the City of Fresno’s commitment to increasing active transportation as a form of travel within its jurisdiction. General Plan Goals MT-4 through MT-6 and their associated supporting policies, detailed above in Section 3.13.1, “Regulatory Setting,” inform the City’s direction in providing bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the transportation network. Generally, these policies promote the implementation of bicycle infrastructure and supportive facilities from new development to create a fully integrated active transportation system that increases safety and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists.

As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the proposed project involves the construction of a Costco retail facility with an attached tire center, home delivery services, a detached gas station, and a drive-through car wash. There are no existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities along the proposed project site boundary. Trail improvements provided by the proposed project would include Class I bicycle facilities along the project’s frontage on West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive which is consistent with future facilities identified in the City of Fresno’s ATP (City of Fresno 2016) adjacent to the proposed project site. The proposed project also involves the construction of West Spruce Avenue along the northern proposed project site boundary. The City has identified the construction of Spruce Avenue, including Class II bicycle facilities, as a condition of approval (City of Fresno 2022), which would be consistent with the City of Fresno’s ATP.

The City Municipal Code requires the implementation of short-term bicycle parking for new development (Article 24, Section 15-2429). The proposed project would provide bicycle parking in accordance with the municipal code including supplying the appropriate number of spaces and locating them as detailed in the ordinance.

As discussed, the proposed project would construct Class I bike paths along the project site’s western and southern frontages, construct Class II bike lanes on the proposed project’s northern frontage, and include bike parking as required in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

Transit Services
As discussed above in Section 3.13.2, “Environmental Setting,” FAX provides fixed route bus service in the proposed project area. Route 3 runs south of the proposed project site along West Herndon Avenue. The north end of Route 20 is located just south of the proposed project site and runs southeast to the VA Medical Center. Local and regional plans do not identify any future planned or programmed transit improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The general plan encourages the implementation of transit infrastructure in the city through Objective MT-1 which strives to create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.

The proposed land uses on the project site include bulk shopping, vehicle fueling, car wash services, and tire repair service.

Thus, the nature of the proposed project does not lend itself to substantially increasing transit ridership; however, some employees may choose to commute by transit to and from the Costco facility. Additionally, on-site food court amenities and light shopping could generate some transit trips, although the total increase of potential transit trips generated by the proposed project would be minimal. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing transit stops south of the project. The proposed project’s implementation of off-site bicycle and pedestrian facilities as described above would benefit first/last mile travel to and from the existing transit facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Local and regional plans do not include transit improvements in the project area, and the proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in transit ridership. Additionally, the proposed project would not affect existing transit stops, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements provided by the proposed project would benefit transit riders in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit services. Thus, the impact on transit services would be less than significant.

Summary
The nature of bulk shopping and auto-oriented services at the Costco facility does not lend itself to substantially increased transit ridership. Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with any existing transit stops.

Furthermore, off-site bicycle and pedestrian improvements could enhance first/last mile connections for transit riders using the bus stops in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project would provide short-term bicycle parking as required by the City Municipal Code (Article 24, Section 15-2429). Consistent with the City of Fresno’s ATP, the proposed project involves the construction of off-site Class I bicycle facilities along the proposed project frontage on West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive and Class II bicycle facilities along newly constructed Spruce Avenue. For these reasons, the impact would be less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-13
Consistency with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to roadways are addressed in Impacts 3.13-2 and

3.13-3, below.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
The proposed project would result in a net increase of 129,326 regional daily VMT. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, which requires the project applicant to provide a mandatory Commute Reduction Program would be geared towards reducing employee trips which accounts for less than 2 percent of trips. Due to the nature of the proposed project which involves shopping in bulk and other auto-oriented services on-site, it would be infeasible to implement other mitigation to minimize VMT impacts from Costco members. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact to VMT would be significant and unavoidable.

Construction
Construction activities would be temporary and intermittent in nature; and, thus, would not result in long-term increases in vehicular trips. The peak number of construction workers is estimated to be 80-100 personnel during four weeks of construction. Assuming all construction workers would drive alone and generate two trips per day (commuting to the proposed project site and back), construction personnel would generate at most 200 trips per day during a short-term period. Therefore, the number of daily construction trips generated would be fewer than 500 trips per day, thus satisfying the screening thresholds for projects that generate a low volume of daily traffic established in the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds. Therefore, construction activities are not expected to result in a significant increase to VMT.

Operations
As detailed in Table 3.13-1, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 191,032 new daily VMT. The trip types included in the VMT analysis include member trips as well as employee trips. For detailed information regarding trip generation, trip length, and VMT methodology and analysis see Appendix D.

Table 3.13-1 Proposed Project Daily VMT
Trip Type Daily VMT
Member Primary 173,528
Member Pass-by 0
Member Diverted 4,119
Warehouse, Fuel Station, + Car Wash Employees 9,210
MDO Warehouse Employees 2,824
MDO Driver Employees 1,351
MDO Deliveries1 --
Fuel Truck Delivery1 --
Warehouse Truck Delivery1 --
Total Daily VMT 191,032
1 Delivery truck trips are excluded from the VMT calculation as heavy vehicles are not required to be evaluated for VMT impacts pursuant to CEQA.

Source: Kittelson & Associates 2023.

The existing Costco facility located on West Shaw Avenue is located approximately 2.6 miles from the proposed project site and would be decommissioned when the new Costco facility becomes operational. Since the proposed project would replace the existing Costco warehouse located on West Shaw Avenue, the VMT associated with that warehouse would be eliminated. Table 3.13-2 shows daily VMT calculations for the existing Costco warehouse located on West Shaw Avenue.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.13-2 Existing Costco Daily VMT
Trip Type Daily VMT
Member Primary 106,943
Member Pass-by 0
Member Diverted 4,636
Warehouse and Fuel Station Employees 4,152
MDO Warehouse Employees 2,944
MDO Driver Employees 1,408
MDO Deliveries1 --
Fuel Truck Delivery1 --
Warehouse Truck Delivery1 --
Total Daily VMT 120,083
1 Delivery truck trips are excluded from the VMT calculation as good movement is not evaluated for identifying transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA.

Source: Kittelson & Associates 2023.

It is assumed that a future unknown retail use would backfill the existing Costco facility located on West Shaw Avenue. Additionally, the existing Costco fuel station is assumed to remain operational after the Costco vacates the existing facility and another retail use becomes moves into the building. Table 3.13-3 shows the total daily VMT estimated for the existing Costco fuel station, which would remain operational, as well as the estimated VMT for a generic retail use, which is assumed to backfill the existing Costco facility located on West Shaw Avenue.

Table 3.13-3 Existing West Shaw Avenue Building Backfill Retail Use and Costco Fuel Station Daily VMT Daily VMT
Backfill Retail Use 31,673
Fuel Station 26,704
Total Daily VMT 58,377
Source: Kittelson & Associates 2023.

Because the existing Costco on Shaw Avenue would close and existing MDO operations would be relocated following construction of the project, the total VMT for Costco’s existing operations (member and warehouse employee trips, MDO employee trips, and fuel station trips) disclosed in Table 3.13-2 are assumed to be eliminated. This is a reduction on 120,083 daily VMT. However, the gas station would remain operational and it is reasonable to assume that the vacant facility would be backfilled with a new retail use. When the 58,377 daily VMT (shown in Table 3.13-3) that is anticipated from these future uses is attributed to the West Shaw Avenue site, the net change in daily VMT would be -61,706, as shown in Table 3.13-4. The daily VMT for the proposed project, as shown in Table 3.13-1, would be 191,032.

Table 3.13-4 Overall Change in Regional Daily VMT with Relocated Costco Warehouse Scenario Daily VMT
Difference in West Shaw Avenue Site -61,706
Existing Shaw Costco -120,083
Backfill Retail Use 31,673
Fuel Station 26,704
Relocated Costco Facility (Herndon Avenue) 191,032
Total Daily VMT 129,326
Source: Kittelson & Associates 2023.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-15
As detailed in Table 3.13-4, the change in regional daily VMT with the relocation of the Costco warehouse and MDO operations is 129,326 (i.e., 191,032 – 61,706 = 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.

Summary
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. Operational VMT attributed to the proposed project is expected to result in a net increase of average daily VMT by 129,326. Because the proposed project would result in an increase in VMT, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
Table 3.13-3 presents the most recent California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (Handbook) measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the transportation sector. Most of the measures quantified in the CAPCOA Handbook aim to reduce VMT and encourage mode shifts from single-occupancy vehicles to shared (e.g., transit) or active modes of transportation (e.g., bicycle) (CAPCOA 2021). Although all transportation measures are provided below, not all are applicable or feasible given the implementation scale, nature of the proposed project, and/or limited jurisdictional authority of Costco, the applicant, to implement particular measures. The following mitigation measures have been proposed based on the analysis of feasibility and applicability included in Table 3.13-5.

Table 3.13-5 Transportation Sector Measures to Reduce VMT Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential VMT
Reduction1
Feasible/Applicable to
the project? Notes
T-1 Increase Residential Density 30% from project VMT N/A The proposed project does not include residential uses.

T-2 Increase Job Density 30% from project VMT N/A This is a plan/communitywide strategy and is not applicable.

T-3 Provide Transit-Oriented
Development
31% from project VMT N/A This is a plan/communitywide strategy and is not applicable.

T-4 Integrate Affordable and
Below Market Rate Housing

28.6% from project/site
multifamily residential VMT
N/A The proposed project does not include
residential uses.

T-5 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Program
(Voluntary)
4% project/site employee
commute VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.

T-6 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Program
(Mandatory Implementation
and Monitoring)
26% from project/site
employee commute VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.

T-7 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Marketing
4% project/site employee
commute VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.

T-8 Provide Ridesharing Program 8% project/site employee commute VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.

T-9 Implement Subsidized or
Discounted Transit Program

5.5% from
employee/resident
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.

T-10 Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle
Facilities

4.4% project/site
employee commute VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.

T-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored
Vanpool

20.4% project/site
employee commute VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential VMT
Reduction1
Feasible/Applicable to
the project? Notes
T-12 Price Workplace Parking 20% project/site employee
commute VMT
N/A Measure ineffective due to readily
available, uncontrolled and free parking
in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project.

T-13 Implement Employee Parking
Cash-Out
12% project/site employee
commute VMT
N/A Measure ineffective due to readily
available, uncontrolled and free parking
in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project.

T-14 Provide Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure
-- N/A See Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a. This
measure does not affect VMT.

T-15 Limit Residential Parking
Supply

13.7% from residences’
VMT
N/A The proposed project does not include
residential uses.

T-16 Unbundle Residential Parking
Costs from Property Cost

15.7% from project VMT N/A The proposed project does not include residential uses.

T-17 Improve Street Connectivity 30% from vehicle travel in the plan/community
Yes The proposed project would construct
West Spruce Avenue along the
northern project site boundary
improving street connectivity.

Additionally, the project would
construct North Arthur Avenue along
the eastern project site boundary,
connecting West Spruce Avenue and
West Spruce Avenue. See Chapter 2,
“Project Description.”
T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvement

6.4% from vehicle travel in
the plan/community
Yes Pedestrian facility improvements
provided as part of the proposed
project. See Chapter 2, “Project
Description.”
T-19-A Construct or Improve Bike
Facility

0.8% from vehicles parallel
roadways
Yes Bicycle facility improvements provided
as part of the proposed project. See
Chapter 2, “Project Description.”
T-19-B Construct or Improve Bike
Boulevard

0.2% from vehicles on
roadway
Yes Bicycle facility improvements provided
as part of the proposed project. See
Chapter 2, “Project Description.”
T-20 Expand Bikeway Network 0.5% from vehicles on
roadway
Yes Bicycle facility improvements provided
as part of the proposed project. See
Chapter 2, “Project Description.”
T-21-A Implement Conventional
Carshare Program

0.15% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

T-21-B Implement Electric Carshare
Program
VMT reduction not
quantified—see CAPCOA
handbook
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

T-22-A Implement Pedal (NonElectric) Bikeshare Program 0.2% from vehicle travel in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

T-22-B Implement Electric Bikeshare
Program

0.06% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

T-22-C Implement Scootershare
Program

0.07% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-17
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential VMT
Reduction1
Feasible/Applicable to
the project? Notes
T-23 Provide Community-Based
Travel Planning

2.3% from vehicle travel in
the plan/community
N/A The proposed project does not include
residential uses. This measure applies
to residences.

T-24 Implement Market Price Public
Parking (On-Street)
30% from vehicle travel in
the plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over public on-street
parking facilities and operation.

T-25 Extend Transit Network
Coverage or Hours

4.6% from vehicle travel in
the plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over the operation of transit
service.

T-26 Increase Transit Service
Frequency

11.3% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over the operation of transit
service.

T-27 Implement Transit-Supportive
Roadway Treatments

0.6% from vehicle travel in
the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

T-28 Provide Bus Rapid Transit 13.8% from vehicle travel in the plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over the operation of transit
service.

T-29 Reduce Transit Fares 1.2% from vehicle travel in
the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

T-30 Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles -- N/A This measure does not affect VMT.

Notes: VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; N/A = not applicable Source: Mitigation Measures and VMT Reduction Potential provided by CAPCOA 2021 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Provide a Mandatory Commute Reduction Program for Costco Employees Costco shall provide a Mandatory Commute Reduction program for employees that achieves at least a 26 percent reduction in employee VMT. The commute reduction program shall be provided to the City for approval prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Specific actions may include the following measures described in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Handbook:

X 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:
ƒ on-site or online commuter information services,
ƒ employee transportation coordinators,
ƒ on-site or online transit pass sales, and
ƒ guaranteed ride home service.

X 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 rideshare program:
ƒ designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles, ƒ designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-18 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
ƒ providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

X 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.

X 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.

X Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool (estimated to result in up to 20.4 percent employee VMT reduction):

Costco shall implement an employer-sponsored vanpool program. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. The mode shift from long-distance, single-occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions (CAPCOA 2021).

Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 would implement Measure T-6 (Mandatory Commute Reduction Program), as identified in the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA 2021). 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). Based on the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s estimates in the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Handbook, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 could achieve up to a 26 percent reduction in project employee commute VMT (CAPCOA 2021: 86). Implementation of a mandatory commute reduction program with 100 percent employee participation would only result in a 3,480-mile decrease, or less than 2 percent of the proposed project’s total daily regional VMT.

The primary source of daily VMT is warehouse shopping by Costco members. The nature of Costco’s land use and business model is auto-oriented. Members purchase items in bulk at Costco facilities, making walking, biking, or transit trips to the warehouse impractical. Therefore, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13-2 the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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 a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) 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 would be subject to ministerial review by the City; thus, ensuring applicable design requirements related to safety are met. However, as detailed in the TIA, the proposed project would not meet safety thresholds related to intersection queuing. The City has issued several conditions of approval for the proposed project that would require the implementation of off-site improvements to reduce transportation hazards. However, no off-site improvements at the intersection of North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue are included in the conditions of approval.

Therefore, the proposed project’s impact to transportation hazards would be significant and unavoidable.

Construction
For the purpose of this analysis, project construction is expected to begin in May of 2023 and complete in approximately 170 days. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” construction activities would typically take place Monday through Saturday, between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; however, some construction activities would be required to start as early as 2:00 a.m. All phases of construction would comply with City standards and regulations.

Additionally, construction staging would be located within the proposed project site. Construction transportation Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-19
impacts would be localized and temporary; however, during construction of the proposed project, traffic operations could be degraded. For this reason, the proposed project would be required to follow all local protocols to ensure safety and minimize traffic disturbance during construction activities.

Before construction, the project contractor would be required to obtain a Street Work Permit to allow construction work in the public right-of-way for off-site utility and roadwork improvements. A TCP would be prepared by the contractor in accordance with policy number 210.01 (“Traffic Control Policies and Procedures”) of the City of Fresno Public Works Department Policies and Procedures. The TCP would demonstrate appropriate traffic handling during construction activities for all work that could impact the traveling public. Additionally, if off-site construction activities necessitate travel lane closures, the proposed project would be required to follow protocol as described in policy number 210.1 (“Conditions for Roadway Closures and Lane Closures”) in the City of Fresno Public Works Department Policies and Procedures. Therefore, any increased hazards related to transportation during construction would be minimized. For this reason, the impact related to transportation hazards during construction would be less than significant.

Operations
As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the proposed project would involve the development of a new facility on an undeveloped 22.4-acre parcel. The project would include the construction of a retail building, gas station, and car wash. The proposed project would be required to meet all development standards as identified by the City of Fresno.

Additionally, the proposed project is subject to City of Fresno review processes, which would ensure that that the project design would comply with all applicable City and industry roadway/driveway design standards.

The Traffic Planning Section of the City’s Planning and Development Department provides conditions of approval, site plan review, and design guidelines for commercial development projects. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to meet all applicable regulations within the City Municipal Code including those in Chapter 13 for offsite roadway, intersection, and sidewalk improvements. At the City’s direction, the proposed project would connect West Spruce Avenue north of the proposed project site, as described in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” This would be applied as a condition of approval and would make the roadways consistent with the General Plan Mobility and Transportation Element. Figure MT-1 of the General Plan Mobility and Transportation Element designates the planned roadway network of the General Plan and establishes West Spruce Avenue as a collector roadway.

On-site design would comply with the circulation and safety standards as detailed in Chapter 15 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code (Section 15-2423). Each access point along North Riverside Drive and the proposed new private roadway, North Arthur Avenue, would provide adequate sight distance in accordance with City and industry-wide design standards. Additionally, the proposed project would provide 829 parking stalls which would meet City and ADA requirements as detailed in the City of Fresno Parking Manual (1987).

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. In these locations, project-generated traffic would result in a potentially hazardous transportation condition:

X North Riverside Drive and West Fir Avenue;
X North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue; and
X North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue.

At the two intersections on North Riverside Drive, the existing configuration of the intersections would not accommodate the project traffic volumes generated by the project. As a result, queuing traffic could extend beyond the existing left turn pockets, resulting in a hazard to through traffic. For the westbound approach of North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue, the queue would extend past the North Weber Avenue intersection.

The City has identified the following improvements as conditions of approval for the proposed project that are applicable to the intersections for which a queuing impact was identified in the TIA (City of Fresno 2022):

X The proposed project shall modify the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive to the following configuration prior to occupancy:

Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-20 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
ƒ Southbound – two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes and one (1) right-turn lane. ƒ Northbound – two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes and one (1) right-turn lane. ƒ Eastbound – two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and one (1) right-turn lane. ƒ Westbound – two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and one (1) right-turn lane. If the general plan amendment is not approved, the westbound right-turn lane shall be extended to accommodate 150 feet of vehicle storage.
ƒ Bike lanes shall be provided in all directions. (Not required on westbound West Herndon Avenue if the general plan amendment is not approved).
ƒ If the general plan amendment is not approved, the westbound right-turn lane shall be extended to accommodate 150 feet of vehicle storage.

X The proposed project shall install a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing per City of Fresno standards at the intersection of North Riverside Drive and West Fir Avenue prior to occupancy. This intersection is not subject to reimbursement under the TSMI fee program. The intersection should be constructed to include the following configuration:
ƒ Northbound – one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes and one (1) right-turn lane. ƒ Southbound – one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes and one (1) right-turn lane. ƒ Eastbound – one (1) left-turn lane, one (1) shared through right-turn lane. ƒ Westbound – two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) shared through right-turn lane. ƒ Bike lanes shall be provided in northbound and southbound directions.

With the intersection improvements detailed above, the potential queuing at the intersections of North Riverside Drive and West Fir Avenue and North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue would be reduced such that they would not exceed the provided lane storage capacities. However, the conditions of approval do not require improvements to the intersection of North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue due to the upcoming High Speed Rail project at this intersection which limits the available right of way for improvements. Thus, the queue of the westbound approach of North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue would continue to extend past the North Weber Avenue intersection. Because the proposed project would result in safety hazards related to queuing, the impact related to transportation hazards during operation would be significant.

Summary
Transportation hazards related to construction would be temporary. Additionally, the construction contractor would be required to develop and implement a TCP to minimize any potential hazards during construction. The proposed project’s design would be required to meet all City design standards and would be subject to review by the City’s Traffic Operations and Planning Division, Traffic Planning Section. Through this review, the City would backcheck designs and confirm that the appropriate safety elements are included. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s conditions of approval which include off-site improvements that would reduce the potential queuing hazards at the intersections of North Riverside Drive and West Fir Avenue and North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue. However, the conditions of approval do not require improvements to the intersection of North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue due to the upcoming High Speed Rail project at this intersection which limits the available right of way for improvements. Thus, the queue of the westbound approach of North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue would continue to extend past the North Weber Avenue intersection. Therefore, the proposed project could substantially increase transportation hazards during project operation. This impact would be significant.

Ascent Environmental Transportation and Circulation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.13-21
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:

X 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 leftturn 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.

Significance after Mitigation
Following construction of project off-site improvements detailed in Mitigation Measure 3.13-3, the southbound leftturn 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 above, 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. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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 TCP to ensure sufficient emergency access is maintained during construction activities. The proposed project would meet all City design standards, municipal code regulations, and requirements 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. This impact would be less than significant.

As discussed in Impact 3.13-3, above, all improvements related to the proposed project would meet City of Fresno design standards and safety protocol while construction activities are performed. The proposed project would also be required to follow the provisions set forth in the City of Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2423, “Circulation and Safety,” which provides that parking lots shall be “designed so that sanitation, emergency, and other public service vehicles can provide service without backing unreasonable distances or making other dangerous or hazardous turning movements, as determined by the Review Authority” (City of Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2423). Additionally, the proposed project would follow standards set forth in the 2019 California Fire Code as adopted by the City of Fresno Section 10-50100, “Adoption of the California Fire Code,” of the Municipal Code which establishes minimum width dimensions to maintain adequate access for fire apparatus roads at no less than 24 feet. Section 3310.1 of the 2019 California Fire Code identifies minimum requirements to provide required emergency access during construction activities.

Emergency vehicle access to the project site would be accommodated by the driveways located on North Riverside Drive and within the drive aisles in the parking lot and to the queue storage area of the gas station. The intersection Transportation and Circulation Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.13-22 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
of North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue would serve as the primary access point for emergency vehicles to service the Costco retail building and MDO facility. The driveway furthest north on North Riverside Drive would provide emergency access to the northern portion of the site including the car wash and gas station. Additionally, the proposed site plan provides adequate lane width and curb radii to accommodate emergency vehicles.

Further, as detailed in Impact 3.13-3, above, the proposed project includes the reclassification of West Herndon Avenue from expressway to superarterial which would allow for the construction of a new driveway where West Herndon Avenue meets North Arthur Avenue. Increasing the number of access points to the project site may assist in the event of an emergency.

The proposed project would be required to follow all state, county, and City requirements to ensure any potential impacts to emergency vehicles are minimized during construction and maintained during operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access; thus, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Environmental Utilities
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.14-1

3.14 UTILITIES
This section evaluates the availability of existing utility and infrastructure systems (water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, and natural gas) to serve the project and the impact of the project on these systems. No public comments on the notice of preparation related to utilities and service systems were received.

3.14.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established under the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters. NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges including point source waste discharges and nonpoint sources (nonpoint source discharges are further discussed in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality”). Each NPDES permit identifies limits on allowable concentrations and mass loadings of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that EPA must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.

NPDES permits cover various industrial and municipal discharges, including discharges from storm sewer systems in larger cities, stormwater generated by industrial activity, runoff from construction sites disturbing more than 1 acre, and mining operations. Point source dischargers must obtain a discharge permit from the proper authority (usually a state, sometimes EPA, a tribe, or a territory). So-called “indirect” point source dischargers are not required to obtain NPDES permits. “Indirect” dischargers send their wastewater into a public sewer system, which carries it to the municipal sewage treatment plant, through which it passes before entering any surface water.

The CWA was amended in 1987 with Section 402(p) requiring NPDES permits for nonpoint source (i.e., stormwater) pollutants in discharges. Stormwater sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point. The goal of the NPDES stormwater regulations is to improve the water quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” using structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs). BMPs can include educational measures (e.g., workshops informing the public of what impacts can result when household chemicals are dumped into storm drains), regulatory measures (e.g., local authority of drainagefacility design), public-policy measures (e.g., labeling storm-drain inlets as to impacts of dumping on receiving waters) and structural measures (e.g., filter strips, grass swales, and detention ponds).

STATE
Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) (California Water Code Sections 10610–10656). The UWMPA states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides more than 3,000 acre-feet (af) of water annually, should make every effort to ensure the level of reliability in its water service is sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. This effort includes the adoption of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) by every urban-water supplier and an update of the plan every 5 years. The UWMPA has been amended several times since 1983 with the most recent amendment occurring with Senate Bill (SB) 318 in 2004. The UWMPA and SB Utilities Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.14-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
610, described below, are interrelated; the UWMP is typically relied upon to meet the requirements for SB 610. The City of Fresno adopted the 2020 Fresno UWMP on July 15, 2021 (City of Fresno 2021a).

Senate Bill 610
SB 610 makes changes to the UWMPA to require additional information in UWMPs if groundwater is identified as a source available to the supplier. Required information includes a copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the supplier, a copy of the adjudication order or decree for adjudicated basins, and if non-adjudicated, whether the basin has been identified as being overdrafted or projected to be overdrafted in the most current California Department of Water Resources (DWR) publication on that basin. If the basin is in overdraft, that plan must include current efforts to eliminate any long-term overdraft. A key provision in SB 610 requires that any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act supplied with water from a public water system be provided a specified water supply assessment, except as specified in the law.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of Assembly Bill (AB) 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Governor’s signing message states "a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally.” The SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with the potential for state intervention if necessary to protect the resource. The act requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally based management plans. The groundwater basin that serves Fresno has been designated by DWR as high priority and subject to a condition of critical overdraft.

California Integrated Waste Management Act
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties were required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s AB 939 plan will be integrated with the county plan. In order of priority, the plans must promote source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

In 2011, AB 341 modified the California Integrated Waste Management Act, established a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent, and directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. The resulting Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation requires that on and after July 1, 2012, certain businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange for recycling services. To comply with this requirement, businesses may either separate recyclables and self-haul them or subscribe to a recycling service that includes mixed waste processing.

AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014; Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling) requires businesses that generate a specified amount of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, requires jurisdictions to implement recycling programs to divert organic waste from businesses subject to the law, and requires periodic reporting to CalRecycle by jurisdictions on their progress in implementing the program. Organic waste includes food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste. Effective January 1, 2017, businesses that generate 4 cubic yards of organic waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services.

California Code of Regulations, Energy Efficiency Standards Energy consumption in new buildings in California is regulated by State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CALGreen) contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2-53. Title 24 applies to all new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulates energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards have improved efficiency requirements from previous codes and the updated standards are expected to result in a statewide consumption reduction.

Ascent Environmental Utilities
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.14-3
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan (2014a) establishes the following policies relevant to the project:

X Policy PU-4-c: System Extension and Cost Recovery. Pursue enlargement or extension of the sewage collection system where necessary to serve planned urban development, with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between the existing users and new users.

X Policy PU-4-d: Capacity Modeling. Continue development and utilization of citywide sewer flow monitoring and computerized flow modeling to determine availability of sewer collection system capacity to serve planned urban development.

X Policy PU-8-b: Potable Water Supply and Cost Recovery. Prepare for provision of increased potable water capacity (including surface water treatment capacity) in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development consistent with the General Plan. Accommodate increase in water demand from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law, and recognizing the differences in terms of quantity, quality and reliability of the various types of water in the City’s portfolio. ƒ Consistent with fiscal management policies and strategies in the Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability Element, new users will be obligated to pay for the cost of being attached to the potable water supply and distribution system and surface water treatment through connection fees, including the cost of any incremental burden that they may place on the entire system in terms of both infrastructure and water resources, and pay for the full operational costs of extraordinary facilities, as authorized by law.

X Policy PU-8-c: Conditions of Approval. Set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary potable water production and supply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy.

X Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement SURMHFWVRQWKHORQJŠUDQJHZDWHUEXGJHWWRHQVXUHDQDGHTXDWHZDWHUVXSSO\IRUFXUUHQWDQGIXWXUHXVHV X Policy PU-6-a: Treatment Capacity and Cost Recovery. Prepare for and consider the implementation of increased wastewater treatment and reclamation facility capacity in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development within the Metropolitan Area consistent with this General Plan. Accommodate increase in flows and loadings from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law.

X Policy PU-7-a: Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows X Policy PU-9-b: Compliance with State Law. Continue to pursue programs to maintain conformance with the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 or as otherwise required by law and mandated diversion goals.

X Policy RC-8-a: Existing Standards and Programs. Continue existing beneficial energy conservation programs, including adhering to the California Energy Code in new construction and major renovations.

X Policy RC-8-c: Energy Conservation in New Development. Consider providing an incentive program for new buildings that exceed California Energy Code requirements by fifteen percent.

Utilities Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.14-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

3.14.2 Environmental Setting
Public utilities in the project area are provided by various entities, as identified in Table 3.14-1 and discussed in detail below.

Table 3.14-1 Utilities Providers for the Project Area
Utility Agency/Provider
Water Supply City of Fresno Water Division
Wastewater Collection, Conveyance, and Treatment City of Fresno Wastewater Management Division Stormwater Conveyance City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities Solid Waste Collection City of Fresno Solid Waste Management Division Electrical Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Natural Gas PG&E
Sources: City of Fresno n.d.d.; City of Fresno 2014b, 2021a.

WATER SUPPLY
The City of Fresno supplies potable water to its residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigational customers in the city through a water distribution system that consists of about 1,860 miles of distribution and transmission mains; 202 active municipal groundwater wells; three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 million gallons per day (mgd); five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system; and three booster pump facilities (City of Fresno 2021a). Surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) supply approximately half of the city’s potable water demand. The remaining potable water is supplied from groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin located in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley; surface water from the Central Valley Project (CVP), through a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); Kings River water, through a contract with the Fresno Irrigation District (FID); and recycled water (City of Fresno 2021a). The CVP is a network of dams, reservoirs, canals, hydroelectric powerplants and other facilities that extends through central California to reduce flood risk for the Central Valley and supply valley domestic and industrial water (Reclamation n.d.).

The 2020 UWMP was adopted by the City Council on July 15, 2021. The City’s 2020 UWMP is a long-term water resource planning document created to ensure there is enough water to meet both existing and future demands in the city. The 2020 UWMP assesses current and projected water supplies along with the reliability of those water supplies; evaluates the current and future type of water demand and type of customers; describes required conservation measures implemented by water suppliers; and prepares a response plan, in the event of a water shortage. The 2020 UWMP was prepared in accordance with the UWMPA, which stipulates that every urban water supplier in California supplying water directly or indirectly to 3,000 or more customers or supplying more than 3,000 af of water annually shall adopt and submit an UWMP to DWR (City of Fresno 2021a).

Surface Water Supply
Surface water serves as a primary source of water supply within the city with completion of the Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF), a 54 mgd surface water treatment facility in southeast Fresno. The SESWTF provides nearly one-half of the city’s annual water demand. Production from this facility may ultimately be 80 mgd if it is determined that the facility is capable of safely running at higher filter loading rates. With the SESWTF operational, along with the other SWTFs in the city (Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility [NESWTF] and the T-3 Water Storage and Modular Surface Water Treatment Facility [T-3 SWTF]) the City provided greater than 50 percent of its potable supply through surface water for the first time in 2019 and 2020. The City expects to provide half or more of its potable demand using its surface water supply sources going forward.

In addition to surface water provided from the aforementioned SWTFs, the City contracts with FID for Kings River water and with Reclamation for CVP water from the Friant-Kern Canal. The City has secured a surface water supply from Reclamation CVP Friant Division for an annual water supply of 60,000 af of Class 1 water through an agreement Ascent Environmental Utilities
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.14-5
originally executed in 1961. The agreement was last renewed in 2010 as a Section 9(d) contract that provides water from the San Joaquin River in perpetuity. The City also has an agreement with FID to provide the City with an allocated 115,000 af per year of Kings River water in normal-year conditions. The City’s annual Kings River supply allocation is dependent on annual precipitation, Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack, and natural river flow conditions.

The annual variability of these sources results in variable allocations to the City. The City executed its most recent agreement with FID in 2016. The 2016 agreement identifies the City’s contracted percentage of FID’s Kings River water based on the city’s water service area located within FID service area as a percentage of the FID land area up to the 29 percent cap. As the City incorporates new users and the water service area expands, the percentage of Kings River supply increases. The City has historically not used all its available FID Kings River allocation in any given year, although it pays a flat rate for its total allocation regardless of use. Water unused by the city is reallocated by FID to its other customers. The surface water supply from these sources is used either for potable uses through treatment and distribution or delivery to recharge basins for groundwater recharge (City of Fresno 2021a).

Groundwater Supply
The City’s groundwater supply is sourced from the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The City is a member of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), which was formed following passage of the SGMA of 2014. The SGMA requires governments and water agencies of “critically overdrafted” basins to reach sustainability by 2040. The Kings Subbasin was designated a critically overdrafted basin by DWR and the North Kings GSA is working within the SGMA framework to reach groundwater sustainability. The City plans to limit its use of groundwater and maximize its existing water rights and surface water supply sources.

Water Service Reliability
Normal Year
In normal years, it is anticipated that the City would have an excess of water through 2045 for each of the water supply categories, as shown below in Table 3.14-2.

Table 3.14-2 Normal Year Supply and Demand
Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Ground water 1 138,090 AF 143,630 AF 149,100 AF 154,490 AF 159,820 AF Surface Water – CVP 2 60,000 AF 60,000 AF 60,000 AF 60,000 AF 60,000 AF Surface Water – Kings River 3 125,030 AF 131,600 AF 131,600 AF 131,600 AF 131,600AF Recycled Water 4 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF Supply Totals 329,030 AF 341,140 AF 346,610 AF 352,000 AF 357,330 AF Potable Demand 136,504 AF 147,356 AF 154,210 AF 161,076 AF 167,947 AF Non-Potable Demand 62,700 AF 65,400 AF 68,100 AF 70,800 AF 73,500 AF Demand Totals 199,204 AF 212,756 AF 222,310 AF 231,876 AF 241,447 AF Difference 129,826 AF 128,384 AF 124,300 AF 120,124 AF 115,883 AF Notes: AF = acre-feet.
1 Groundwater yields were estimated for normal years, as shown in Table 6-1 of the 2020 GWMP. 2 CVP yields were estimated from long-term average allocations, as shown in Table 6-2 in the 2020 GWMP. 3 Kings River yields were estimated from long-term average allocations, as shown in Table 6-3 in the 2020 GWMP. 4 Recycled water yields were projected supply values from Table 6-6 of the 2020 GWMP, excluding agricultural irrigation demand that does not offset the City’s potable demand.

Source: City of Fresno 2021a.

Utilities Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.14-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Single Dry Year
The single-dry-year water supply availability is based on the City’s water supply data from 2015, which marked the lowest surface water supply year during the 2012-2017 drought. In this scenario, it is anticipated that the City would have an excess of water through 2045 for each of the water supply categories, as shown below in Table 3.14-3. If necessary, the City would pump beyond its estimated sustainable yield during dry periods and balance out the pumping with recharge in normal or wet periods.

Table 3.14-3 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand
Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Ground water 1 138,090 AF 143,630 AF 149,100 AF 154,490 AF 159,820 AF Surface Water – CVP 2 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF
Surface Water – Kings River 3 45,852 AF 45,852 AF 45,852 AF 45,852 AF 45,852 AF Recycled Water 4 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF Supply Totals 189,852 AF 195,392 AF 200,862 AF 206,252 AF 211,582 AF Potable Demand 136,504 AF 147,356 AF 154,210 AF 161,076 AF 167,947 AF Non-Potable Demand 27,588 AF 28,776 AF 29,964 AF 31,152 AF 32,340 AF Demand Totals 164,092 AF 176,132 AF 184,174 AF 192,228 AF 200,287 AF Difference 25,760 AF 19,260 AF 16,688 AF 14,024 AF 11,295 AF Notes: AF = acre-feet.
1 Groundwater yields were estimated sustainable yields from Table 6-1 of the 2020 GWMP. 2 CVP yields were based on the actual allocation during 2015 (0 AF). 3 Kings River yields were based on the actual total FID allocation in 2015 (42,935 AF) but with the projected City percentage of FID supply for the future years considered as shown in Table 6-3 in the 2020 GWMP. 4 Recycled water yields were projected supply values from Table 6-6 of the 2020 GWMP, excluding agricultural irrigation demand that does not offset the City’s potable demand.

Source: City of Fresno 2021a.

Multiple Dry Years
During multiple dry years, it is anticipated that the City would have an excess of water through 2045 for each of the water supply categories, as shown below in Table 3.14-4. There would be seasonal variability with surface water availability in dry years, and the City would be required to work closely with surface water suppliers to minimize impacts to the City’s SWTFs. However, it is anticipated that sufficient good-quality water would be available to permit the SWTFs to operate.

Table 3.14-4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand
Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Ground water 1
138,090 AF 143,630 AF 149,100 AF 154,490 AF 159,820 AF
Surface Water – CVP 2 30,000 AF 30,000 AF 30,000 AF 30,000 AF 30,000 AF Surface Water – Kings River 3 99,725 AF 99,725 AF 99,725 AF 99,725 AF 99,725 AF Recycled Water 4 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF Supply Totals 273,725 AF 279,265 AF 284,735 AF 290,125 AF 295,455 AF Potable Demand 136,504 AF 147,356 AF 154,210 AF 161,076 AF 167,947 AF Non-Potable Demand 62,700 AF 65,400 AF 68,100 AF 70,800 AF 73,500 AF Demand Totals 199,204 AF 212,756 AF 222,310 AF 231,876 AF 241,447 AF Difference 74,521 AF 66,509 AF 62,425 AF 58,249 AF 54,008 AF Ascent Environmental Utilities
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.14-7
Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Second Year
Ground water 1
138,090 AF 143,630 AF 149,100 AF 154,490 AF 159,820 AF
Surface Water – CVP 2 37,200 AF 37,200 AF 37,200 AF 37,200 AF 37,200 AF Surface Water – Kings River 3 93,426 AF 93,426 AF 93,426 AF 93,426 AF 93,426 AF Recycled Water 4 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF Supply Totals 274,626 AF 280,166 AF 285,636 AF 291,026 AF 296,356 AF Potable Demand 136,504 AF 147,356 AF 154,210 AF 161,076 AF 167,947 AF Non-Potable Demand 62,700 AF 65,400 AF 68,100 AF 70,800 AF 73,500 AF Demand Totals 199,204 AF 212,756 AF 222,310 AF 231,876 AF 241,447 AF Difference 75,422 AF 67,410 AF 63,326 AF 59,150 AF 54,909 AF Third Year
Ground water 1
138,090 AF 143,630 AF 149,100 AF 154,490 AF 159,820 AF
Surface Water – CVP 2 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF
Surface Water – Kings River 3 73,568 AF 73,568 AF 73,568 AF 73,568 AF 73,568 AF Recycled Water 4 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF Supply Totals 217,568 AF 223,108 AF 228,578 AF 233,968 AF 239,298 AF Potable Demand 136,504 AF 147,356 AF 154,210 AF 161,076 AF 167,947 AF Non-Potable Demand 53,763 AF 46,281 AF 43,526 AF 40,677 AF 37,761 AF Demand Totals 190,267 AF 193,637 AF 197,736 AF 201,753 AF 205,708 AF Difference 27,301 AF 29,471 AF 30,842 AF 32,215 AF 33,589 AF Fourth Year
Ground water 1
138,090 AF 143,630 AF 149,100 AF 154,490 AF 159,820 AF
Surface Water – CVP 2 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF
Surface Water – Kings River 3 45,852 AF 45,852 AF 45,852 AF 45,852 AF 45,852 AF Recycled Water 4 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF Supply Totals 189,852 AF 195,392 AF 200,862 AF 206,252 AF 211,582 AF Potable Demand 136,504 AF 147,356 AF 154,210 AF 161,076 AF 167,947 AF Non-Potable Demand 26,047 AF 18,564 AF 15,810 AF 12,960 AF 10,045 AF Demand Totals 162,551 AF 165,920 AF 170,020 AF 174,036 AF 177,992 AF Difference 27,301 AF 29,471 AF 30,842 AF 32,215 AF 33,589 AF Fifth Year
Ground water 1
138,090 AF 143,630 AF 149,100 AF 154,490 AF 159,820 AF
Surface Water – CVP 2 45,000 AF 45,000 AF 45,000 AF 45,000 AF 45,000 AF Surface Water – Kings River 3 125,840 AF 125,840 AF 125,840 AF 125,840 AF 125,840 AF Recycled Water 4 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF 5,910 AF Supply Totals 314,840 AF 320,380 AF 325,850 AF 331,240 AF 336,570 AF Potable Demand 136,504 AF 147,356 AF 154,210 AF 161,076 AF 167,947 AF Non-Potable Demand 62,700 AF 65,400 AF 68,100 AF 70,800 AF 73,500 AF Demand Totals 199,204 AF 212,756 AF 222,310 AF 231,876 AF 241,447 AF Difference 115,636 AF 107,624 AF 103,540 AF 99,364 AF 95,123 AF Notes: AF = acre-feet.
1 Groundwater yields were estimated sustainable yields from Table 6-1 of the 2020 GWMP. 2 CVP yields were based on the actual allocations in 2012 through 2016, which ranged from 0 to 45,000 AF. 3 Kings River yields were based on the actual total FID allocations in 2012 to 2016, which ranged from 42,935 to 110,824 but with the projected City percentage of FID supply for the future years considered as shown in Table 6-3 in the 2020 GWMP. 4 Recycled water yields were projected supply values from Table 6-6 of the 2020 GWMP, excluding agricultural irrigation demand that does not offset the City’s potable demand.

Source: City of Fresno 2021a.

Utilities Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.14-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER
Wastewater
The City of Fresno owns and maintains the wastewater collection system that serves the city, which consists of 1,630 miles of pipes ranging in size from 4 inches in diameter to 84 inches in diameter. This collection system also uses 15 lift stations throughout the city, ranging in pumping capacity from 0.25 mgd to 2.2 mgd. Two wastewater treatment plants serve the city: the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF) (City of Fresno 2021a).

The RWRF treats flows from the city along with sewered county areas, the city of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District. The RWRF is the fourth largest municipal wastewater facility in northern California, with an average monthly flow capacity of 88 mgd (City of Fresno n.d.a). The RWRF includes preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units with disinfection (City of Fresno 2021a). Treated wastewater from RWRF is used to irrigate fields with alfalfa, silage corn, Sudangrass and other fiber crops not used for human consumption.

The NFWRF was constructed as part of a residential, commercial, and golf course development located in the northern portion of the city. As a condition of the planned community, the developer was required to construct a wastewater treatment facility that would produce tertiary level effluent for use within the development to ensure the overall project had a net zero impact on water resources. The NFWRF has an average monthly flow capacity of 0.71 mgd that could be expanded to 1.25 mgd with approval of increased use of the ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection system by the State Water Resources Control Board Department of Drinking Water. The disinfected tertiary effluent from NFWRF is used to irrigate the Copper River Ranch Golf Course and turf within the surrounding area. Unused treated effluent is diverted to the City’s collection system to the RWRF (City of Fresno 2021a).

Stormwater
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) manages the stormwater infrastructure and flows within the city and the larger Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area. Most stormwater in the city drains to urban stormwater basins, where the water is retained to attenuate peak flow runoff and recharge groundwater, or is pumped to local irrigation canals for conveyance away from the municipal areas. FMFCD estimates that stormwater recharge in urban basins during the winter months ranges from 7,000 af per year to 22,200 af per year. Stormwater capture and infiltration are considered an integral component of natural groundwater recharge for the Kings Subbasin (City of Fresno 2021a).

ENERGY
Electricity
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides the majority of electricity to the city via underground and aboveground service lines as part of its Greater Fresno Area service territory. The greater Fresno area generates approximately 3,987 megawatts (MW) of electricity through thermo, hydro, solar, and biomass facilities. The largest electrical generating facility is the Helms Pumped Storage Plant that pumps water up and down between two reservoirs located at different elevations. The Helms Pumped Storage Plant produces and stores up to 1,212 MW of electricity that represents approximately 30 percent of the electricity produced in the greater Fresno area (City of Fresno 2014b).

Natural Gas
PG&E is the natural gas service provider in the greater Fresno area. PG&E owns and maintain several natural gas transmission lines in the region that feed local distribution lines that connect to individual service lines. Approximately 90 percent of the natural gas supply for PG&E is from out-of-state imports. The primary pipeline that extends through California includes Lines 400 and 401 consisting of 725 miles of 36-inch and 42-inch pipelines. These pipelines extend from the TransCanada’s system that originates in Canada and extends through Malin, Oregon (City of Fresno 2014b).

Ascent Environmental Utilities
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.14-9

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AT&T is the largest provider of cellular and fixed telephone services in the city. Telephone lines are located throughout the greater Fresno area (City of Fresno 2014b).

SOLID WASTE
The City manages an intensive solid waste diversion program and is on track to be zero waste by the year 2025 (City of Fresno 2021a). Recycling of construction and demolition material is required for any building, relocation, or demolition project permitted by the City that generates at least 8 cubic yards of material by volume and all waste must be hauled to a City-approved facility. The City’s Solid Waste Division provides weekly curbside collection of residential bulky goods, recycling, green waste, as well as waste oil and waste oil filters (City of Fresno 2021b).

Garbage disposed of in the city of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off-loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted and non-recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill. The American Avenue Landfill is operated by Fresno County and located near the city of San Joaquin, approximately 17 miles southwest of the project site (City of Fresno 2021b). The City has disposed of municipal solid waste at the American Avenue Landfill since 1993. The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day (CalRecycle n.d.). The American Avenue Landfill is a mixed waste processing facility.

In December 2011, the City privatized its commercial waste collection services and granted several companies exclusive franchises for collecting and hauling commercial and multi-family solid waste and recycling material in the city. Allied Waste Services is responsible for servicing the northern portion of the city and Mid Valley Disposal is responsible for the southern section of the city, with Ashlan Avenue being the dividing line (City of Fresno n.d.c). The project area is within the jurisdiction of Allied Waste Services. Franchise haulers provide and maintain containers; respond to customer complaints/concerns and provide roll-off and compactor services to residential, multi-family and commercial customers respective to their agreements (City of Fresno 2021a).

3.14.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Water Demand and Wastewater Output
CEQA Guidelines Section 15155 requires preparation of a water supply assessment (WSA) when a project is of sufficient size to be defined as a “water-demand project.” Several characteristics can deem a project a “water-demand project” including:

X A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space (CEQA Guidelines Section 15155(a)(1)(B).

The project is estimated to employ approximately 300 individuals, and the warehouse and gas station would encompass approximately 241,342 square feet. It does not meet the definition of a “water demand project” pursuant to Section 15155 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Preparation of a WSA is not required for the project.

The project is anticipated to require a total of 17.01 million gallons per year (mgy) of water (3.38 mgy of indoor water,

1.67 mgy of outdoor water for landscape irrigation, and 11.95 mgy of water used in the car wash) and is estimated to produce 13.15 mgy of wastewater. This wastewater estimate conservatively assumes that all water entering the warehouse becomes wastewater (i.e., no consumptive use of indoor water) and includes 9.73 mgy of wastewater generated by the car wash. The indoor water demand of the project was calculated by the applicant based on fixture counts and use estimates for indoor use and irrigation water demand for the existing North Costco Wholesale Utilities Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.14-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
building from 2013 (Sievert pers. comm. 2023). Irrigation water demand and carwash water use and wastewater generation are based on design information prepared for the proposed project.

Electricity and Natural Gas Demand
The project would have a 2,116-megawatt-hour annual electricity demand and a 2,753,494-thousand-British-thermalunit annual natural gas demand. Energy use (both electricity and natural gas) was calculated for the project using CalEEMod. To calculate energy use, CalEEMod uses the California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) database to develop energy intensity values. The CEUS data lists energy use intensity by building type, “end-use,” and CEC forecasting climate zone. Each nonresidential land use in CalEEMod is matched to the appropriate CEUS building type.

The CEUS end uses are grouped according to whether the end use is subject to Title 24 building requirements or not.

Solid Waste Production
The project would produce approximately 1,073.52 tons per year of solid waste. Solid waste production for the project was calculated using CalEEMod which uses the overall California Waste Stream composition to generate the necessary types of different waste disposed into landfills.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact to utilities and service systems would be significant if implementation of the project would:

X require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
X have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
X result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; X 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 X not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All thresholds are evaluated below.

Ascent Environmental Utilities
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.14-11

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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 this 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 this EIR; the impact would be less than significant.

The project site is a vacant parcel, and the existing utility infrastructure that follow the roadways surrounding the parcel would be extended onto the project site to serve the proposed Costco facility, as detailed below. Costco would construct utility improvements within the project site to service the proposed uses and connect to available utilities adjacent to the site.

Water Supply
There is an existing water line in West Herndon Avenue and an existing well near the northeast corner of the project site. The applicant would be required to destruct any existing on-site well in compliance with the State of California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-81 and 74-90 or current revisions issued by California Department of Water Resources and City of Fresno standards. Water service would be provided by the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities via existing facilities located in the North Riverside Drive right-of-way. There would not be any water service connections to the existing 16-inch water main in West Herndon Avenue. The construction of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue would also include installation of water mains in the road right of way. These features are project components that would implement planned infrastructure connections, which are evaluated throughout this EIR. Upgrade or relocation of additional infrastructure would not be required because there is adequate capacity in the existing infrastructure to accommodate service to the site.

Wastewater
Sewer service would be provided by the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities via existing facilities located in the North Riverside Drive right-of-way. The existing lines have adequate capacity to serve the project and new or upgraded lines or wastewater treatment facilities would not be required because there is adequate capacity in the existing infrastructure to accommodate service to the site. The project also includes installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer main in West Spruce Avenue. These features are project components that would implement planned infrastructure connections. The environmental effects of implementing these project components are evaluated throughout this EIR.

Stormwater
Stormwater from the site would be directed to existing FMFCD drainage facilities in North Riverside Drive, West Spruce Avenue, and West Herndon Avenue along with the additional proposed stormwater drainage facilities. It is anticipated that the stormwater runoff would flow west through the 36-inch pipes in West Herndon Avenue to the 54-inch pipes in North Golden State Boulevard and the existing 15-acre basin adjacent to SR 99. In addition, FMFCD would require construction of the inlet identified in the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan on Spruce Avenue in conjunction with development of North Arthur Avenue and Spruce Avenue. This would be constructed within the disturbance area of the Spruce Avenue extension. The existing infrastructure has been sized for the runoff of the proposed project site (Chapman pers. comm. 2021).

Utilities Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.14-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
As described above in Section 3.14.2, “Environmental Setting,” FMFCD manages stormwater infrastructure.

Development of the site with a warehouse building, car wash, fueling facilities, and paved parking areas would create approximately 22 acres of additional impervious surface. The proposed stormwater drainage facilities (e.g., storm drainage mechanisms and storm water pipes) would be designed and constructed in compliance with the City of Fresno and FMFCD Development Standards. Furthermore, all disturbance associated with construction of the stormwater drainage facilities would occur within the disturbance area of the project, and as analyzed in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the stormwater drainage facilities would be constructed in compliance with City of Fresno grading plan check process and NPDES Construction General Permit.

FMFCD’s Post-Development Standards Technical Manual describes the stormwater management requirements for “Priority Projects,” which are includes commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet, automotive repair shops, parking lots 5,000 square feet or greater with 25 or more parking spaces and potentially exposed to urban runoff, streets and roads; and retail gasoline outlets. All Priority Projects must mitigate the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDV) or Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SWQDF) through low-impact developemnt or treatment-based stormwater quality BMPs or a combination thereof. Development of the on-site stormwater facilities would minimize effect of the additional impervious area on peak runoff volumes. Additional stormwater facilities would not be required.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication
The project would require electricity and natural gas during operation. PG&E indicated in a will-serve letter that it has the capacity to provide gas and electric service to the project site and support the project’s projected 2,116- megawatt-hour annual electricity demand and a 2,753,494-thousand-British-thermal-unit annual natural gas demand. It is the project applicant’s obligation to coordinate permanent and temporary power installation; permanent power infrastructure must be in place for receive a certificate of occupancy. There are existing power and gas lines in the area that would serve the project. AT&T provides telecommunication service to the area.

Infrastructure is typically co-located with existing power lines. Powerlines and telecommunications would be extended from existing public rights of way.

Summary
The project’s anticipated water demand, wastewater and stormwater output, along with its projected electric and natural gas demand would be within the capacity of the existing utility infrastructure. All proposed utility hookups to existing infrastructure would occur within the disturbance area of the project site and adjacent street rights-of-way, including where Spruce Avenue would be improved as a public street and North Arthur Avenue would be improved as a private street. The project would therefore have a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new utility infrastructure.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

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 UWMP 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 GPA from Community Commercial to General Commercial, the 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. The impact would be less than significant.

As detailed above in Section 3.14.2, “Environmental Setting,” the City of Fresno manages a water distribution system composed of distribution and transmission mains, municipal groundwater wells, three SWTFs, water storage facilities, and booster pump facilities (City of Fresno 2021a). The City’s water is sourced from SWTFs and groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin.

Ascent Environmental Utilities
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.14-13
As described above in Section, 3.14.2, “Environmental Setting,” the 2020 UWMP is a long-term water resource planning document used by the City to ensure there is enough water to meet both existing and future demands. The UWMP projects that the City would have an excess of water through 2045 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years as illustrated above in Table 3.14-1, Table 3.14-2, and Table 3.14-3. The City sources its potable and non-potable water from groundwater, surface water, and recycled water to ensure that enough water is available in a potential drought. In a normal year, the City would have an excess of 115,883 af of water in 2045. That excess would decrease to 11,295 af in 2045 in a single dry year, and would increase to 95,123 af in the fifth year of multiple dry years (City of Fresno 2021a). In multiple dry years the City would work closely with surface water suppliers to minimize impacts to the City’s SWTFs.

The City’s 2020 UWMP projects potable water demand through 2045 using land use-based projections sourced from the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database and the City’s General Plan. The land use-based projections correspond with the planned land use at buildout as described in the City’s General Plan. As analyzed in Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” the project site is identified as Community Commercial and would include a General Plan amendment (GPA) to redesignate the site to General Commercial. The GPA would allow for the slightly more intensive commercial use of the site which currently does allow for commercial use. The UMWP combines all commercial land use designations (which include both Community Commercial and General Commercial) into one category and anticipates that the city’s commercial acreage would increase by 2 percent (4,100 acres) by 2056 (City of Fresno 2021a: Table 4-3). The projected water demand for commercial land use in 2045 is anticipated to be 25,496 acre-feet annually, or 8,308 mgy (City of Fresno 2021a: Table 4-6). The project is anticipated to require 17.01 mgy of water, of which 3.38 mgy would be used for indoor water, 11.95 would be used by the car wash, and 1.67 mgy would be required for outdoor water. The project’s water demand is a fraction (less than 1 percent) of the City’s anticipated potable water demand for commercial use. Given that the water demand projections already account for commercial water demand on the project site, the project is not anticipated to strain the existing and future water system in a way that would require the relocation or construction of new or expanded infrastructure.

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. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

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 mgd. The project would produce approximately 0.05 mgd of wastewater. Given the fractional contribution to the wastewater system, the project would have a less-than-significant impact.

The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities is responsible for providing sewer service to the project site.

Wastewater from the project site is carried through the City’s wastewater collection system to be treated at either the RWRF or NFWRF as described above in Section 3.14.2, “Environmental Setting.” The RWRF and NFWRF have an average flow capacity of 88 mgd and 0.71 mgd, respectively.

As explained above, wastewater generation has been assumed to equate to indoor water demand plus estimated wastewater generated through operation of the car wash. This is the highest possible rate of generate and assumes no consumptive use. The project is projected to create 13.15 mgy of wastewater, which is equivalent to 0.04 mgd. The project’s wastewater output would be less than 1 percent of the capacity of the two wastewater treatment plants that serve the city. Most of the wastewater produced would be typical of commercial developments, consisting of Utilities Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.14-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
bathrooms and kitchen drains. Water from the proposed car wash would be recycled before being released into the City’s wastewater collection system.

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. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

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 have a lessthan-significant impact.

Construction is not anticipated to generate substantial solid waste. Vegetation clearing would require some disposal, but grading would be otherwise balanced and no demolition would occur. Decommissioning of the existing Costco gas station would result in the removal and disposal of the underground fuel tanks and any identified contaminated soil at an approved hazardous waste disposal facility.

During operation, the project would generate approximately 1,073.52 tons of solid waste per year, which would be equivalent to 2.9 tons per day. The project area is served by an exclusive franchise operation managed by Allied Waste Services which provides both solid waste and recycling services. As described above in Section 3.14.2, “Environmental Setting,” the closest landfill to the project site is the American Avenue Landfill which has a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards and a maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day (CalRecycle n.d.). 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.

Additionally, 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. As detailed in Section, 3.14.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the Integrated Waste Management Act requires businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week to arrange for recycling services.

The project would have recycling services provided by Allied Waste, and the American Avenue Landfill is a mixed waste processing facility. The Integrated Waste Management Act also requires businesses that generate 8 cubic yards of organic waste per week to arrange for organic waste recycling services. The project is not anticipated to generate more than 8 yards of organic waste per week; however, Allied Waste provides organic waste services that the project could use during operation. Given that Allied Waste Services provides both organic waste and recycling services, the project would comply with the Integrated Waste Management Act. Additionally, the City’s General Plan has a policy of ensuring compliance with state law (PU-9-b). The project would not be inconsistent with established regulations or generate solid waste that exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure. This impact would be less than significant.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-1
4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
This Draft EIR provides an analysis of cumulative impacts of the proposed project taken together with other past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts, as required by Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The goal of such an exercise is twofold: first, to determine whether the overall long-term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant; and second, to determine whether the incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts by the project would be “cumulatively considerable” (and thus significant). (See State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130[a]–[b], 15355[b], 15064[h], and 15065[c]; and Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency [2002] 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 120.) In other words, the required analysis intends first to create a broad context in which to assess cumulative impacts, viewed on a geographic scale beyond the project site itself, and then to determine whether the project’s incremental contribution to any significant cumulative impacts from all projects is itself significant (i.e., “cumulatively considerable”).

Cumulative impacts are defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” A cumulative impact occurs from “the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[b]).

Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the discussion of cumulative impacts in this Draft EIR focuses on significant and potentially significant cumulative impacts. Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides, in part, the following:

The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.

4.2 CUMULATIVE SETTING

4.2.1 Geographic Scope
The geographic area that could be affected by the project and is appropriate for a cumulative impact analysis varies depending on the environmental resource topic, as presented in Table 4-1.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 4-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts
Resource Topic Geographic Area
Aesthetics Project vicinity
Agricultural and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
Air Quality Regional (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District—pollutant emissions that have regional effects)
Local (immediate vicinity—pollutant emissions that are highly localized) Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Regional Biological Resources Regional
Energy Regional
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Global
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project vicinity
Hydrology and Water Quality Regional
Land Use and Planning City of Fresno
Noise and Vibration Project vicinity
Public Services and Recreation City of Fresno
Transportation and Circulation City of Fresno
Utilities City of Fresno
Source: Compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

4.2.2 Cumulative Impact Approach
The State CEQA Guidelines identify two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in which the project is to be considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects (the “list approach”) or the use of adopted projections from a general plan, other regional planning document, or certified EIR for such a planning document (the “plan approach”). For this Draft EIR, the list approach was taken.

LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS
The list of past, present, and probable future projects used for this cumulative analysis is restricted to those projects that have occurred or are planned to occur (i.e., pending applications at the time of the NOP release) within the city.

For the purposes of this discussion, these projects that may have a cumulative effect on the resources of the project area will often be referred to as the “related projects.” These related projects are identified in Figure 4-1 and described in Table 4-2; the map numbering corresponds to the numbers in Table 4-2.

This list of projects was utilized in the development and analysis of the cumulative settings and impacts for each resource topic. Past and current projects in the project vicinity were also considered as part of the cumulative setting as they contribute to the existing conditions upon which the proposed project and each probable future project’s environmental effects are compared.

Significance criteria, unless otherwise specified, are the same for cumulative impacts as project impacts for each environmental topic area. When considered in relation to other reasonably foreseeable projects, cumulative impacts to some resources may be significant and more severe than those caused by the proposed project alone.

Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-3
Source: Information received from the City of Fresno in 2021; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 4-1 Cumulative Project Map
Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 4-2 Cumulative Project List
No. Project Name Project Description Location Status
1 North Elgin Avenue
Multifamily Residential
Development
A multifamily residential duplex would be constructed. 7035 North Elgin Avenue
The building development
permit was approved with
conditions by the City of
Fresno in 2019.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
2 Hayes Avenue
Residential
Development
The project would develop a 98-lot single family
residential subdivision.
4417 North
Hayes Avenue
The project hearing
approving the
development permit was
complete in 2019.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
3 West Regency Avenue
Multifamily Townhouse
The project would construct a 2-unit detached multifamily townhouse 4277 West Regency Avenue
The development permit
is currently under review
by the City of Fresno.
4 Dante Avenue
Multifamily Residential
Development
The project would involve construction of 64 multifamily use dwelling units adjacent to an existing multifamily
residential development
North Dante
Avenue and
West Bullard
Avenue
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2019.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
5 Drywall Supply
Company
Reconstruction
The project would involve the reconstruction and
reconfiguration of the existing drywall supply business impacted by the realignment of North Golden State
Boulevard for the High-Speed Rail project.
4565 North
Golden State
Boulevard
The development permit
is under review by the City
of Fresno.
6 Brighten Academy
Child Day Care Facility
The project would involve the construction of a 4,704 sq. ft. child day care facility.
4250 West
Bullard Avenue
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2020.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
7 Northpointe Church
New Office Building
The project would involve the construction of a new office building to be used by church staff members.
4625 West Palo
Alto Avenue
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2020.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
8 HVAC
Office/Warehouse
Building
The project would involve the construction of a new 4,976 sq. ft. office/warehouse building on an existing lot.
4048 West
Ashcroft Avenue
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2020.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
9 Floor & Decor at El
Paseo
The project would involve a retail development in Phase III of the Marketplace at El Paseo shopping center. The retail development would include an 80,000 sq. ft. building to be a Floor & Decor retail store and two pad sites at the property frontage to be built at a future date.
6417 North
Riverside Drive
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2020.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
10 Avalon Triplex The project would construct a new triplex. Two of the units will be 1,255 sq. ft. and one unit will be 1,208 sq. ft. 4465 West
Avalon Avenue
Approved by the City of
Fresno in 2019.

Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-5
No. Project Name Project Description Location Status
11 Spruce Avenue MultiTenant Office building The project would involve the construction of a new 9,320 sq. ft. multi-tenant office building.
5550 West
Spruce Avenue
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2020.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
12 Barcus II TPM The project would involve the subdivision of two residential parcels encompassing a total of ±0.29 acres on the west side of North Barcus Avenue into two singlefamily residential properties with a ±6.78-acre remainder that will encompass the existing church campus.
4710 North Polk
Avenue
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2020.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
13 Riverside Crossing The project would involve the construction of a 185-unit apartment complex.
6271 North
Hayes Avenue
The development permit
was approved by the City
of Fresno in 2020.

Construction of the
project has not begun.
14 Barcus Avenue
Apartment Complex
The project would involve the construction of a new 13- building apartment complex. One of the buildings will be an office/community building. In total, there are 96
apartment units proposed.

North Barcus
Avenue and
West Donner
Avenue
The project is on hold as
of December 2020.
15 Tentative Tract Map
Tract 6172
The project would involve the development of 45 multifamily residential buildings which yields 234 units. 6640 North Riverside Drive
The project is in the
planning phase, and the
Final Action Letter was
sent in 2020.
16 California 99 SelfStorage The project would involve the development of a 120,000 sq. ft. self-storage space and support buildings.
5303 North
Island Waterpark
Drive
The project is under
review by the City of
Fresno as of April 2021.
17 Jack’s Truck Wash The project would involve the construction of a 5,750 sq. ft. metal building for truck car wash, minor truck
maintenance, tire exchange, and drive dispatch office.
4011 West
Ashlan Avenue
The project is on hold as
of April 2021.
18 Milburn/Dakota Park The project would develop a park. Amenities include a multi-use field, covered stage, playgrounds, a water play area, restrooms, picnic shelters, a rubberized jogging
track, dog park, multi-use courts (for tennis, basketball, futsal, and pickleball), and an exercise area. The
neighborhood park will also include 33 parking spaces
and a connection to John Steinbeck Elementary School to the north.
3520 North
Milburn Avenue
The development permit
was approved in June
2021. Construction of the
project has not begun.
19 Lincoln Park
Apartments
The project would involve the construction of an 88-unit multi-family residential development located at the
northeast corner of West Herndon and North Prospect
Avenues.
3311 West Fir
Avenue
The development permit
is under review by the City
of Fresno.
20 Single Family
Residential Alluvial –
Bluff
The project would involve the construction of a new 4,000 sq. ft. home with a 1,500 sq. ft. attached garage on the existing vacant lot.
4748 West
Alluvial Avenue
The development permit
was approved in August
2021. Construction of the
project has not begun.
21 Toor Trucking Office
Building
The project would involve the construction of a new 450 sq. ft. office building for an existing truck parking lot. 4951 West
Jacquelyn
Avenue
The development permit
was approved in
September 2021.

Construction of the
project has not begun.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
No. Project Name Project Description Location Status
22 Bullard-Figarden
Apartments
The project would involve the construction of 192 multifamily dwelling units in 24 multi-family buildings and a community building.

West Bullard
Avenue and
North Figarden
Drive
The development permit
is under review by the City
of Fresno.
23 Dante Apartments The project would involve the construction of a 52-unit apartment complex.

North Dante
Avenue and
West Bullard
Avenue
The development permit
was approved in October
2021. Construction of the
project has not begun.
24 Barstow Truck Parking The project would involve the construction and development of a truck parking facility with a 5,400 sq. ft. of Auto/Truck Service Center and a 5,400 sq. ft. truck
wash with two tunnels.
6050 West
Barstow Avenue
The development permit
is under review by the City
of Fresno.
25 Westbridge
Apartments
The project involves the construction of a 176-unit multifamily project inclusive of an office/community building/pool and recreation facilities.
6785 West
Barstow Avenue
The development permit
is under review by the City
of Fresno.
26 California High Speed
Rail: Merced to Fresno
project section
The approximately 65-mile project section would provide essential connections between the Central Valley and the Silicon Valley with stations in downtown Fresno and
downtown Merced.

Roughly parallel
to State Route
99 and Golden
State Boulevard
in Fresno
Under construction.

Notes: sq. ft. = square feet.

All the listed projects are located in the city of Fresno.

Source: Data provided by the City of Fresno in 2021.

4.3 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The following sections contain a discussion of the cumulative effects anticipated from development of the proposed project, taken together with other past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts, for each of the environmental issue areas evaluated in this Draft EIR. The analysis conforms with Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which specifies that the “discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.” When considered in relation to other reasonably foreseeable projects, cumulative impacts to some resources would be significant and more severe than those caused by the proposed project alone.

For purposes of this EIR, the project would result in a significant cumulative effect if:

X The cumulative effects of related projects (past, current, and probable future projects) are not significant and the incremental impact of implementing the proposed project is substantial enough, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, to result in a new cumulatively significant impact; or X The cumulative effects of related projects (past, current, and probable future projects) are already significant and implementation of the proposed project makes a considerable contribution to the effect. The standards used herein to determine a considerable contribution are that either the impact must be substantial or must exceed an established threshold of significance.

This cumulative analysis assumes that all mitigation measures identified in Chapter 3 to mitigate project impacts are adopted and implemented, and all elements of the design build performance criteria that would minimize environmental effects are implemented. The analysis herein analyzes whether, after implementation of project- Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-7
specific mitigation and performance criteria that minimize environmental effects, the residual impacts of the project would cause a cumulatively significant impact or would contribute considerably to existing/anticipated (without the project) cumulatively significant effects. Where the project would so contribute, additional mitigation is recommended where feasible.

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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for aesthetics is the project vicinity. Effects on scenic resources generally occur at the interface between development and the scenic resources. For this reason, they tend to be localized. As described in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” the project would result in a less-than-significant effect on the visual character and quality of the site and would be consistent with regulations governing scenic quality. The project would not adversely affect nighttime views in the area.

The viewshed for the cumulative aesthetics setting is the project site and vicinity and includes viewing groups, which are mostly composed of people traveling along arterial roadways that traverse the viewshed, such as West Herndon Avenue, and those using Riverside Golf Course to the north. Most of northwestern Fresno and the nearby unincorporated areas exhibit relatively flat topography which is either urbanized or dominated by crop farming interspersed with rural communities and open space areas; however, the project vicinity is dominated by urban development interspersed with vacant parcels designated for development. As planned cumulative development occurs over time the overall visual environment may change. Whether this overall change in land use is experienced as an adverse or beneficial outcome is highly subjective. However, the anticipated development in the cumulative impact area may result in a different visual environment than currently exists. The incremental effects of the project related to scenic resources, visual character and quality, and light and glare would not combine with development that would occur as a result of forecasted growth in adjacent areas to produce cumulatively considerable impacts because adjacent development would also be subject to general plan policies, zoning, and other ordinances or regulations in place to protect scenic resources and limit light and glare. 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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is 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. Therefore, although there is an existing, adverse cumulative condition related to the loss of Farmland in the city of Fresno the project would not substantially contribute to the impact. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for agricultural and forestry resources is the city of Fresno because citywide actions affect the loss of these resources in the region. Development of the project and other anticipated projects in the city of Fresno would not result in the loss of substantial forestry resources. No cumulative impact would occur.

Development associated with implementation of the City of Fresno General Plan would result in the continued loss of farmland in the region. The City of Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report identified that development according to the of land uses in the general plan would result in the loss of up to 15,903 acres of FMMP-designated farmland (City of Fresno 2014: 5.2-12). This cumulative impact would be significant.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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.

However, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to the overall significant cumulative effect on conversion of agricultural lands. Farmland of Local Importance is not a designation of concern under CEQA. If the project site was designated as Important Farmland, which it is not, the conversion of the project site would result in loss of less than 1.01 percent of the 15,903 acres of Farmland planned loss under implementation of the general plan.

This would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution.

In addition, the parcel is currently designated for a use other than agriculture and surrounded by existing urban development. 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. Therefore, although there is an existing, adverse cumulative condition related to the loss of Farmland in the city of Fresno the project would not substantially contribute to the impact. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is 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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Air quality impacts are assessed at the air basin level. As discussed in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” the project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The conditions in the SJVAB define the geographic context and the impacts identified in Section 3.3 are inherently cumulative because the thresholds established by the air district are developed considering the broader landscape and anticipated development wholistically. As stated in Section 3.3, the region is currently in nonattainment for emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOX]), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). When concentrations of ozone, PM10, or PM2.5 exceed the ambient air quality standard, then those sensitive to air pollution (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm) could experience health effects such as: decrease of pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals; increased mortality risk; and risk to public health, implied by altered connective tissue metabolism, altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures, and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans. Cumulative development in the region will continue to increase the concentration of pollutants from construction activities, traffic, natural gas combustion in buildings, area sources, and stationary sources.

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 previously approved plan or mitigation program. As shown in Table 3.3-7, all air quality pollutants would be below established thresholds. This level of emissions indicates that the project would not conflict with longterm regional air quality planning in the SJVAB. 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. Generation of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and carbon dioxide hotspots are localized impacts. Projects would need to be in the same general area to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. None of the projects listed in Table 4-2 are anticipated to result in substantial, cumulative effects on the sensitive receptors identified for the project due to spatial separation and implementation of standard mitigation imposed by SVAPCD. Finally, there is not a cumulatively considerable impact related to odor in the project area, and as disclosed in Section 3.3, the project is not anticipated to result in significant odor impacts.

Therefore, although the cumulative condition of air quality in the SJVAB is significant, the project would not substantially contribute to the impact. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-9
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is 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. There is no feasible mitigation for this impact beyond Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b. The project’s contribution to this cumulatively significant impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources is the region because some archaeological resources could have regional importance, and individual impacts to these resources could collectively result in greater, more adverse impacts. Because all significant cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, meaning there are a limited number of significant cultural resources, all adverse effects erode a dwindling resource base.

The historic lands of the Yokuts have been affected by development since Spanish explorer Gabriel Moraga crossed Yokut territory in 1808. The discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma in 1848 was the catalyst that caused a dramatic alteration of Native American cultural patterns as a flood of Euro-Americans entered the region. In 1854, gold was discovered in the upper reaches of the Kern River, which brought a tremendous influx of miners into eastern Kern County. When the Gold Rush was over, many of the miners settled in the Central Valley communities and established farms, ranches, and lumber mills. These activities have resulted in an existing significant adverse effect on archaeological resources and human remains.

Impacts to a subsurface archaeological find at one project site are generally not made worse by impacts from another project to a cultural resource at another site. Rather, the resources and the effects upon them are generally independent. No known unique archaeological, historical, or tribal cultural resources, are located within the boundaries of the project site; nonetheless, project-related earth-disturbing activities could damage undiscovered resources.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would reduce the project’s contribution to a less-thansignificant 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.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to archaeological, historical, or tribal cultural resources. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation is required.

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. The project’s contribution to this cumulatively significant impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for biological resources is the region where similar habitat and distribution of species occurs. Sensitive habitats for biological resources in the vicinity of the project site and in the region have been modified over time as land has been developed and converted to agricultural and urban uses.

Future projects in the region, including projects described in Table 4-2, could continue to result in losses of sensitive habitats and special-status species. Although individual projects would be required to mitigate for significant impacts on a project-by-project basis, they may result in residual impacts that combine with the existing adverse condition to create a significant cumulative condition related to special-status species and sensitive habitats.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
The project site and vicinity are located in an area of the city characterized by intensive residential and commercial development. There are no state or federally protected wetlands, sensitive natural communities, wildlife movement corridors, or wildlife nursery sites on the project site. However, project impacts include potentially significant impacts on burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other nesting raptors, and other nesting native birds. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b would address potential adverse effects on these species and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Because the project would either have no impact or a negligible impact on biological resources after mitigation, it would not have a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation is 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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for energy impacts is the region to reflect the scale at which energy resources and consumption are managed. Potential impacts related to increased energy consumption are evaluated in Section 3.6, “Energy.” Construction of the project would result in a temporary increase in fuel consumption. For the proposed project and the various projects identified in Table 4-2, it is anticipated that fuel would not be consumed in a wasteful manner during construction, as it is in the interest of construction contractors to meet project schedules and minimize costs. This translates to various efficiencies, including in the use of energy resources. Therefore, impacts related to energy would not be cumulatively significant on a regional scale.

During operation, the project would use electricity and natural gas to operate the facility. As explained in Section 3.6, this energy demand represents a relatively small contribution to cumulative energy demand. Moreover, the project would comply with the 2022 California Energy Code, which is intended to increase the energy efficiency of new development projects in the state, as verified through the permitting process. The 2022 California Energy Code (and subsequent updates), which the project is subject to, is designed to move the state closer to its zero-net energy goals. For these same reasons, the project would be consistent with the City’s general plan. As also stated in Section

3.6.1, PG&E, as an electricity utility, is required to comply with the future benchmarks of the state’s RPS (i.e., 52 percent renewable by 2027, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045). Because electricity utilities in the state are required to increase the percentage of renewable energy sources in the electricity they provide, over time electricity consumed as part of the project will increasingly be provided by renewable sources. 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. Because the project’s incremental increase in electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fuel consumption would represent a small percentage of total consumption within the context of the county, and because buildings and vehicles will become increasingly more energy efficient and electric into the future, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-11
Impact 4-7: Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts There is an existing substantial adverse impact related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global climate change. However, the project’s contribution to this cumulatively significant impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

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 multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more carbon dioxide (CO2) 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. Therefore, the impacts discussed in Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” are also the cumulative effects of the project.

Through the incorporation of on-site reduction measures derived from the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GHGRP) and reductions realized from state programs, the project would reduce its emissions by 3,140 and 6,719 MTCO2e in 2030 and 2035, respectively, when compared to emissions modeled using the assumptions in the GHGRP.

The reductions identified for the project exceed the relative reductions identified in the GHGRP. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the GHGRP.

Based on consistency with the GHGRP, which itself is consistent with the state’s targets established to address the existing cumulative condition of global climate change, the project would not have a considerable contribution to the cumulative condition. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for hazards and hazardous materials is the project vicinity because the effects of accidental release of hazardous materials, safety hazards near airports, physical interference with emergency response or evacuation plans, and exposure to wildland fires are localized. To contribute to a cumulative effect, two effects would need to occur in relatively close proximity.

Topics addressed in Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” are related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous waste; reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions; hazardous emissions, particularly near schools; inclusion on a list of hazardous materials sites; proximity to airports; and consistency with emergency evacuation plans. Existing regulations specify mandatory actions that must occur during project development and operation and potential safety issues related to proximity to schools and airports. In addition, impacts related to hazardous materials and safety issues generally occur independently of one another and are related to site-specific and project-specific characteristics and conditions. Because these effects are generally localized, they typically do not combine to result in greater cumulative impacts.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
As described in Section 3.8, impacts resulting from development of the project would be less than significant because discretionary development would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations that would substantially lessen potential impacts. The incremental effects of the project related to hazards and hazardous materials would not combine with cumulative development to produce cumulatively considerable cumulative impacts because future projects would also be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations to minimize hazards and hazardous materials impacts. With implementation of existing regulations, the project’s incremental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would not be cumulatively significant, and the project would not have a considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is 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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for hydrology and water quality impacts is the region because water resources are interconnected and changes in hydrology and water quality can have far-reaching effects. For this reason, the resources are managed and regulated at the watershed and basin level. Future development would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit and would be required to comply with best management practices (BMPs) in the Development Code; General Plan policies related to hydrology and water quality; and the General Construction NPDES permit. New development projects would require implementation of plans that identify and implement a variety of BMPs to reduce the potential for erosion or sedimentation. As a result of compliance with these regulations, impacts associated with individual projects would not be substantial and, in the cumulative scenario, would not combine with impacts associated with other development (which would be subject to similar requirements) within the watershed or groundwater basin to cause an increase in stormwater runoff rates or volumes and would not introduce new sources of surface water and groundwater pollution.

The City of Fresno is part of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), and operates subject to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The City of Fresno would provide water to the proposed project (upon approval), and the City will be subject to the requirements of the GSA. The proposed project does not conflict with any adopted water quality or sustainable groundwater management plan. The City’s compliance with the GSA would ensure that impacts are less than cumulatively considerable.

Thus, impacts from combined projects in the cumulative impact area are not cumulatively significant, and the impact of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-13
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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of cumulative land use and planning impacts is primarily confined to the city of Fresno.

Cumulative growth and development have been planned for by the City as part of its general plan and the county authorizes development consistent with its plans and policies. 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.

Cases where projects are approved despite inconsistencies with applicable policies, standards, and regulations would be isolated and would not combine such that there is a cumulative effect to land use and planning in the region.

Further, no significant land use impacts were identified as a result of the project because development would not physically divide a community, conflict with any relevant policies or plans adopted for mitigating environmental impacts, or disturb a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan. 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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is 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.

Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Noise and vibration impacts associated with future development under the project are analyzed in Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration.” Noise and vibration impacts are based on factors related to site-specific and project-specific characteristics and conditions, including distance to noise sources, barriers between land uses and noise sources, and other factors. Noise impacts are typically site-specific and only combine when cumulative development occurs in close proximity. For this reason, the geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for noise and vibration is the project vicinity.

The project would result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact associated with temporary nighttime construction noise. Due to the distribution characteristics of sound and vibration, construction noise and vibration are generally limited to the vicinity of individual project sites. Therefore, projects must be both proximate and implemented concurrently to have a cumulative effect. Although noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for the project, there would not be cumulative impacts due to combined construction noise and vibration to which the project would contribute.

Impact 3.11-4 evaluates the project’s contribution to cumulative, ambient noise levels due to traffic generation. As described in Section 3.11, existing noise levels on West Herndon Avenue exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL for residential uses. Future development may result in additional traffic that contributes to noise along area roadways. This is an existing adverse condition. 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 decibel 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. The project would result in noise that exceeds the City’s standard due to increased traffic along North Riverside Drive. This impact would be addressed through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-5a and 3.11-5b. Although there is an existing, Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
adverse cumulative condition associated with roadway noise, along West Herndon Avenue, the project would not contribute significantly to this condition. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation is 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. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for public services and recreation is the city of Fresno because these resources are managed by the City. Impacts to public services related to development of the project are analyzed in Section 3.12, “Public Services and Recreation.” This assessment includes an analysis of the need for new facilities or modification to facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools, emergency services, police protection, fire protection, and other public 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 project would serve the city’s existing population in northwest Fresno. The project would not introduce new residents to the area and new or physically altered facilities would not be required. The incremental effects of the project would not combine with other development that would occur in the cumulative context to produce cumulatively considerable impacts because future development projects would be site-specific and would be required to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of constructing new or expanded public services infrastructure by local ordinances and state regulations. Such future development projects would be required to provide offsite improvements, or feasible mitigation as appropriate, which would reduce the significance of potential impacts such that they would not be cumulatively considerable.

Thus, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution such that a new cumulatively significant public services impact would occur. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4-13: Cumulative Transportation and Circulation Impacts The project would result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Growth projected in the cumulative impact area could also result in increased VMT. Cumulative transportation impacts would be significant. The project’s contribution to this cumulatively significant transportation impact would be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for transportation and circulation is the city of Fresno because this is the jurisdictional limit of the lead agency and where most VMT from the project would occur. The traffic analyses conducted for the project accounted for cumulative traffic in the region in the evaluation of VMT, geometric design features and incompatible uses, as well as emergency access. 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. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13- 2, which requires the project applicant to provide a mandatory Commute Reduction Program would be geared towards reducing employee trips which accounts 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 singledestination outing, it would be infeasible to implement other mitigation to minimize VMT impacts from Costco members for the reasons disclosed in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation.” Therefore, the project’s contribution to substantial effects related to VMT would be cumulatively considerable.

Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 4-15
Mitigation Measures
No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts.

Significance after Mitigation
The project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would becumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

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 would be potentially significant. However, the demand for utilities from the project and associated environmental effects would not result in cumulatively considerable environmental effects. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for utilities is the city of Fresno because these services are provided and managed by the City. Future development within the city would be guided by the general plan, Development Code, and other associated planning and policy documents. The City and utility providers would be involved in the development review process for all projects in the city and would continue to provide input during the review of new projects to ensure that they comply with all federal, state, and local regulations and ordinances protecting utility services, including complying with all water conservation measures and solid waste reduction measures implemented by the City or the state. 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 would be potentially significant.

As explained further in Section 3.14, “Utilities,” the project would not result in utility demand that would result in cumulatively considerable environmental effects. The project site is in an area with existing utilities, and utility providers have planned for commercial development on the property. The project would not result in a considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant impact of utility construction. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 5-1
5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
CEQA Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that the growth-inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an EIR.

Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance for assessing growth-inducing impacts of a project:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

A project can induce growth directly, indirectly, or both. Direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in any of the following:

X substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises); X substantial short-term employment opportunities (e.g., construction employment) that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary employment demand; and/or X removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area).

Growth inducement itself is not an environmental effect but may foreseeably lead to environmental effects. If substantial growth inducement occurs, it can result in secondary environmental effects, such as increased demand for housing, demand for other community and public services and infrastructure capacity, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, conversion of agricultural and open-space land to urban uses, and other effects.

5.1.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project

GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
Project construction is expected to begin in May of 2023 and last approximately 170 days. Construction could require up to 100 temporary workers, which are anticipated to originate from the existing regional labor pool (i.e., relocation of construction workers would not likely be necessary). The peak construction workforce would occur during the last four weeks of construction and may require up to 100 workers. Construction jobs supporting the project would be temporary and it is the nature of construction work that construction contractors bid and work on projects based on their availability and need for work, and in regions that are accessible to their work force. As existing construction projects near completion, contractors may seek out new construction projects to maintain employment for the same workers. Although it is possible that some construction workers could move to the city or the region as a result of the proposed project and cumulative projects, the existing labor force is anticipated to be sufficient to meet construction employment needs for these projects. For these reasons, substantial population growth or increases in housing demand in the region as a result of these construction jobs is not anticipated. Therefore, the project would not Other Considerations Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
5-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
directly induce population growth by bringing substantial numbers of construction jobs to the area, or result in associated increases in demand for housing or goods and services.

GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS OF OPERATION
Operation of the proposed Costco facility would essentially replace the existing Costco facility at 4500 West Shaw Avenue in the city of Fresno that has been in operation since 1985. The customer base has outgrown the current location on West Shaw Avenue, and the existing Costco facility’s continued operation could lead to future traffic and parking concerns. The proposed Costco facility would be sized to accommodate the current and projected membership base in northwest Fresno.

Several utility improvements to the project site would be required to service the proposed uses and connect to available utilities, including extension of water, sewer, and stormwater services. The project would also require construction of off-site improvements to improve circulation during operation, as described in Section 2.2.4, “Project Design.” Generally, infrastructure and utility improvements have the potential to be growth-inducing because they can remove a constraint on a required public utility or service. However, the roadway infrastructure and utility improvements necessary for operation of the project would be limited to areas on the project site and adjacent to the project site that would fill gaps in existing infrastructure according to the respective master plans. Utility improvements would be restricted to those that are required to connect the proposed Costco facilities to existing utility infrastructure, and the off-site roadway improvements would be restricted to those allowing for safe access to the project site from the adjacent roadways. Neither type of infrastructure improvement would induce growth through extending roadway or utility infrastructure to new areas or from increasing infrastructure capacity.

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. Both are four- to six-lane divided (median island separation) roadways. Expressways have major street intersections located at approximately one-half mile intervals and no driveways for direct motor vehicle access to abutting property. A select number of motor vehicle access points to adjacent properties or local streets between the major street intersections may be approved by the City along superarterials. This re-designation would not affect the capacity of the roadway in a manner that could support additional or unplanned growth.

The number of employees residing in Fresno County exceeds the number of jobs available (US Census 2017).

Therefore, employees who live in Fresno County tend to travel outside the county to their place of employment. The City of Fresno’s General Plan focuses on improving economic growth through encouraging mixed-uses and higher intensities in developed areas (City of Fresno 2014: 3-3). The project would not create new employment opportunities; a maximum of 300 employees would work at the proposed Costco facility, which is the same maximum number of employees at the existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue. Additionally, the employees at the existing facility would relocate to the new facility, further reducing the potential of the project to induce long-term economic growth. For these reasons, operation of the project is not expected to result in direct or indirect population growth.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to include a discussion of significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. As documented throughout Chapter 3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” and Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” of this 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:

X 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 X Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
Ascent Environmental Other Considerations
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 5-3
X 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) X Impact 4-13: Cumulative Transportation and Circulation Impacts

5.3 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generation to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

The project would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy and material resources during construction and operation, including the following:

X construction materials, including such resources as soil, rocks, wood, concrete, glass, and steel; X land area committed to the new Costco facilities; and X energy expended in the form of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil for equipment and transportation vehicles that would be needed for project construction and operation.

The use of these nonrenewable resources is expected to account for a minimal portion of the region’s resources and would not affect the availability of these resources for other needs within the region. Construction activities would not result in inefficient use of energy or natural resources. Construction contractors would be required to comply with emissions control measures applicable to the project. Long-term project operation would not result in substantial increase in consumption of energy and natural resources. See Section 3.6, “Energy,” of this EIR for further discussion.

As described in Section 2.3, “Project Objectives,” an operational goal of the project is to reduce energy consumption by incorporating sustainable design features and systems with enhanced energy efficiencies meeting state and federal requirements. To meet this goal, the project would construct a new commercial building with updated technology and decommission the existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue which began operation in 1985.

Notwithstanding the project benefit of improved efficiency, construction and operational activities related to the project would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment.

With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as project mitigation measures, would require that natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible.

Nonetheless, a long-term increase in the demand for electricity, natural gas, and water would occur. However, as discussed in Impact 3.6-1 in Section 3.6, “Energy,” the project would not involve a wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would also occur with the proposed construction and operation of the project. Therefore, the use of energy on-site would occur in an efficient manner.

Other Considerations Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
5-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 6-1
6 ALTERNATIVES

6.1 INTRODUCTION
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires EIRs to describe:
a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of a project, and foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible.

The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

This section of the State CEQA Guidelines also provides guidance regarding what the alternatives analysis should consider. Subsection (b) further states the purpose of the alternatives analysis is as follows:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]).

The State CEQA Guidelines further require that the “no project” alternative be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. If the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR “shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[e][2]).

In defining “feasibility” (e.g., “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project”), CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states, in part:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.

In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to consider the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision-making body, here the City Council. (See CEQA Sections 21081.5, 21081[a] [3].)
Alternatives Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
6-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

6.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

6.2.1 Attainment of 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 that are feasible meet the basic project objectives. The specific project objectives, as stated by the project proponent, are as follows:

X 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.

X 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.

X Locate the new membership-only Costco Commercial Center in an area serviced by adequate existing infrastructure, including roadways and utilities.

X 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.

X Meet demand for automobile services, including gasoline, car wash, and tire center.

X Create a commercial use with architecture designed to facilitate integration with the overall design context for an area, including the surrounding community.

X Reduce energy consumption by incorporating sustainable design features and systems with enhanced energy efficiencies meeting State and federal requirements.

X Continue and increase big-box retail store sales tax revenues received by the City.

X Improve availability of integrated retail sales of goods and services in the northwest area of Fresno.

X Minimize circulation conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians for retail stores and gas stations.

6.2.2 Environmental Impacts of the Project
Sections 3.1 through 3.14 of this Draft EIR address the environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed project. Potentially feasible alternatives were developed with consideration of avoiding or lessening the significant, and potentially significant, adverse impacts of the project, as identified in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR and summarized below. If an environmental issue area analyzed in this Draft EIR is not addressed below, it is because no significant impacts were identified for that issue area.

Four impacts that would result from project implementation were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The first impact is associated with short-term, nighttime construction near sensitive receptors and the potential to exceed established noise thresholds. The work window for certain activities associated with project construction would require activities that extend beyond the daytime hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) exempt from the City’s noise control ordinance. To reduce this impact, an alternative would need to be located on a site that is not proximate to sensitive receptors or would eliminate the need for nighttime construction activity.

The second impact considered significant and unavoidable is the generation of a net increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or the amount of travel induced by the project. The proposed Costco facility is intended to serve the growing customer base in northwest Fresno and would result in redirection of trips from the existing Costco facility located on West Shaw Avenue, approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the project site. As discussed further in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” Costco’s land use and business model is auto oriented. Because members purchase Ascent Environmental Alternatives
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 6-3
items in bulk at Costco facilities, walking, biking, or transit trips to the warehouse are impractical. An alternative that reduces VMT may be more centrally located, reducing travel distance for the greatest number of customers, and/or located near other destinations that could be combined with a trip to the Costco facility. These same alternative locations may reduce the other transportation impacts related to roadway hazards and cumulative transportation impacts.

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
X 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 X Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
X 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) X Impact 4-13: Cumulative Transportation Impacts

IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION X Impact 3.4-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Archaeological Resources X Impact 3.4-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource X Impact 3.4-4: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature X Impact 3.5-1: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat X 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 X Impact 3.11-4: Exposure of Existing Sensitive Receptors to Excessive Traffic Noise Levels X 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

6.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED FURTHER
As described above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that the range of potential alternatives for the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Alternatives that fail to meet the fundamental project purpose need not be addressed in detail in an EIR. (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165-1167.) In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by lead agency decision-maker(s). (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3).) At the time of action on the project, the decision-maker(s) may consider evidence beyond that found in this EIR in addressing such determinations. The decision-maker(s), for example, may conclude that a particular alternative is infeasible (i.e., undesirable) from a policy standpoint, and may reject an alternative on that basis provided that the decision-maker(s) adopts a finding, supported by substantial evidence, to that effect, and provided that such a finding reflects a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and other considerations supported by Alternatives Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
6-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 998.) The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following alternatives were considered by the City of Fresno but are not evaluated further in this Draft EIR.

6.3.1 Off-Site Alternatives
As established in Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the rule of reason applied to assessment of alternative locations in a CEQA evaluation is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project need be considered in the EIR. As described above, alternative locations for the proposed Costco facility could reduce anticipated impacts associated with construction noise and transportation by locating the facility on appropriately designated property of adequate size (approximately 20 to 25 acres) that is not near existing sensitive receptors but also central to other land uses so that VMT is reduced. A preliminary evaluation did not identify any other properties in northwest Fresno that were appropriately zoned (i.e., zoned for commercial use), adequately sized, and sufficiently distant from sensitive receptors that could be affected by nighttime construction.

The City received a public comment requesting evaluation of three specific alternative sites after the close of the scoping period: the southeast corner of West Herndon Avenue and Hayes Avenue, the area west of North Riverside Drive and north of Veterans Boulevard, and the area west of Bullard Avenue and south of Veterans Boulevard. As discussed further below, these alternatives were dismissed from further analysis due to feasibility and because they would not clearly address the project’s significant environmental effects.

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST HERNDON AVENUE AND HAYES AVENUE There are three parcels at the southeast corner of Hayes and West Herndon Avenues: two parcels of approximately 1 acre zoned for office use and two parcels (13 acres and 7 acres) zoned for multifamily residential. Collectively, these parcels would provide approximately enough space to accommodate the proposed project. However, these parcels are under different ownership and the property is bisected by a Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control (FMCD) easement that runs to a small parcel owned by FMFCD in the middle of the site.

In addition to land acquisition and coordination with FMCD, development of the Costco facility at this location would require a general plan amendment and rezone. State law limits the City’s ability to downzone residentially designated land. Senate Bill 330, known as the Housing Crisis Act, prevents the City from reducing residential capacity on a site zoned for housing without identifying replacement capacity. Government Code Section 65863 requires that cities ensure their general plans provide for regional housing needs. In addition, cities and counties are required to have no “net loss” of lower and moderate-income dwelling units. The City cannot take action that would reduce identified affordable housing sites for these income categories. Additionally, conceptual plans to develop apartments on this property have already been submitted to the City. Finally, the location across Hayes from the entrance to River Bluff Elementary school would not reduce effects on sensitive receptors or potential for traffic hazards.

This alternative location would not reduce anticipated impacts associated with construction noise and VMT. The alternative location is near the proposed project site and would result in development that requires similar construction techniques and has similar operational constraints to VMT reduction (i.e., purchasing goods in bulk can be incompatible with use of alternative modes of transportation). The site is also near sensitive receptors (residences along West Millbrae Avenue and River Bluff Elementary west of Hayes Avenue). The alternative was dismissed from further analysis because it would not lessen the environmental impacts of the project and may be infeasible due to State housing regulations and existing ownership and easement conditions.

Ascent Environmental Alternatives
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 6-5

AREA WEST OF NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND NORTH OF VETERANS BOULEVARD There are three undeveloped parcels of approximately 8 acres, 6 acres, and 9 acres that are zoned for light industrial use in the area west of North Riverside Drive and north of Veterans Boulevard. In addition to land acquisition, development of the Costco facility at this location would require a general plan amendment and zoning designation change.

However, if the three parcels were purchased and combined, this could be adequate land for the proposed facility.

The alternative site is located in the project site vicinity (northwest Fresno), approximately two-thirds of a mile south of the proposed project site. Similar to the proposed project site, it is separated from a residential subdivision by North Riverside Drive. Overall, the proximity of the alternative site to sensitive receptors is similar to the project.

Because the alternative site is in a similar area of the city and located within similar proximity to sensitive receptors, implementation of the project at the alternative site would not likely result in substantial reduction in VMT or construction noise. In addition, site access would be restricted to North Riverside Drive because Veterans Boulevard is designated as an expressway in the area and the slope of the overpass, which is substantially above grade in the area, would prohibit direct access. This could result in queuing impacts.

Finally, the parcels would have to be acquired by the project applicant. If the property owner(s) are willing to sell, all parties would need to negotiate mutually agreeable terms. Therefore, the feasibility of this alternative is unknown.

Because this off-site alternative would not likely minimize significant impacts associated with the proposed project, and its feasibility is uncertain, it is rejected from further consideration.

AREA WEST OF BULLARD AVENUE AND SOUTH OF VETERANS BOULEVARD This area is comprised of two parcels, an 11-acre parcel zoned for multi-family residential and a 9-acre parcel zoned for light industrial uses. Combined, these parcels may provide adequate land for the proposed project. In addition to land acquisition, development of the Costco facility at this location would require a general plan amendment and zoning designation change. State law limits the City’s ability to downzone residentially designated land. Senate Bill 330 prevents the City from reducing residential capacity on a site zoned for housing without identifying replacement capacity. Government Code Section 65863 requires that cities ensure their general plans provide for regional housing needs. In addition, cities and counties are required to have no “net loss” of lower and moderate-income dwelling units. The City cannot take action that would reduce identified affordable housing sites for these income categories.

Similar to the alternative site discussed above, this site is in the same general vicinity of the project (northwest Fresno), located less than 1 mile to the south of the project site. Because it is in the general vicinity of the project site, it is unlikely that implementation of the project at the alternative site would result in a substantial VMT reduction compared to the project at the proposed site.

Fewer sensitive receptors are located near this alternative site; however, unlike the residences near the project site, the residences near the alternative site do not have sound walls protecting their rear yards. Therefore, it is uncertain if implementation of the project at this location would minimize construction noise impacts.

To implement the project at this location, the parcels would have to be acquired by the project applicant. If the property owner(s) are willing to sell, all parties would need to negotiate mutually agreeable terms. This land also has power pole easements running through the property and the future alignment of West Escalon Avenue which could preclude a viable site plan. For these reasons, the feasibility of this alternative is unknown. Because this off-site alternative would not likely minimize significant impacts associated with the proposed project, and its feasibility is uncertain, it is rejected from further consideration.

6.3.2 Redevelopment of the Existing Costco Facility
Under this alternative, the existing Costco facility would be renovated in its current location, but not expanded.

Certain upgrades would be possible, including improved energy efficiency. However, site constraints would prevent expansion of the Costco facility and consolidation of the MDO processing, as envisioned with the proposed project.

Alternatives Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
6-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Existing concerns with traffic and parking would persist with continued use of the redeveloped Costco property as the customer base in northwest Fresno continues to grow. This alternative would not adequately meet most of the project objectives, including constructing and operating a new warehouse in northwest Fresno, reducing energy consumption, providing a convenient location, providing a state-of-the-art Costco facility (including home and/or business delivery service), minimizing circulation conflicts, and developing a Costco facility that is large enough to accommodate all the uses and services that Costco provides to its members elsewhere. For these reasons, this alternative is dismissed from further consideration.

6.3.3 No Gas Station Alternative
An alternative that would remove the gas station from the project was considered based on public comments. Under an alternative without the gas station, all other project elements would remain unchanged. As explained above in Section 6.2, “Considerations for Selection of Alternatives,” alternatives evaluated in detail should reduce the significant impacts anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the project as proposed, related to construction noise and operational transportation, would not be substantially lessened by this alternative.

Short-term construction noise may be slightly reduced because the gas station facility would not be constructed. As with the proposed project, construction activity under this alternative would be expected to expose existing sensitive receptors northeast and west of the site to construction noise that exceeds standards. This alternative would require implementation of the same mitigation measures as the proposed project. However, as with the proposed project, it cannot be ensured that these measures would reduce equipment noise to meet City noise standards during construction activity.

Related to vehicle trips, this alternative would eliminate VMT from customers traveling to the project site for the sole purpose of purchasing gas. However, because customers who would otherwise combine fueling with a Costco shopping trip would have to purchase gas elsewhere, the net effect on VMT is unclear.

Operation of the project would contribute to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the area from activities including delivery vehicles, landscape maintenance, HVAC equipment operation, and traffic noise. This alternative may result in slight reductions in operational noise because there would be no fuel delivery trucks, fewer idling cars queuing for gas, and potential for fewer overall trips on North Riverside Drive and Spruce Avenue. Impacts related to potential for effects on biological resources would not change because the disturbance footprint would be the same.

Potential effects on cultural or tribal cultural resources may be slightly reduced due to the potential for reduced earthwork in an alternative where excavation is not required for the underground storage tanks at the gas station.

This alternative would meet all of the established project objectives, except one: the objective to meet member demand for automobile services, including gasoline, car wash, and tire center.

This alternative was dismissed from detailed evaluation because it does not address the significant impacts of the project in a meaningful way that will result in substantial reductions to the severity of potential impacts.

6.3.1 No Spruce Avenue Connection
This alternative would construct Spruce Avenue along the northern boundary of the project site, but would not extend the roadway east to connect to the existing terminus of Spruce Road. This alternative would reduce the potential for traffic noise to affect the residences north of Spruce Avenue. This alternative is not consistent with the City’s general plan and would restrict safe and efficient traffic flow in the area. It should also be noted that even if this improvement were not a condition of project approval, because it is an identified roadway connection in the general plan, it would likely be developed in the near future, regardless of project approval. For these reasons, the alternative has been dismissed from detailed analysis.

Ascent Environmental Alternatives
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 6-7

6.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are evaluated in this Draft EIR:

X 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.

X Alternative 1b: No Development Alternative assumes continued operation of the existing Costco facility at its current location and no development of the project site.

X 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.

X 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.

Further details on these alternatives, and an evaluation of environmental effects relative to the proposed project, are provided below. As described above, the alternatives are intended to “avoid or substantially lessen” the significant impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). For this reason, the alternative evaluation below focuses on the environmental resources where there is a significant impact identified (prior to mitigation) in Chapter 3:
aesthetics; archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources; biological resources; noise and vibration; and transportation and circulation. Resources in which the project would generate less-than-significant impacts are only specifically evaluated where there is a potential for a substantial change in the severity of the impact.

6.4.1 Alternative 1a: No Project Alternative - Development Consistent with Existing Land Use and Zoning
The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][1]) states the purpose for describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The guidelines suggest two typical paths for discussing the no project alternative: 1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, the no project alternative would be a continuation of the existing plan not the future, or 2) if the project is other than a land use plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed, specifically the practical result of the project’s non-approval (not a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment).

In the case of this no project alternative, because the project site is designated and zoned for commercial use, is surrounded on all sides by existing development, has immediate access to adjacent roads and public utilities, and contains no major development constraints, it is reasonably foreseeable that this project site would be developed in the moderately near future. Also, because the project includes amendments to the City’s General Plan and rezoning of the site, examining an alternative that maintains the current land use designation and zoning would be useful to decision makers.

For these reasons, Alternative 1a assumes that development of the site would occur consistent with existing land use designation (Community Commercial) and zoning (Community Commercial) of the site (it would be speculative to assume otherwise). 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, 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 Alternatives Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
6-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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 floor 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 this 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 would persist with intensification of the use of the Costco property as the customer base in northwest Fresno continues to grow. 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 1awould 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.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Less-than-Significant Project Impacts
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts (with no mitigation measures required) related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities, and wildfire. 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.

Alternative 1a assumes development of the project site with a commercial use that is consistent with the existing zoning.

Under this alternative, it is assumed that the entire site would be graded, although the overall level of construction would be slightly less. Potential to generate long-term operational emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be similar to the project, and similar SJVAPCD standards would likely be applied. Because the proposed project would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to the issues listed above, the No Project Alternative would result in a similar level of impact.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Alternative 1a, similar to the proposed project, would include grading of the entire project site. The proposed project’s impacts to archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources are less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Alternative 1a would require similar mitigation measures and its impacts would be reduced in the same manner. Therefore, the overall level of impact would be similar.

Biological Resources
Grading of the entire site is assumed under Alternative 1a, and the same mitigation measures would be required. These mitigation measures, as applied to either the proposed project (as described in Section 3.5, “Biological Resources”) or the No Project Alternative, would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the overall impact would be similar.

Noise and Vibration
The project would result in a significant impact related to construction noise, primarily due to the need for nighttime construction. The need for nighttime construction relates primarily to the large foundation necessary for a Costco facility. 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 necessary 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 Ascent Environmental Alternatives
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 6-9
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. This impact would be less.

Transportation and Circulation
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 (TDM) 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 much 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. The impact would be less.

6.4.2 Alternative 1b: No Project Alternative – No Development The No Development Alternative is a version of the “no project” alternative wherein the existing environmental setting is 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. The No Development Alternative would not meet any of the objectives established for the project.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Less-than-Significant Project Impacts
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts (with no mitigation measures required) related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities, and wildfire. The No Development Alternative would eliminate all environmental effects of construction and operation identified in Chapter 3 of this EIR. The proposed project would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to the issues listed above and the No Development Alternative would result in less impact.

The exceptions would be impacts related to land use. These are discussed individually below.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources This alternative would eliminate the potential for development to disturb archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources present on the project site. This would avoid a significant impact of the project. The No Development Alternative would result in less impact.

Biological Resources
This alternative would eliminate the effect of development on biological resources present on the project site. This would avoid a significant impact of the project. The No Development Alternative would result in less impact.

Land Use
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 general plan land use designation and zoning, which have been established by the City to identify appropriate locations for Alternatives Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
6-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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. Overall, the No Development Alternative would result in impacts that are similar to the proposed project.

Noise and Vibration
This alternative would eliminate the effect of construction noise on sensitive receptors. This would avoid a significant impact of the project. The No Development Alternative would result in less impact.

Transportation and Circulation
Under the No Development Alternative, the project site would not generate VMT or contribute to traffic that results in queuing hazards. This would avoid a significant impact of the project. The No Development Alternative would result in less impact.

6.4.3 Alternative 2: Reduced Size Costco Warehouse
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 total VMT. 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.

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 of the MDO 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 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.

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.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Less-than-Significant Project Impacts
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts (with no mitigation measures required) related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities, and wildfire. 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. Because the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the issues listed above, the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative would result in a similar level of impact.

Ascent Environmental Alternatives
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 6-11
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Implementation of the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative, similar to the proposed project, would include grading of the entire project site. The proposed project’s impacts to archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources are less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. The Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative would require similar mitigation measures and its impacts would be reduced in the same manner. Therefore, the overall level of impact would be similar.

Biological Resources
Grading of the entire project site is assumed under the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative, and the same mitigation measures would be required. These mitigation measures, as applied to either the proposed project (as described in Section 3.5, “Biological Resources”) or the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative, would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the overall impact would be similar.

Noise and Vibration
As described above, one of the project’s significant impacts relates to construction noise, primarily due to the need for nighttime construction. It is likely that a smaller Costco warehouse structure would still require overnight construction for the foundation pour. Also as described above, due to the way noise attenuates, even if the smaller Costco warehouse was moved farther away from existing residences that back onto North Riverside Drive, it likely would not be enough to avoid or substantially reduce the impact. However, the increased distance, in combination with the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” would result in a slight reduction in the level of nighttime noise. Therefore, the impact would be slightly less.

Transportation and Circulation
Decreasing the size of the Costco warehouse would reduce the total VMT generated because the alternative would involve fewer shoppers, fewer employees, and fewer deliveries than the proposed project. However, as discussed in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” the City’s CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds states that “VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT.” Although the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative may result in a slight decrease in total VMT, it would not eliminate the VMT generated. It would also not change the effectiveness of mitigation measures (i.e., shoppers buying in bulk would not typically use bicycle or transit).

Therefore, although the Reduced Size Costco Warehouse Alternative would likely result in a modest reduction in the overall VMT, it would not minimize or avoid the impact altogether, and the impact would be slightly less under the alternative.

6.4.4 Alternative 3: Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative A possible approach for reducing project impacts related to VMT would be to adjust the land use mix to include land uses with higher VMT efficiency. High-density residential, especially in combination with retail and commercial development, is usually one of the more VMT-efficient land uses. 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 may perform moderately well in this location compared to the project. However, a Costco warehouse facility would not provide the ideal retail facility to coexist on the same property as a multi-family housing development. A grocerystore-anchored shopping center or other mixed-retail center that would allow residents to walk to shopping and possible jobs would be more appropriate. Also, to accommodate a high-density housing structure, the Costco warehouse component would need to occupy a much smaller footprint.

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. 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 MDO facility would be included under this alternative.

Critically, the Costco warehouse structure would be designed such that loading docks and other noise- and airpollutant-generating facilities and equipment are located on the side of the building farthest from any sensitive receptor and as far from sensitive receptors as possible, including the on-site high-density residential structure. It Alternatives Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
6-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
should be noted that this design constraint may affect the feasibility of this alternative and that more detailed design work would be needed to make the final feasibility determination.

If feasible, 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 multistory 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.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Less-than-Significant Project Impacts
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts (with no mitigation measures required) related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities, and wildfire. 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 proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the issues listed above and the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative would result in a similar level of impact. Two exceptions would be impacts related to aesthetics and land use. These are discussed individually below.

Aesthetics
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics. However, 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 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.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Implementation of the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative, similar to the proposed project, would include grading of the entire project site. The proposed project’s impacts to archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources are less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. The Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative would require similar mitigation measures and its impacts would be reduced in the same manner.

Therefore, the overall level of impact would be similar.

Biological Resources
Grading of the entire project site is assumed under the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative, and the same mitigation measures would be required. These mitigation measures, as applied to either the proposed project (as described in Section 3.5, “Biological Resources”) or the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative, would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the overall impact would be similar.

Noise and Vibration
One of the project’s significant impacts relates to construction noise, primarily due to the need for nighttime construction. 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. Overall, the impacts associated with the Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative would be similar.

Ascent Environmental Alternatives
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 6-13
Transportation and Circulation
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. Effects on queuing and roadway hazards would be reduced.

The overall impact would be slightly less.

6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Because the No Development Alternative (Alternative 1b, described above in Section 6.4.2) would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project, as analyzed in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, it is the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Development Alternative would not meet the objectives the project.

The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1a, described above in Section 6.4.1) 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 selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other action alternatives evaluated. As illustrated in Table 6-1, below, Alternative 2: Reduced Size Costco Warehouse would be 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.

Table 6-1 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to the Proposed Project Environmental Topic Proposed
Project
Alternative 1a:

No
Project/Develo
pment
Alternative
1b: No
Project/No
Development
Alternative 2:

Reduced Size
Costco
Warehouse
Alternative 3:

Mixed-Use
Costco Center
Aesthetics LTS Similar Less Similar Greater
Agricultural and Forestry Resources LTS Similar Less Similar Similar Air Quality LTSM Similar Less Similar Similar
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural
Resources LTSM Similar Less Similar Similar
Biological Resources LTSM Similar Less Similar Similar
Energy LTS Similar Less Similar Similar
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change LTS Similar Less Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality LTS Similar Less Similar Similar Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS Similar Less Similar Similar Land Use and Planning LTS Similar Similar Similar Similar Noise and Vibration SU Less Less Slightly Less Similar
Public Services LTS Similar Less Similar Similar
Transportation and Circulation SU Less Less Slightly Less Slightly Less Utilities LTS Similar Less Similar Similar
Notes: bold text indicates that the project avoids or minimizes a significant impact associated with the project; LTS = less than significant; LTSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Alternatives Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
6-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 7-1
7 REPORT PREPARERS
City of Fresno (Lead Agency)
Jose Valenzuela .................................................................................................................................................................. Supervising Planner Phillip Siegrist .........................................................................................................................................................................Planning Manager Ascent Environmental, Inc. (CEQA Compliance)
Mike Parker, AICP .................................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Jessica Babcock......................................................................................................................................................................... Project Manager Allison Fuller .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Biologist Tammie Beyerl ............................................................................................................................................................................ Senior Biologist Jazmin Amini ............................................................................................................ Environmental Planner, Noise and Transportation Zachary Miller..............................................................................................Senior Environmental Planner, Noise and Transportation Julia Wilson ................................................................................. Environmental Planner, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Marianne Lowenthal ....................................................................................... Environmental Planner, Hydrology and Water Quality Jim Merk ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Editor Michele Mattei ........................................................................................................................................... Document Production Specialist Riley Smith ................................................................................................................................................................................... Word Processor Natural Investigations Company (Cultural Resources)
Cindy Arrington, MS, RPA ..................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Transportation)
Amy Lopez ............................................................................................................................................................................... Associate Planner Ramboll US Consulting (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy) Eric Lu...................................................................................................................................................................................... Managing Principal Haley Ozcan ..................................................................................................................................................................... Managing Consultant Urban Planning Partners (Applicant Representative)
Lynette Dias ............................................................................................................................................................................................. President

Report Preparers Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
7-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 8-1
8 REFERENCES
Executive Summary
No references used in this chapter.

Chapter 1 Introduction
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-EFNSMEIR.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2021.

Fresno County. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report. Available:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/8398/636379166183770000. Accessed December 14, 2021.

Kleinfelder. 2021 (May). Geotechnical Study: Proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse and Fuel Facility NE Corner of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive Fresno, California 93722. Prepared for Costco Wholesale, Issaquah, WA.

Chapter 2 Project Description
Natural Investigations Company. 2022 (June, Revised). Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Costco Commercial Center Development Project in the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared for Ascent Environmental, Inc. Sacramento, CA.

LSA. 2021. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. Clovis, CA. Submitted to City of Fresno, CA.

Chapter 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section 3.1 Aesthetics
City of Fresno. 2014 (December). Fresno General Plan. Prepared by the Development and Resource Management Department, Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. Oakland, CA.

Section 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
California Department of Conservation. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder tool. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed January 2022.

City of Fresno. 2014 (December). Fresno General Plan. Prepared by the Development and Resource Management Department, Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. Oakland, CA. ———. 2022. GIS Data Viewing Application. Available:
https://cityoffresno.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=dbd9813b2fa74382b3096b9613e747 0d. Accessed: January 20, 2022.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

Section 3.3 Air Quality
Behera, Sailesh N. and Mukesh Sharma. 2010. Reconstructing Primary and Secondary Components of PM2.5 Composition for an Urban Atmosphere. Available:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02786826.2010.504245#:~:text=Typical%20PM2.,road%20dust %20(Hildemann%20et%20al. Accessed November 10, 2021.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model. Available:
https://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed July 20, 2022.

References Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
8-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
California Air Resources Board. 2000 (October). Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engines and Vehicles. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2017.
______. 2013. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2013 Edition. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed January 4, 2017. ______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2017.
———. 2020. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. Accessed January 26, 2022. ———. 2022a. Outdoor Air Quality Standards homepage. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/outdoor-air-quality-standards/about. Accessed August 29, 2022. ———. 2022b. Top 4 Summary. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed August 29, 2022.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

OEHHA. See Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015 (February). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

Propper, Ralph, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo. 2015. Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. Available:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b02766. Accessed November 10, 2021.

Ramboll Environ. 2022. Final Air Quality Technical Report prepared for the City of Fresno.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015a. Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF.

Accessed August 29, 2022.
———. 2015b. Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Responsent, County of Fresno and Real Part in Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, LP. Available: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/7-s219783-ac-san-joaquin-valley-unified-airpollution-control-dist-041315.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2022. ———. 2015c. Final Staff Report Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document. Available: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf.

Accessed August 29, 2022.
———. 2016. 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available:
http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2022. ———. 2018. Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments. Available:
http://www.valleyair.org/policies_per/Policies/APR-1906-7-1-18.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2022.

SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Seinfeld, J. H., and S. N. Pandis. 1996. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Ascent Environmental References
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 8-3
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2015. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Part and Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae. Available:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2022.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012 (April). 2008 Ground-Level Ozone Standards: Region 9 Final Designations.

Available: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/ozone/index.html. Accessed January 4, 2017. ———. 2021a. Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environmental and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidentialactions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-totackle-climate-crisis/. Accessed January 26, 2022. ———. 2021b. NHTSA Finalizes Repeal of Trump-Era Rule Blocking State Fuel Economy Standards. Available:
https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/nhtsa-finalizes-repeal-trump-era-rule-blocking-state-fueleconomystandards#:~:text=On%20December%2021%2C%202021%2C%20the,had%20codified%20the%20preemption %20of. Accessed July 20, 2022.
———. 2022. Greenbook: 8-Hour Ozone (2015) Designated Area State/Area/County Report. Data is current as of August 31, 2021. Accessed September 15, 2021.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2002. Average Wind Direction. Available:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climatedata/climtables/westwinddir/. Accessed January 4, 2017. ______. 2016. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7630.

Accessed January 4, 2017.

WRCC. See Western Regional Climate Center.

Section 3.4 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno. 2014 (December). Fresno General Plan. Prepared by the Development and Resource Management Department, Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. Oakland, CA.

Natural Investigations Company. 2021 (November). Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Costco Commercial Center Development Project in the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared for Ascent Environmental, Inc. Sacramento, CA.
———. 2022 (June, Revised). Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Costco Commercial Center Development Project in the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared for Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Sacramento, CA.

NIC. See Natural Investigations Company.

Section 3.5 Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843. Accessed November 17, 2021.

California Native Plant Society. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v3-03

0.39). Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed October 25, 2021.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2021. Results of electronic records search. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 25, 2021.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

City of Fresno. 2014. Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared by First Carbon Solutions, Fresno, CA.

References Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
8-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California.

Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366. Accessed November 17, 2021.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/185116. Accessed December 27, 2021. ———. 2021. Information for Planning and Consultation electronic records search. Available:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed November 17, 2021.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi), and Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered Under the California Endangered Species Act. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=161902&inline. Accessed July 21, 2021.

Section 3.6 Energy
AFDC. See Alternative Fuels Data Center.

California Department of Transportation. 2008. 2007 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast.

Available:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/8150Sunset/References/6.0.%20Other%20CEQA%20Considerations/OTHER.03_ 2008%20California%20Motor%20Vehicle%20Stock,%20Travel%20and%20Fuel%20Forecast.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2021.

California Energy Commission. 2021. PG&E Power Content Label. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3882. Accessed August 29, 2022. ‘ ———. 2022a. Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report. Accessed August 29, 2022.
———. 2022b. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outletannual-reporting. Accessed August 29, 2022.

California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board. 2003. Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.
———. 2018 (March). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.

Accessed August 20, 2018.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

CEC and CARB. See California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board.

EIA. See U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. Accessed August 2022.

Ascent Environmental References
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 8-5
IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Statewide Summary Report. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018- 013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf. Accessed August 2022.

OPR et al. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency.

Ramboll Environ. 2022. Energy Technical Report. Prepared for the City of Fresno.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector, 2020. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#:~:text=Profile%20Overview&text=In%202021%2C%20California%20was %20the%20nation's%20top%20producer%20of%20electricity,drought%20and%20increased%20water%20de mand. Accessed August 29, 2022.

Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. CalEEMod Users Guides. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-s-guide2020-4-

0.pdf?sfvrsn=6. Accessed March 8, 2023.

California Air Resources Board. 2018. Proposed Update to Senate Bill 385 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets Resolution 18-12. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/SB375_Final_Target_Staff_Report_%202018_Resolution_18-12.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2023. ———. 2019. Technical Evaluation of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Quantification for Fresno Council of Governments’ SB 385 2018 Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Technical_Evaluation_of_the_GHG_Emissions_Reduction_Quantification_for_the_FCOG_SB_375_SCS_Septe mber_2019.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2023.
———. 2022. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000- 2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2023.

California Energy Commission. 2018 (March). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Frequently Asked Questions.

Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.

Accessed August 23, 2018.

California Natural Resources Agency. 2018 (January). Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. Available:
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan-2018- update.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2018.

CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

City of Fresno. 2020. Fresno General Plan. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2022.

CNRA. See California Natural Resources Agency.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

References Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
8-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Gould, S., and K. Dervin. 2012. Climate Action for Health: Integrating Public Health into Climate Action Planning.

California Department of Public Health.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017 (November). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20171127_Transportation_Analysis_TA_Nov_2017.pdf.

Accessed August 23, 2018.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency. 2018a (August). California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. AR4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. ———. 2013. Chapter 6, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Pages 465–570 in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2018.

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

NHTSA. See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

OPR et al. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency.

Ostro, Bart, Stephen Rauch, and Shelley Green. 2011. Quantifying the Health Impacts of Future Changes in Temperature in California. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393511100212X. Accessed July 7, 2023.

Kittleson & Associates. 2023 (May). Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis. Prepared for Costco Wholesale.

McMichael, A. J., and E. Lindgren. 2011. Climate Change: Present and Future Risks to Health, and Necessary Responses. Journal of Internal Medicine 270(5):401–413.

Pierce, D. W., J. F Kalansky, and D. R. Cayan. 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. California Energy Commission. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/2019-11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018-006_ADA.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2022.

Polade, S. D., A. Gershunov, D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger, and D. W. Pierce. 2017. Precipitation in a Warming World:

Assessing Projected Hydro-Climate Changes in California and Other Mediterranean Climate Regions.

Scientific Reports 7, article number 10783. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11285-y.

Accessed May 23, 2022.

Ramboll Environ. 2022. Greenhouse Gas Technical Report for the City of Fresno Costco Project. Prepared for Costco Wholesale.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF.

Accessed August 29, 2022.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement. Available: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

Accessed July 7, 2023.

US Global Change Research Program. 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.

Ascent Environmental References
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 8-7
Wade, Samuel. Branch chief. Transportation Fuels Branch, Industrial Strategies Division, California Air Resources %RDUG6DFUDPHQWR&$-XQHȵH-mail to Austin Kerr of Ascent Environmental regarding whether the Low Carbon Fuel Standard applies to fuels used by off-road construction equipment.

Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. ———. 2019 (March 7). Conditions for Roadway Closures and Lane Closures. City of Fresno Traffic Operations and Planning.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2021. EnviroStor database. Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed September 27, 2021.

Fresno County. 1999 (July 20). Certification of Response Actions. Human Services System, Community Health Department. Fresno, CA.
———. 2018 (April). Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler. Fresno, CA.

Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission. 2018 (December). Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Prepared by Coffman Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA.
———. n.d. Sierra Sky Park – Airport Influence Area and Safety Zones. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2020/04/ALUCP-Sierra-Sky-Park_.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2021.

Fresno County ALUC See. Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Kleinfelder. 2021 (February 26). Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report Proposed Costco Warehouse and Gas Station. Fresno, CA.

Paquette, L. 2007 (September 27). 50-Year Flight of Fancy. Plane and Pilot. Fresno, CA.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2021a. Geotracker Database. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Accessed September 21, 2021.
———. 2021b. Riverside Golf Course (T0601900156). Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0601900156. Accessed September 21, 2021.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. EnviroMapper Database. Available:
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/em4ef.home. Accessed September 27, 2021.

Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
California Water Boards. 2022 (February). Amended Notice of Applicability; General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Strom Sewer Systems, Order R5-2016-0040. Fresno, CA. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2016-0040/r5- 2016-0040-003_amend.pdf. Accessed: August 2022.

California Department of Water Resources. 2022. Dam Breach Inundation Map. Online Web Application. Available:
https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. Accessed.

Chapman, Gary. Engineering Technician III. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Fresno, CA. March and April 2021. Email correspondence with Andrew Delia of Kimley-Horn regarding drainage requirements.

References Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
8-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
City of Fresno. 2014a (December). Fresno General Plan. Prepared by the Development and Resource Management Department, Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. Oakland, CA. ———. 2014b. (July 22). Draft Master Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Fresno, CA. Prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, Fresno, CA. Available:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/general-plan-development-code/. Accessed January 2022. ———. 2021a. Grading Plan Check Process. Fresno, CA. Development and Resource Management Department.

Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/GradingPlanCheckFlyer.pdf.

Accessed November 13, 2018.
———. 2021b. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Fresno, CA. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wpcontent/uploads/sites/16/2021/06/Fresno-2020-UWMP_Public-Draft_2021-06-29.pdf. Accessed August 2022.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Map Service Center. Panel 06019C1535H - Effective 2/18/2009.

Available: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=city%20of%20fresno#searchresultsanchor.

Accessed November 13, 2018.

Fresno County. 2009. Underground Storage Tank Closure Guidelines. Prepared by the County of Fresno Department of Public Health. Available: https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12695/ 636413459741470000. Accessed January 2022.
———. 2018. Public Review Draft: Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743. Accessed February 28, 2019.

Kleinfelder. 2021. Geotechnical Study: Proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse and Fuel Facility, NE Corner of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive, Fresno California 93722, CW# 20-0569. Prepared for Costco Wholesale. Issaquah, WA.

North Kings GSA. See North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 2019. North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Executive Summary. Available: https://northkingsgsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ExecutiveSummary.pdf. Accessed: December 2021.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2016. Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303d) List/305(b) Report.

Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/ 01308.shtml#57464. Accessed: November 2021.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Section 3.10 Land Use
City of Fresno. 1991 (April). 1988 Bullard Community Plan and Related Final Environmental Impact Report. Originally adopted and certified on December 20, 1988. Development Department, Planning Division. Fresno, CA. ———. 2014 (December 18). Fresno General Plan. Development and Resource Management Department. Fresno, CA. ———. 2015. City of Fresno Municipal Code. First adopted November 17, 1955. ———. 2016 (December). Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code. Development and Resource Management Department.
———. 2021. Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2019050005. check throughout document. Adopted on September 30, 2021.

Section 3.11 Noise and Vibration
California Department of Transportation. 2011 (May). Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol-may2011- a11y.pdf.

Ascent Environmental References
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 8-9
————. 2013 (September). Technical Noise Supplement. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. ————. 2020 (April). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

City of Cypress. 2018 (September). Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Barton Place Project.

Appendix E: Trash Compactor Noise Letter. Prepared by A3 Acoustics. Available:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=8524.

City of Fresno. 2014 (December). Fresno General Plan. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf ———. 2022. City of Fresno Code of Ordinances. Available:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances.

City of Redding. 2018 (April). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the River Crossing Marketplace Specific Plan.

Available:

City of Sacramento. 2018. Quick Quack Car Wash (P17-073) Addendum to the College Square Planned Unit Development Environmental Impact Report. Available: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/- /media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Environmental-Impact-Reports/Quick-Quack-Car-Wash-P17073- Addendum-051618.pdf?la=en. Accessed: August 19, 2022.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5. Available for download at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/purchasing_tnm/. Accessed April 4, 2017. ———. 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Washington, D.C. Prepared by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, MA. ———. 2010 (June). FHWA Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/ revguidance.pdf.

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise 1997 (June). Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep.

Available: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12651.
———. 1998 (February). Federal Interagency Committee of Aviation Noise: 1997 Annual Report. Prepared by Harris Miller & Hanson Inc. Burlington, MA.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

FICAN. See Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise.

Fresno Council of Governments. 2018 (December). Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared by Coffman Associates, Inc. Available: https://2ave3l244ex63mgdyc1u2mfp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/fresno-draft-ALUCP-12-04-17c.pdf. Accessed: November 16, 2021.

Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission. 1995 (October). Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan. Available:
https://2ave3l244ex63mgdyc1u2mfp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/publications/ALUC/Sierra_Sky_Park_Land_Use_Policy_Plan.pdf. Accessed: November 16, 2021.

References Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
8-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022. Fresno Costco Project Average Daily Traffic: Existing and Existing-Plus-Project.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Available:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf.

OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Sacramento County. 1999 (November). Report on the Status of Rubberized Asphalt Traffic Noise Reduction in Sacramento County. Prepared by the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment and Bollard & Brennan, Inc. Available:
https://www.rubberpavements.org/Library_Information/4_6_Sac_County_Noise_Study.pdf. Accessed: April 2022.

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.
———. 1978 (November). Protective Noise Levels.

Section 3.12 Public Services
City of Fresno. 2022. Fire Incidents Dashboard. Available:
https://cityoffresno.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=39f61c4f0a284c4aae1333214d0ca7b

7. Accessed May 2, 2022.

City of Fresno 2020. Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2019050005. Prepared by LSA, Fresno. CA.

Section 3.13 Transportation and Circulation
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021 (December). Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. Available:
https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2022.

California Department of Transportation. 2020 (May). Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb743/2020-05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2021.

City of Fresno. 1987 (April). City of Fresno Parking Manual. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wpcontent/uploads/sites/17/2016/09/Parking-Manual.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2022. ———. 1988 (December). Bullard Community Plan. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/BullardCommunityPlan.pdf. ———. 2014. General Plan: Mobility and Transportation Element. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/General-Plan-4-Mobility-and-Transportation-7-19.pdf.

Ascent Environmental References
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 8-11
———. 2016 (December). Active Transportation Plan. Prepared by Fehr & Peers. Fresno, CA. Available:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2016/09/170022FresnoATPFinal012017.pdf.

Accessed: February 16, 2022.
———. 2019a (September). Complete Streets Policy. Policy Number 240.3. Department of Public Works. Available:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2019/10/Complete-Streets-091119.pdf.

Accessed: February 16, 2022.
———. 2019b (June). City of Fresno Public Works Department Policies and Procedures: Traffic Control Policies and Procedures. Policy Number 210.01. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wpcontent/uploads/sites/17/2019/07/Traffic-Control-Policies-and-Procedures.pdf. ———. 2019c (March). City of Fresno Public Works Department Policies and Procedures: Conditions for Roadway Closures and Lane Closures. Policy Number 210.1. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wpcontent/uploads/sites/17/2019/07/Road-Closure-Policy.pdf. ———. 2020 (June). CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2020/06/CEQA-Guidelines-for-Vehicle-Miles-Traveled-Thresholds-June-2020- DRAFT.pdf.
———. 2022 (June). Review of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Dated February 2022, for the Proposed Relocation of a Costco Warehouse to the Northeast Corner of Herndon Avenue and Riverside Drive. Prepared by Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE. Supervising Professional Engineer. Public Works Department, Traffic Operations & Planning Services.

Fresno Council of Governments. 2018 (January). Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan. Available:
https://2ave3l244ex63mgdyc1u2mfp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Cover-Chapter1-rev.pdf. Accessed: November 12, 2021. ———. 2019 (March). Fresno County Regional Long-Range Transit Plan 2019-2050. Available:
https://www.fresnocog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Fresno-County-Regional-Long-Range-Transit-Plan031319-hg-32.pdf. Accessed: November 22, 2021. ———. 2021 (January). Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines. Prepared by LSA. Available:
https://2ave3l244ex63mgdyc1u2mfp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fresno-COGVMT-Report-1.pdf. Accessed: November 12, 2021. ———. 2022 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted July 28, 2022.

Available: https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communities-strategies-fall-outreach/ Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018 (December). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed:

November 12, 2021.

Kittleson & Associates. 2023 (May). Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis. Prepared for Costco Wholesale.

Section 3.14 Utilities
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?siteID=352. Accessed September 29, 2021.

CalRecyle See. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

Chapman, Gary. Engineering Technician III. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Fresno, CA. March and April 2021. Email correspondence with Andrew Delia of Kimley-Horn regarding drainage requirements.

References Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
8-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
City of Fresno. 2014a (December 18). Fresno General Plan. Development and Resource Management Department.

Fresno, CA.
________. 2014b. Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update. Prepared by First Carbon Solutions for the City of Fresno. Fresno, CA. ________. 2021a (July 15). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. for the City of Fresno, Department of Public Utilities. Fresno, CA.
________. 2021b (March 26). Will Serve for Northeast corner of North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue, APN 503-020-12. Fresno, California.
________. n.d.a. Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF). Available:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilities-infrastructure/fresno-clovis-regional-wastewater-reclamationfacility-rwrf/. Accessed September 29, 2021. ________. n.d.b. Solid Waste Facilities. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/trash-disposal-recycling/solidwaste-facilities/. Accessed September 29, 2021. ________. n.d.c. Multi-Family & Commercial Services. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/trash-disposalrecycling/multi-family-commercial-services/. Accessed September 29, 2021. ________. n.d.d. Trash Disposal and Recycling. Available: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/trash-disposalrecycling/. Accessed December 2, 2021.

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.

Planning & Development Dept/Current Planning
Gleick, P.H.; Haasz, D.; Henges-Jeck, C.; Srinivasan, V.; Cushing, K.K.; Mann, A. 2003. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. Published by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Full report available online at:
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/urban_usage/waste_not_want_not_full_report.pdf. Appendices available online at: http://pacinst.org/publication/waste-not-want-not/.

Reclamation See. US Bureau of Reclamation.

Sievert, Daniel. Mechanical Engineer, T.E., Inc. July 6, 2023. Memorandum. Costco Wholesale building fixture water use.

US Bureau of Reclamation. n.d. Central Valley Project. Available: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/. Accessed September 28, 2021.

Chapter 4 Cumulative Impacts
City of Fresno. 2014. Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared by First Carbon Solutions, Fresno, CA.

Chapter 5 Other Considerations
City of Fresno. 2014 (December 18). Fresno General Plan. Fresno, CA. Prepared by City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, Oakland, CA.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Available:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodT ype=table. Accessed March 1, 2019.

Chapter 6 Alternatives
No references used in this chapter.

Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and Comments
Received Suring the Scoping Period

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 1

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SCOPING MEETING

FOR THE

COSTCO COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT
Date: October 22, 2021
To: State Clearinghouse, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations
Subject: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the Costco Commercial Center Project, Fresno, California Lead Agency: City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8277
Contact: Jose Valenzuela, Planner III
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8070
[email protected]
Comment Period: October 22, 2021 – November 22, 2021

PURPOSE OF NOTICE
The Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) proposes to construct the Costco Commercial Center (hereafter “project”), which comprises a new Costco facility (including loading docks and internal space to provide last-mile home delivery of big and bulky items) with an attached tire center and a detached gas station and drive-through car wash in the City of Fresno. As the lead agency, the City of Fresno will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and is issuing this Notice of Preparation (NOP) per Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The purpose of this NOP is to provide agencies, interested parties, and organizations with sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable meaningful input related to the scope and content of information to be included in the EIR. The EIR will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project on both a direct and cumulative basis and identify potentially feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that may lessen or avoid impacts.

The City is requesting input from the public and responsible and trustee agencies on environmental issues associated with development of the project, as described in this NOP.

Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
2 Costco Commercial Center Project
Comments received during this public comment period will be used to focus the environmental analyses in the EIR.

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND SCOPING MEETING
This NOP is available for public review and comment for 30 days beginning October 22, 2021. The City will hold a public scoping meeting to inform interested parties about the project and provide agencies and the public with an opportunity to submit comments on the scope and content of the EIR. In response to COVID-19, the public scoping meeting will be conducted virtually on November 2, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.

Web link: https://zoom.us/j/98798625753
Call-in Information: 1-669-900-9128
Webinar ID: 98798625753
Meeting Date: November 2, 2021
Meeting Time: 6:00 p.m.

Any interested person may appear at the public hearing electronically, by either Zoom meeting or telephone. If you have any questions regarding the scoping meeting, contact Jose Valenzuela, Project Planner, at (559) 621-8070 or [email protected]. Si necesita información en Español, comuníquese con Jose Valenzuela al teléfono (559) 621-8070 o por correo electrónico [email protected].

Submitting Comments
Comments and suggestions as to the appropriate scope of analysis in the EIR are invited from all interested parties. Written comments or questions concerning the EIR should be directed to the City’s project manager at the following address. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on November 22, 2021. Please include the commenter’s full name and address.

Jose Valenzuela, Planner III
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8070
[email protected]
Si necesita información en Español, comuníquese con Jose Valenzuela al teléfono (559) 621-8070 o por correo electrónico [email protected].

Copies of this NOP may be reviewed at the following locations:
f Fresno County Public Library during library hours;
f City of Fresno, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; or f Online at: https://www.fresno.gov/cityclerk/notices-publications/ Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 3

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project would develop a new Costco retail building; gas station; car wash; and associated parking areas, driveways, and other supporting infrastructure. The existing Costco at 4500 West Shaw Avenue would relocate to the new facility, which would be sized to accommodate the customer base in northwest Fresno. The existing Costco gas station would be decommissioned, including removal of the underground storage tanks. The existing and proposed Costco sites are shown in Figure 1.

The project would allow Costco to expand services in the area to include a larger gas station and a car wash, as well as a loading area to facilitate last-mile home delivery of big and bulky items in the Fresno area. The Costco retail building is consistent with established zoning for the parcel; however, a re-zone and General Plan amendment would be required to permit the proposed car wash.

The project also includes a proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning to reclassify the adjacent portion of West Herndon Avenue from expressway to super arterial to allow the construction of an intersection where West Herndon Avenue meets the Arthur Avenue right-ofway. The intersection would allow project traffic to access the project site via two north-south streets, rather than solely from North Riverside Drive. This would permit easier travel for southbound drivers along North Riverside Drive, including nearby residents and visitors to the Riverside Golf Course.

Costco Wholesale facilities are operated on a membership-only basis. The warehouse and car wash hours are anticipated to be Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The fuel station would operate from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.

Project Location
The proposed location of the Costco Commercial Center site is a vacant 22.4-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Boulevard in the City of Fresno. The project site is a single parcel, bordered by West Spruce Avenue to the north, the right-of-way of (currently unbuilt) Arthur Avenue to the east, West Herndon Avenue to the south, and North Riverside Boulevard to the east. The site’s address is 7120 North Riverside Drive and the assessor’s parcel number (APN) is 503-02-012 (Figure 2). Local access to the site is provided by West Herndon Avenue, West Spruce Avenue, and North Riverside Boulevard. Regional access is provided by State Route (SR) 99, via the West Herndon Avenue interchange approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest.

Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
4 Costco Commercial Center Project
Source: adapted by Ascent in 2021
Figure 1 Regional Location of Project and Existing Costco Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 5
Source: adapted by Ascent in 2021
Figure 2 Project Location
Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
6 Costco Commercial Center Project
Requested Entitlements
The project would require the following entitlements from the City of Fresno:
f A General Plan Amendment and rezoning to reclassify the portion of West Herndon Avenue fronting the project site from expressway to super arterial, to change the site’s General Plan Land Use Designation from Community Commercial to General Commercial, and to change the site’s zoning designation from CC (Commercial – Community) to CG (Commercial General); f A conditional use permit (CUP) per Table 15-1202 in Section 15-1202 of the Fresno Municipal Code to establish a Large-Format Retail, Service Station, and Car Wash within the CG zone; f A CUP per Section 15-2706 the Fresno Municipal Code to establish a new use including the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption;
f A Planned Development Permit per Section 15-59 of the Fresno Municipal Code to allow variation from the standards for parking lot lighting in Section 15-2015; and f Approval of a Parcel Map for the subdivision of the existing parcel into two resultant parcels.

Project Elements

COSTCO RETAIL BUILDING
The proposed Costco building would be 178,223 square feet (sq. ft.); of which approximately 57,000 sq. ft. would be reserved for storage and receiving (Figure 3). The structure would be set in the southeastern corner of the project site, with parking provided primarily to the north and east of the building. The sales floor area would include a tire center, optical exams and optical sales, hearing aid testing and sales, food service preparation and sales, meat preparation and sales, bakery and sales of baked goods, and alcohol sales. The southwest portion of the warehouse would contain areas for receiving, storing, and loading items for last-mile home delivery of big and bulky items.

COSTCO GAS STATION
The project would include a Costco members-only gas station on the northern portion of the project site adjacent to West Spruce Avenue. The facility would include an approximately 11,500 square-foot canopy and a 125 square-foot controller enclosure. There would be four covered fueling islands, each with four two-sided fuel dispensers to provide for the fueling of eight cars at each island, for a total of 32 fueling positions. The fueling station would also have eight stacking lanes, allowing approximately 40 cars to wait for pumps at any given time in addition to the 32 cars at the dispensers. The dispensers would be fully automated and self-service. A Costco attendant would be present at all times of operation to oversee operations and assist members.

Four underground fuel tanks would also be installed at the southern edge of the gas station.

Lights would be recessed into the canopy to provide both lighting during operating hours and a lower level of security lighting after hours.

Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 7
Source: Image produced and provided by Kimley Horn & Associates in 2021 Figure 3 Site Plan
Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
8 Costco Commercial Center Project

COSTCO CAR WASH
A Costco members-only automated carwash would be located at the northeastern corner of the project site, adjacent to the gas station. The car wash structure would be approximately 4,800 sq. ft. The car wash facility would include only the automated car wash within the structure. No selfservice car vacuum stations would be provided.

SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The proposed development would provide multiple points of access to the project site. The primary entrance to the warehouse would be located along North Riverside Drive, with a fullservice driveway aligned with West Fir Drive. This proposal includes the installation of traffic control devices at the intersection of West Fir Drive, North Riverside Drive, and the Costco main driveway. Two additional right-in/right-out driveways along North Riverside Drive would provide secondary vehicle access to the project site. The existing right-of-way along on the eastern edge of the project is for a private driveway, Arthur Avenue, would provide a north-south connection between West Herndon Avenue and West Spruce Drive. The Arthur Avenue roadway would meet West Herndon Avenue with right-in and right-out access from Arthur Avenue. The Applicant is also proposing a median cut on West Herndon Drive to allow left-in turning from West Herndon Drive.

At the eastern edge of the project site, two additional right-in/right-out driveways are proposed along Arthur Avenue for customer access. A third driveway is proposed along Arthur Avenue near the southern boundary of the project site that would provide delivery, service, and emergency vehicle access. The primary truck access route would be the southernmost driveway along Arthur Avenue, with a secondary truck route using the southernmost driveway along North Riverside Drive. The truck loading dock would be located on the southern facade of the building. The bay doors would be equipped with sealed gaskets to limit noise.

The project would also include construction of 12-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle paths along the project’s frontage with West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
For the purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). Discretionary approval power may include such actions as issuance of a permit, authorization, or easement needed to complete some aspect of the proposed project.

Responsible agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
f California Department of Transportation, District 3;
f California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4; f Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; and f San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 9

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The EIR will describe the direct and indirect environmental impacts of construction and operation of the project. It is anticipated that the EIR will address potential impacts in the following issue areas. In addition, the EIR will evaluate alternatives, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts.

Aesthetics
The EIR will describe the existing visual character of the project site and the surrounding suburban and rural land use conditions. The analysis will evaluate the significance of changes in the visual character and the site, including light and glare.

Agriculture
The project site is designated Farmland of Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. All potentially significant direct and indirect impacts on agriculture resources that could result from project implementation will be described.

Air Quality
The EIR will describe existing air quality conditions at the project site, including the locations of nearby sensitive receptors and the applicable regulations and policies, such as the Environmental Review Guidelines and Procedures for Implementing CEQA from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The analysis will disclose construction- and operation-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, and toxic air contaminants.

Biological Resources
The project site has been previously graded and used for agriculture. A comprehensive review of the sensitive resources with potential to be affected by the project will be conducted. The likelihood of presence in the project area will be based on habitat suitability, species ranges, and documented occurrences. The EIR will assess the potential impacts of the project on biological resources.

Historic, Archaeological, and Tribal Cultural Resources The EIR will summarize known cultural resources in the project area, applicable state and local regulations related to prehistoric, historic, and tribal cultural resources, and the results of the City’s consultation process. There is the potential for buried prehistoric and historic-era resources within the project area and potential impacts to these resources during project construction will be considered in the EIR.

Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
10 Costco Commercial Center Project
Energy
The EIR will summarize federal, state, and local policies and regulations concerning energy consumption and energy efficiency that would be applicable to the project, including applicable policies in the City of Fresno General Plan and the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan.

The EIR will also evaluate whether the project would include features that would make it energy efficient, including efficiency with respect to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by motor vehicles, and the degree to which the project would comply with existing energy standards.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The analysis will apply thresholds of significance aligned with statewide and regionwide GHG targets for 2030 and beyond, including consistency with the most recent GHG Reduction Plan prepared by the City in 2014 and updated in 2020.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The EIR will summarize the results of the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments prepared for the project site. The EIR will identify any existing issues related to hazards and hazardous materials in the project area and identify impacts that could occur from construction and operation. The use of hazardous materials in project operation and disposal of any hazardous wastes would be subject to numerous laws and regulations at all levels of government.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The EIR will evaluate drainage, runoff, and other water quality concerns. There are no surface waters within the project site.

Land Use
The Land Use section will discuss the proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning. The evaluation will focus on consistency with applicable land use plans adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The EIR will examine the existing land use patterns in the area and describe any potential for division or conflicts with existing communities.

Noise and Vibration
Implementing the proposed project would result in short-term and long-term increases in ambient noise levels. The EIR will include a description of the existing noise environment, including noise sources and sensitive receptors in the project area. The EIR will then assess potential short-term (i.e., construction) and long-term (i.e., operational) noise impacts to sensitive receptors.

Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project 11
Public Services
The conversion of the previously undeveloped project site to commercial uses would result in an increased demand for emergency services (police and fire) and other services. The EIR section will discuss the anticipated demand for services and analyze the capacity of the existing services; however, the impact analysis significance determination will be based on whether the project would trigger the need for new or expanded public facilities, the construction of which could result in significant impacts on the environment.

Transportation and Circulation
This section of the EIR will be based on a CEQA-compliant VMT analysis using City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled adopted on June 25, 2020 that establish VMT thresholds of significance. The EIR will evaluate safety impacts and conflicts with bicycle, pedestrian, and transit plans and facilities, along with any impacts associated with geometric design features of the project (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections).

Utilities
The EIR will discuss the potential increase in demand for water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment, and solid waste from project implementation. The analysis will assess any potential for project operation to affect the ability for existing and planned facilities to meet the projected increase in demand.

Notice of Preparation
City of Fresno
1 Costco Commercial Center Project
7KLVSDJHLQWHQWLRQDOO\OHIWEODQN
From: Anthony Botti
To: Jose Valenzuela
Subject: NW Fresno Costco Proposal
Date: Wednesday, November 03, 2021 12:37:01 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hi Jose,
I hope this is a proper way of submitting my public comment for the new Costco project.

I live in this general area, but on the west side of Highway 99 (Bullard and Grantland). I support a new Costco being constructed at the parcel located at Herndon and Riverside. I know Costco will have to make some serious traffic improvements, but I would like to state some that I see as being the most beneficial. 1) We would definitely need two left hand turn lanes heading east on Herndon that turn north onto Riverside Drive. Therefore, at least two lanes would need to be created on northbound Riverside. I would like to see those lanes start further west on Herndon, in line with Farrington Street. As it stands right now, that median causes a traffic hazard as motorists using the turn lane to make a u-turn or go into the neighborhood often impede traffic trying to continue through east on Herndon. It will only get worse as Costco shoppers enter the picture.
2) I know right hand turns off of Herndon into shopping centers are basically nonexistent, but I think this is one place it is much needed. For traffic heading westbound, it would be nice to see a frontage road created just after the storage facility. This could take those vehicles directly into the Costco lot without having to go up to the Riverside traffic light. That frontage road would lessen the congestion to benefit EB traffic turning north on Riverside and WB travelers, who might live in the neighborhood, to have easier access to make a right turn on Riverside by not fighting Costco customers. That frontage road could also help delivery trucks not have to make a tight right turn onto Riverside.

The other huge plus to putting a Costco here is that it will close the Shaw location, which as you know becomes a traffic nightmare, especially if there is a train coming through. It will make the left hand turn much safer for those EB Shaw motorists looking to make a northbound turn onto Jennifer Ave. That existing Costco parking lot is so much easier to navigate when the store is closed for a holiday, so it will make it much safer for Pep Boys, Winco and all other businesses in that shopping center.

Thank you,
Anthony Botti
From: Conni Youngman
To: Jose Valenzuela
Subject: Proposed Costco at Herndon & Riverside
Date: Friday, November 19, 2021 2:46:13 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Mr. Valenzuela,
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed Costco at the corner of Herndon and Riverside Drive in northwest Fresno.

We have lived in our current home, just east of the proposed Costco, for 29 years. When we moved to this location, there was virtually nothing out that way. We understand and appreciate growth. Most of the growth in the area has been good. However, as the Costco is currently proposed, there will be nothing beneficial to the area or the residents.

The zoning for this parcel appears to be CC or Commercial-Community which was obviously designated with good reason because of the surrounding neighborhood. According to Fresno’s own development code, this parcel was not intended to be for large scale, big-box retail. To re-zone this parcel to allow this development would be tragic.

The most concerning part of this is the impact on the environment of the surrounding neighborhoods. In our whole area, there is very, very little greenbelt, except for Riverside Golf Course and the area around the San Joaquin River. Currently, we can walk west down Spruce Avenue, across the walking path south of Riverside Golf Course, then turn north on Riverside Drive and get to a very nice path above the river. This proposed Costco will not only ruin all of that, but with the proposed gas station and its ridiculous 32 gas pumps, there will be so much pollution from the gas fumes and cars idling at the gas station, one would need a gas mask to walk through there. I cannot imagine the thought process to even consider putting 32 gas pumps directly in front of a lovely public golf course, across the street from homes, or across the street from a school’s athletic field. It just boggles the mind.

Imagine if you will, the homeowners who bought along and near Riverside Drive, thinking they were across from a golf course on the bluffs, and now they are across from a supersized Costco with its supersized gas station and car wash and all the associated traffic, fumes, noise, and trash that goes along with it. The housing developments along Riverside Drive are fairly new and there was absolutely no disclosure of a potential mega gas station for this location.

How unfair…really just unfair.

We honestly cannot imagine a worse location for this project in all of northwest Fresno. The detrimental impact on the neighborhood and surrounding environment will be devastating.

We hope you will not approve this development.

Sincerely,
Kirk and Conni Youngman
5912 W. Locust Avenue
Fresno, CA 93722
(559) 473-5595
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Fresno Costco Scoping Meeting 11/2/2021 6pm
Notes from Public Comments
Larry Hodges—Resident west of Riverside Golf Course
Traffic congestion, safety, and access
Concern that more residents aren’t participating/public outreach Conni Youngman—Resident east of Costco site
Traffic congestion
Gas station next to golf course
Lighting
Idling cars near golf course
Connection of Spruce Ave?
Rangel Melendez
Cars idling at gas station
No “green” included in development
Proximity to San Joaquin river and lack of greenway/parkland in vicinity Project will impact how the area is developed
Project should be moved away from river
More green spaces should be developed in area (lack of parks) AQ issues
Proximity to schools
Fumes from gas station
Requested to see CEQA steps slide
Project is good (job creator) but proposed in wrong location Terry—Resident east of project
Spruce being punched through?
How are electrical lines being handled?
Who owns property to the east of the site?

From: Futsum Tesfai
To: Jose Valenzuela
Cc: Phillip Siegrist
Subject: [email protected] [email protected] Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 1:18:32 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To Jose and Phillip,
I am the homeowner who lives at 6628 w Fallon Ave fresno ca 93722 and I joined you at Costco video call. My name is Futsumberhan Tesfai and I hope you can please forgive my email coming simply so late to let you know me my family and neighborhood directly oppose a Costco being built on Shaw and Herndon . I am a state inspector and 3rd party to the building department and while doing an inspection the supervisor and I start a conversation about where I live and when I brought up the Costco to him yesterday, he begged and pleaded for me to beg the city of fresno to not do this, he now lives next to a Super Walmart built by his home and he told me that was the worst thing that ever happened to his family. He never gets a chance to simply come home he is always in traffic and there is so much disruption. He is the one who reminded me to write this email. Please I will not write anymore if the city of fresno doesn’t care about my family and wants what is happening to this guy happen to my family by you building this Costco in one of the most busiest streets in fresno that happens to be right next to our home. If the city of fresno wants the homeless at Costco all day to come walking distance to my home then build this Costco but if the city cares about my family and hears the people that live here they would not build this Costco and let us enjoy our peaceful safe neighborhood.

Kindest Regards
CEO Energy Specialist
Christ Jesus
Service Done By
Futsumberhan Tesfai
559-470-3674
From: Kati Pitts
To: Jose Valenzuela
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTARY: Costco Relocation Project
Date: Wednesday, November 03, 2021 6:37:39 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello Mr. Valenzuela,
I submitted some feedback regarding the proposed Costco site relocation several months ago to Councilmember Karbassi. I was made aware today that a meeting took place yesterday regarding the project with opportunity for public comment. As it is not entirely clear where one should submit public comment outside the scope of that meeting, and your name is listed on the City's website for the project, I am forwarding to you for consideration. If this should go elsewhere, please feel free to redirect.

Our family and our neighbors remain in strong opposition to this site being used for the purposes under consideration. Frankly, given the proximity of other high-traffic elements in the area and the surrounding environment (which is not similar in composition to the current W. Shaw Avenue site) Costco is not a welcome addition to the neighborhood.

Please let me know if any additional discussion on the matter is requested.

Thank you,
Kati Pitts
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Kati Pitts" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:37 AM
Subject: RE: Contact District 2 Form submitted on City Council Thank you, Andrew. If Mr. Karbassi would like to speak with us any further, he is more than welcome to email or call.

Have a wonderful day,
Kati Pitts
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Kloose
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Kati,
Thank you for contacting our office. I will share you message from your family on this subject with Councilmember Karbassi.

Thank you,
Andrew Kloose
Council Assistant – Councilmember Mike Karbassi
City of Fresno, District 2
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Office: (559) 621-8000
From: Kati Pitts <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 10:27 PM
To: District2 <[email protected]>
Subject: Contact District 2 Form submitted on City Council First Name Kati
Last Name Pitts
Address 6911 W Sapphire Dr, 93722
Email [email protected]
Phone
Number
(559) 930-1855
Subject Proposed Costco Location at Herndon/Riverside
Message Mr. Karbassi,
Please accept this message as notice of our family's staunch opposition to the proposed/planned Costco location at Herndon Avenue and Riverside Drive in NW Fresno. The traffic this business would bring is absolutely unwelcome. The parcel of property in question is directly across from schools who require many students to walk home (across Herndon Avenue) on Riverside Drive, and an increase in traffic would greatly impact student safety. I'd also like to remind you of the road rage incident in 2019 at the local Costco site, which remains a risk of recurrence and would further endanger students and residents. As a resident of the Elderberry on the Bluff community, located directly across from the site in question, our homeowners are significantly concerned about the risk to our property value as well as access to our homes. Increased traffic, noise, loitering, and homeless encampments are all current issues at the W. Shaw Costco location, and are significant concerns to our residents. We urge you - please fight for our homes, our safety, our children's safety. The property in question should NOT be zoned for anything but residential use. STOP COSTCO.

Help them find a more appropriate location.

Sincerely,
The Pitts Family (Chris, Kati, Cole (age 13) and Cayson (age 9) IP Address 45.23.63.128
User-Agent
(Browser/OS)
Google Chrome 90.0.4430.210 / Android
Referrer https://www.fresno.gov/citycouncil/district-2/contact-us/ From: Nunya B Zwaaks
To: Jose Valenzuela
Subject: EIR west Fresno
Date: Tuesday, November 02, 2021 8:05:40 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Nay. Objection; Land owner has not given consent to use; Land is not Vacant; Costco is not wanted/needed or requested by any of the living.

November 17, 2021
Mr. Jose Valenzuela, Planner III
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Mr. Valenzuela:

Below are my additional comments on Environmental Review Process- Scoping Meeting for Costco Development on Herndon and Riverside Dr.

I would like to add to my verbal comments during the On-line meeting the points below to be considered:

Seems the Costco development on northwest Fresno has many fans as the current location is always congested with customers of Costco and other retail locations in the area. However, there are many environmental areas this project will overlap, and I believe this will be detrimental to the community.

The proposed development represents approximately 27% increase size of building, compared to the current location at Shaw Ave. (~130,000 ft2
. to 173,000+ ft2).

There will also be 32 new gas pumps replacing the existing 12 gas pumps – an increase of 266% gas pump for the delight of Costco customers only. Some neighbors I have talked to about this say this will be an improvement not having many cars, 16 or more, at a time idling waiting for gas to be pumped.

The larger capacity of gas pumps will attract many more customers driving their vehicles.

Hopefully the new Costco will also create new jobs as this will be a larger store and, of course, new employees will be needed.

On the other hand, a larger store will need additional loading/unloading bays for the products being sold. This means that additional trucks will be coming through the area to offload/load their cargo.

This will in no doubt contribute to the air pollution in the area. Vehicular traffic will also be another contributor to the already polluted air we have to breathe in Fresno.

Following are my strong points to oppose to this development:
x Vehicular and products delivering traffic contributing to air pollution x 32 gas pumps emitting vapors and the potential for as many as twice if not more vehicles idling waiting to pump gas contributing to pollution.
x The two above being close to River Bluff Elementary School and Rio Vista Middle School. x Traffic to the closest area that can be called a park (San Joaquin River Trail behind Riverside Golf Course), will be limited.
x There seems that no additional “Green” areas are earmarked for development for recreation of residents along this new Costco.

We already have had the Market Place at El Paseo contributing to these detrimental activities of pollution where eight gas pumps at the Valero Gas Station and 12 additional gas pumps at the ne 76- Gas station have been built and yet no other efforts to provide Green areas for the enjoyment of this once only housing community has happened.

I sure hope the Environmental Impact Committee and the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department (Jose Valenzuela, Planner III) take into consideration these and other’s residents’ requests to stop this development and to relocate it to other areas where the Costco can actually make a positive impact on the community and the environment is not affected. I recommend any place south of the 180-freeway, West of the 99 and 41 freeways or what is called Southwest Fresno.

Thanks
Rangel Melendez
CC:

Mike Karbassi
Facebook
Nextdoor
Appendix B
*HRWHFKQLFDO6WXG\


$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
./(,1)(/'(51RUWK)LUVW6WUHHW6XLWH$6DQ-RVH&$ S_


0D\
.OHLQIHOGHU3URMHFW1R
$
&RVWFR:KROHVDOH

/DNH'ULYH
,VVDTXDK:DVKLQJWRQ

$WWHQWLRQ
 0V.LP.DW]
  'LUHFWRURI5HDO(VWDWH'HYHORSPHQW
68%-(&7
 *HRWHFKQLFDO6WXG\
  3URSRVHG&RVWFR:KROHVDOH:DUHKRXVHDQG)XHO)DFLOLW\  1(&RUQHURI:HVW+HUQGRQ$YHQXHDQG1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYH  )UHVQR&DOLIRUQLD

 &:

'HDU0V.DW]

.OHLQIHOGHULVSOHDVHGWRSUHVHQWWKLV UHSRUWVXPPDUL]LQJRXUJHRWHFKQLFDOVWXG\IRUWKHSURSRVHG &RVWFR:KROHVDOH:DUHKRXVHDQG)XHO)DFLOLW\ORFDWHGDWWKHQRUWKHDVWFRUQHURI:HVW+HUQGRQ $YHQXHDQG1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHLQ)UHVQR&DOLIRUQLD7KHFRQFOXVLRQVDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV SUHVHQWHGLQWKLVUHSRUWDUHVXEMHFWWRWKHOLPLWDWLRQVSUHVHQWHGLQ6HFWLRQ 
:HDSSUHFLDWHWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRSURYLGHJHRWHFKQLFDOHQJLQHHULQJVHUYLFHVWR\RXRQWKLVSURMHFW ,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKLVUHSRUWRULIZHFDQEHRIIXUWKHUVHUYLFHSOHDVHGRQRW KHVLWDWHWR FRQWDFW$QGUHD 7UDXP 
 RU$QG\ )UDQNV.OHLQIHOGHU¶V &OLHQW$FFRXQW 0DQDJHUIRU&RVWFRDW

6LQFHUHO\
./(,1)(/'(5,1&
'DQ'RFNHQGRUI(,7    $QGUHD7UDXP3(/(('$3 3URMHFW(QJLQHHU     6HQLRU3URJUDP0DQDJHU

$6-25
 3DJHLRILY 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
 *(27(&+1,&$/678'<
352326('&267&2:+2/(6$/(:$5(+286(
$1')8(/)$&,/,7<
1(&251(52):(67+(51'21$9(18($1'
1257+5,9(56,'('5,9(
)5(612&$/,)251,$

&:

./(,1)(/'(5352-(&712
$
0$<
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG
21/<7+(&/,(1725,76'(6,*1$7('5(35(6(17$7,9(60$<86(7+,6'2&80(17$1'21/<)257+(63(&,),& 352-(&7)25:+,&+7+,65(3257:$635(3$5('

$6-25
 3DJHLLRILY 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
$5HSRUW3UHSDUHGIRU

0V.LP.DW]
&RVWFR:KROHVDOH

/DNH'ULYH
,VVDTXDK:DVKLQJWRQ

*(27(&+1,&$/678'<
352326('&267&2:+2/(6$/(:$5(+286($1')8(/)$&,/,7<
1(&251(52):(67+(51'21$9(18($1'1257+5,9(56,'('5,9( )5(612&$/,)251,$

&:


'DQ'RFNHQGRUI(,7
3URMHFW(QJLQHHU

%ULDQ(&U\VWDO3(*(
3ULQFLSDO*HRWHFKQLFDO(QJLQHHU
./(,1)(/'(5
1RUWK)LUVW6WUHHW6XLWH$
6DQ-RVH&$

3KRQH


0D\
.OHLQIHOGHU3URMHFW1R
$
7$%/(2)&217(176
6HFWLRQ 3DJH

$6-25
 3DJHLLLRILY 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
(;(&87,9(6800$5< ,1752'8&7,21 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 6&23(2)6(59,&(6 7DVN±%DFNJURXQG'DWD5HYLHZ 7DVN±)LHOG([SORUDWLRQ 7DVN±/DERUDWRU\7HVWLQJ 7DVN±*HRWHFKQLFDO$QDO\VHV 7DVN±5HSRUW3UHSDUDWLRQ 6,7(&21',7,216

6,7('(6&5,37,21

*(2/2*< *(2/2*,&6(77,1* 68%685)$&(&21',7,216 *5281':$7(5 $66(660(172)327(17,$/*(2/2*,&+$=$5'6 /RFDOL]HG)DXOWLQJ /DQGVOLGLQJ /LTXHIDFWLRQDQG6HLVPLF&RPSUHVVLRQ ([SDQVLYH6RLOV &ROODSVLEOH6RLOV )ORRGLQJ 6XEVLGHQFH 2LODQG*DV)LHOGV *(27(&+1,&$/'(6,*15(&200(1'$7,216 *(1(5$/ 
&%&6(,60,&'(6,*13$5$0(7(56 )281'$7,216 *HQHUDO &RQYHQWLRQDO6KDOORZ)RXQGDWLRQV 6KRUW'ULOOHG3LOH)RXQGDWLRQV
/LJKW3ROHV

%8,/',1*6/$%21*5$'(

(;7(5,25)/$7:25.

6,7('5$,1$*( 5(7$,1,1*6758&785(6 3$9(0(176(&7,216 &RVWFR3DYHPHQW'HVLJQ3DUDPHWHUV $VSKDOW&RQFUHWH3DYHPHQW $VSKDOW3HUIRUPDQFH*UDGH%LQGHU 3RUWODQG&HPHQW&RQFUHWH3DYHPHQW $JJUHJDWH%DVH 3DYHPHQW0DLQWHQDQFH 62,/&25526,9,7< ,1),/75$7,217(67,1*$1'67250:$7(50$1$*(0(17 &216758&7,215(&200(1'$7,216 *(1(5$/ 7$%/(2)&217(176
&RQWLQXHG

6HFWLRQ 3DJH

$6-25
 3DJHLYRILY 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
($57+:25. *HQHUDO 6LWH3UHSDUDWLRQ )RXQGDWLRQ([FDYDWLRQV

)LOO0DWHULDODQG&RPSDFWLRQ&ULWHULD ([FDYDWLRQ&KDUDFWHULVWLFV 7HPSRUDU\([FDYDWLRQV 2YHUVL]H0DWHULDO 7UHQFK%DFNILOO 8167$%/(68%*5$'(&21',7,216 (;7(5,25)/$7:25. 7(0325$5<6+25,1* *HQHUDO /DWHUDO3UHVVXUHV 'HVLJQRI6ROGLHU3LOHV /DJJLQJ 'HIOHFWLRQ 0RQLWRULQJ 3$9(0(176 +0$'HVLJQ &RQVWUXFWLRQ&RQVLGHUDWLRQV $'',7,21$/6(59,&(6

3/$16$1'63(&,),&$7,2165(9,(:

&216758&7,212%6(59$7,21$1'7(67,1*

/,0,7$7,216 5()(5(1&(6 7$%/(6
 
&%&6HLVPLF'HVLJQ3DUDPHWHUV
 /DWHUDO(DUWK3UHVVXUHVIRU5HWDLQLQJ6WUXFWXUHV
2QVLWH*UDQXODU%DFNILOO

 5HFRPPHQGHG0LQLPXP$VSKDOW&RQFUHWH3DYHPHQW6HFWLRQV  &RUURVLRQ7HVW5HVXOWV
 8QIDFWRUHG6KRUW7HUP3HUFRODWLRQ5DWHV
 /RQJ7HUP,QILOWUDWLRQ5DWHV
 6WUXFWXUDO)LOO3ODFHPHQWDQG&RPSDFWLRQ&ULWHULD
),*85(6
 6LWH9LFLQLW\0DS
 ([SORUDWLRQ/RFDWLRQ0DS
$33(1',&(6
$ )LHOG([SORUDWLRQV
% /DERUDWRU\7HVWLQJ
& ,QILOWUDWLRQ7HVW5HVXOWV

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
(;(&87,9(6800$5<
7KLV UHSRUW SUHVHQWV WKH UHVXOWV RI .OHLQIHOGHU¶V JHRWHFKQLFDO VWXG\ IRU SURSRVHG &RVWFR:KROHVDOH:DUHKRXVH
&:

ORFDWHGDWWKHQRUWKHDVWFRUQHURI:HVW+HUQGRQ
$YHQXHDQG1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHLQ)UHVQR&DOLIRUQLD7KHSXUSRVHRIRXUJHRWHFKQLFDOVWXG\ ZDV WR HYDOXDWH VRLO DQG JURXQGZDWHU FRQGLWLRQV DW WKH VLWH DQG SURYLGH JHRWHFKQLFDO UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU SURMHFW GHVLJQ DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ :H EDVHG RXU VWXG\ RQ WKH &RVWFR :KROHVDOH'HYHORSPHQW5HTXLUHPHQWV
&:'5V
9HUVLRQGDWHG'HFHPEHU
.OHLQIHOGHUXQGHUVWDQGV&RVWFRSODQVWRSXUFKDVHDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHVLWHWRFRQVWUXFWD QHZDSSUR[LPDWHO\VTXDUHIRRWZDUHKRXVHIXHOIDFLOLW\DQGFDUZDVK7KHZDUHKRXVH EXLOGLQJZLOOEHD VLQJOHVWRU\ VWHHOIUDPHG VWUXFWXUH IHHWLQKHLJKW
ZLWK FRQFUHWHPDVRQU\
XQLWDQGPHWDOZDOOV7KHIXHOIDFLOLW\ZLOOFRQWDLQWKUHHJDOORQXQGHUJURXQGVWRUDJHWDQNV

867V
DIXHODGGLWLYH867IRXUIXHOLQJLVODQGVDQGDSUHPDQXIDFWXUHGPHWDOFDQRS\7KHFDU ZDVK ZLOO FRQVLVW RI DQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ IRRW WXQQHO ZLWK DQ DXWRPRELOH TXHXLQJ DUHD 7KH EXLOGLQJVXUURXQGLQJVZLOOFRQVLVWPDLQO\RIVXUIDFHSDUNLQJZLWKODQGVFDSHDUHDV7ZRRXWSDUFHOV ORFDWHGRQWKHZHVWHUQVLGHRIWKHSURSHUW\SDUDOOHOWR5LYHUVLGH'ULYHDUHDOVRLQFOXGHGLQWKLV VWXG\7KHFXUUHQWFLYLOSODQVGRQRWVSHFLI\WKHIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWVIRUWKHVHRXWSDUFHOV *UDGLQJSODQVDUHVWLOOLQGHYHORSPHQW DQGWKHILQLVKHGIORRUHOHYDWLRQV ))(
IRUWKHZDUHKRXVH
KDVQRW\HWEHHQHVWDEOLVKHG:HDQWLFLSDWHWKHILQLVKHGJUDGHVRIZLOOJHQHUDOO\PDWFKH[LVWLQJ JUDGHVZLWKOHVVWKDQIHHWRIFXWRUILOO6XUIDFHHOHYDWLRQVLQGLFDWHWKDWH[LVWLQJJUDGHVYDU\ IURPDKLJKDWDSSUR[LPDWH(OHYDWLRQIHHWDWWKHVRXWKHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHVLWHERUGHULQJ:HVW +HUQGRQ$YHQXHWRDORZDWDSSUR[LPDWH(OHYDWLRQ
IHHWDWWKHQRUWKHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHVLWH
ERUGHULQJWKH5LYHUVLGH*ROI&RXUVH
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

WKHVLWHZDVXVHGIRUDJULFXOWXUDOSXUSRVHV
6XEVXUIDFHFRQGLWLRQVDWWKHVLWHZHUHH[SORUHGE\GULOOLQJERULQJVDQGH[FDYDWLQJWHVWSLWV $WRWDORIERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWVZHUHGULOOHGH[FDYDWHGLQWKHEXLOGLQJDUHD ERULQJVDQG
WHVWSLWVZHUHGULOOHGH[FDYDWHGLQWKHSDUNLQJDQGGULYHDUHDV ERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWZHUH

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
GULOOHGH[FDYDWHGLQWKHIXHOIDFLOLW\
WHVWSLWVZHUHH[FDYDWHGZLWKLQWKHFDUZDVKIDFLOLW\ DQG
ILQDOO\WHVWSLWVZHUHH[FDYDWHGZLWKLQWKHRXWSDUFHOVDGMDFHQWWRWKH&RVWFRSDUNLQJORW7KH ERULQJV ZHUH GULOOHG XVLQJ WUXFNPRXQWHG KROORZVWHPDXJHU GULOOLQJ HTXLSPHQW WR GHSWKV RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\òDQGòEHORZWKHH[LVWLQJJURXQGVXUIDFH EJV
LQWKHZDUHKRXVHEXLOGLQJ
DUHD
DSSUR[LPDWHO\òIHHWEJVLQWKHSDUNLQJDQGGULYHDUHDV DQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\òIHHW
EJVLQWKHIXHOIDFLOLW\DUHD7KHWHVWSLWVZHUHH[FDYDWHGWRGHSWKVRIDERXWIHHWEJVRUSUDFWLFDO UHIXVDOZLWKDUXEEHUWLUHGEDFNKRH7KHDSSUR[LPDWHORFDWLRQVRIWKHERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWVDUH SUHVHQWHGRQ)LJXUH([SORUDWLRQ/RFDWLRQ0DS
7KH VRLOVHQFRXQWHUHGZLWKLQRXUERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWVZHUH FRPSULVHGSULPDULO\RIDOOXYLDOIDQ GHSRVLWVWRWKHPD[LPXPGHSWKRIRXUILHOGH[SORUDWLRQV òIHHWEJV
7KHUHZDVDQREVHUYHG
³SORZ]RQH´DFURVVWKHVLWHDWGHSWKVYDU\LQJEHWZHHQDQGLQFKHVGHHSDFURVVWKHVLWH7KLV SORZ]RQHRUWRSVRLOOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIWLOOHGVDQG\OHDQFOD\VDQGVLOWVZLWKYDULDEOHDPRXQWVRI VDQG7KHREVHUYHGRUJDQLFFRQWHQWRIWKHWRSVRLOZDVEHWZHHQòDQGòSHUFHQW7KHDOOXYLDO GHSRVLWVXQGHUOD\LQJWKHWRSVRLOZHUHJHQHUDOO\FRPSRVHGRILQWHUEHGGHGOD\HUVRIVWLIIWRYHU\ VWLII VLOWV DQG FOD\VZLWK YDULDEOH DPRXQWV RI VDQG DQGPHGLXPGHQVHWR GHQVH SRRUO\ JUDGHG VDQGVDQGVLOW\VDQG6RLOVEHWZHHQDSSUR[LPDWHO\WRIHHWZHUHREVHUYHGWREHZHDNO\WR PRGHUDWHO\ FHPHQWHG XQGHUODLQ E\ VRLOV ZLWK QR YLVLEOH FHPHQWDWLRQ WR WKH PD[LPXP GHSWKV H[SORUHGLQWKLVLQYHVWLJDWLRQ
%DVHGRQWKHUHVXOWVRIRXUILHOGH[SORUDWLRQLWLVRXUSURIHVVLRQDORSLQLRQWKDWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW LVJHRWHFKQLFDOO\IHDVLEOHSURYLGHGWKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVSUHVHQWHGLQWKHJHRWHFKQLFDO UHSRUW DUH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH SURMHFW GHVLJQ DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ :H LGHQWLILHG WKH IROORZLQJ NH\ JHRWHFKQLFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQVGXULQJRXUVWXG\
• 7KHSURSRVHG&RVWFRZDUHKRXVHEXLOGLQJIXHOIDFLOLW\DQGFDUZDVKPD\EHVXSSRUWHG RQDFRQYHQWLRQDOVKDOORZIRXQGDWLRQV\VWHP2YHUH[FDYDWLRQDQG UHFRPSDFWLRQRIWKH RQVLWHVRLOVLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRPLWLJDWHORRVHVKDOORZVRLOVDQGSURYLGHUHODWLYHO\XQLIRUP VXSSRUWIRUWKHSURSRVHGZDUHKRXVHDQGRWKHULPSURYHPHQWV • 6RLOVZLWKLQIHHWRIWKHZDUHKRXVHSDG
LQFOXGLQJWKHHQWUDQFHFDQRS\EXLOGLQJDSURQV
XWLOLW\SDGV VWDLUV UDPSV VWRRSVDQGWKHORDGLQJGRFN VKRXOGEHRYHUH[FDYDWHGWRD
GHSWKRIDWOHDVWIHHWEHORZH[LVWLQJJUDGHRUIHHWEHORZWKHERWWRPRIWKHIRRWLQJVDQG IORRUVODEVZKLFKHYHULVGHHSHUDQGUHSODFHGDVVWUXFWXUDOILOO,IILOOVRLOVDUHHQFRXQWHUHG DWWKHEDVHRIWKHRYHUH[FDYDWLRQZLWKLQWKHZDUHKRXVHSDGWKHRYHUH[FDYDWLRQVKRXOG FRQWLQXHXQWLOWKHILOOLVUHPRYHG7KHRQVLWHVRLOVFDQEHPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQHGDQGUHXVHG DVVWUXFWXUDOILOO

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
• ([LVWLQJ VRLOV EHORZWKH FDU ZDVKIDFLOLW\ VKRXOG EH RYHUH[FDYDWHGWR GHSWK RI DW OHDVW IHHWEHORZWKHERWWRPRIIRXQGDWLRQVPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQVDQGUHSODFHGDVVWUXFWXUDOILOO 7KH RYHUH[FDYDWLRQ VKRXOG H[WHQG EH\RQG WKH SURSRVHG LPSURYHPHQWV D KRUL]RQWDO GLVWDQFHRIDWOHDVWIHHW
• 6RLOVLQSDYHPHQWVLGHZDONDQGRWKHUIODWZRUNDUHDVVKRXOGEHRYHUH[FDYDWHGWRDGHSWK RI DW OHDVW  LQFKHV EHORZ H[LVWLQJ JUDGH RU  LQFKHV EHORZ WKH ILQLVKHG VXEJUDGH HOHYDWLRQZKLFKHYHULVGHHSHU7KHRYHUH[FDYDWHGVRLOVFDQEHPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQHGDQG UHFRPSDFWHG DV VWUXFWXUDOILOO7KH RYHUH[FDYDWLRQ VKRXOG H[WHQG EH\RQGWKH SURSRVHG LPSURYHPHQWVDKRUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHRIDWOHDVWIHHW • 'LIILFXOWH[FDYDWLRQFRQGLWLRQVPD\EHHQFRXQWHUHGZLWKLQWKHVWURQJO\FHPHQWHGKDUGSDQ OD\HUVREVHUYHGEHWZHHQDQGIHHWDFURVVWKHVLWH • 2UJDQLFPDWWHULQWKHWRSVRLOLVORZ
EHWZHHQòWRòSHUFHQW
EDVHGRQODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJ
6WULSSLQJRIWRSVRLOLVQRWQHFHVVDU\+RZHYHUDQ\URRWVDQGYHJHWDWLYHPDWWHULQH[FHVV RIRQHLQFKVKRXOGEHUHPRYHGE\VFUHHQLQJRUUDNLQJSULRUWRUHXVHDVVWUXFWXUDOILOO$IWHU VFUHHQLQJRUUDNLQJWKHVXUIDFHVRLOVFDQEHPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQHGDQGXVHGDVVWUXFWXUDO ILOO
• )ROORZLQJRYHUH[FDYDWLRQDQGSULRUWR UHSODFLQJVRLOVWKHH[SRVHG VXEJUDGH VKRXOGEH FRPSDFWHG ZLWK DW OHDVW D WRQ UROOHU IXOO\ORDGHG WDQGHPD[OH GXPS WUXFN RU ZDWHU WUXFN $UHDV LGHQWLILHG DV EHLQJ VRIW RU \LHOGLQJ PD\ UHTXLUH DGGLWLRQDO FRPSDFWLRQ RU RYHUH[FDYDWLRQDVGHWHUPLQHGE\.OHLQIHOGHU
• 7KHRQVLWHFOD\VVKRXOGQRWEHXVHGDVUHWDLQLQJZDOOEDFNILOO7KHJUDQXODUEDFNILOOZKLFK VKRXOGPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRULPSRUWHGILOODVGHILQHGLQ6HFWLRQVKRXOGH[WHQG EHKLQGZDOOVDKRUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHRIDWOHDVWRQHKDOIWKHKHLJKWRIWKHZDOO • :HUHFRPPHQGJUDQXODU
VDQG\
ILOOVRLOVDQGLPSRUWHGPDWHULDOVKRXOGEHFRPSDFWHGWR DWOHDVW
SHUFHQWRIWKHPD[LPXPGU\XQLWZHLJKW
$670'
LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH
&:'5V&OD\H\ILOOVRLOVVKRXOGEHFRPSDFWHGDWOHDVW
SHUFHQWRIWKHVRLO¶VPD[LPXP
GU\ XQLWZHLJKW
$670'
&RPSDFWLQJ FOD\H\ VRLOVWR DW OHDVW
SHUFHQW UHODWLYH
FRPSDFWLRQZLOODFKLHYHWKHQHFHVVDU\VWUHQJWKDVVXPHGLQRXUGHVLJQUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV • 7KHVLWHVRLOVDUHILQHJUDLQHGPRLVWXUHVHQVLWLYHDQGVXVFHSWLEOHWRGLVWXUEDQFHUXWWLQJ DQG SXPSLQJ GXULQJ FRQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH FRQWUDFWRU VKRXOG SODQ WR UHSDLU VXEJUDGH FRQGLWLRQV WKDW EHFRPH XQVWDEOHGLVWXUEHG DQG VKRXOG GHYHORS D SODQ WR PDQDJH VXEJUDGHWUDIILFDELOLW\DFURVVWKHVLWHWKURXJKRXWWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQSHULRG)HDWXUHVRIWKLV SODQPD\LQFOXGHWHPSRUDU\VXUIDFHKDXOURDGVOLPLWHGWUDIILFURXWHVHWF 
$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
• 7KHUHVLVWLYLW\YDOXHVIRXQGIRUWKHVDPSOHVWHVWHGLQGLFDWHWKDWWKHVRLOPD\EHFRUURVLYH IHUURXVPHWDOV7KHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIVROXEOHVXOIDWHVLQGLFDWHWKDWWKHVXEVXUIDFHVRLOV UHSUHVHQWD&ODVV6H[SRVXUHWRVXOIDWHDWWDFNRQFRQFUHWHLQFRQWDFWZLWKWKHVRLOEDVHG RQ$&, 7DEOH 

$&,
7KHUHIRUH LQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWK$&,%XLOGLQJ
&RGHQRVSHFLDOSURYLVLRQVIRUVHOHFWLRQRIFHPHQWW\SHDUHUHTXLUHG • %DVHGRQWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHLQILOWUDWLRQWHVWLQJDQGRXUODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJLWLVRXURSLQLRQ WKDWWKHVLWHLVVXLWDEOHIRULQILOWUDWLRQ%03VSURYLGHGWKHIROORZLQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDUH LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQ'XHWRWKHYDULDELOLW\LQLQILOWUDWLRQUDWHVZH UHFRPPHQGWKDWDGHVLJQLQILOWUDWLRQUDWHRILQFKSHUKRXUEHXVHGIRUWKHVRLOVDWWKH EDVHRIWKH%03V
7KHILQGLQJVFRQFOXVLRQVDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVSUHVHQWHGLQWKLVH[HFXWLYHVXPPDU\VKRXOGQRW EHUHOLHGXSRQZLWKRXWFRQVXOWLQJRXUJHRWHFKQLFDOUHSRUWIRUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQ7KHFRQFOXVLRQV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV UHSRUW DUH VXEMHFW WR WKH OLPLWDWLRQV SUHVHQWHG LQ 6HFWLRQ


$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
 ,1752'8&7,21
7KLV UHSRUW SUHVHQWV WKH UHVXOWV RI .OHLQIHOGHU¶V JHRWHFKQLFDO VWXG\ IRU SURSRVHG &RVWFR:KROHVDOH:DUHKRXVH
&:

ORFDWHGDWWKHQRUWKHDVWFRUQHURI:HVW+HUQGRQ
$YHQXH DQG 1RUWK 5LYHUVLGH 'ULYH LQ )UHVQR &DOLIRUQLD 7KH ORFDWLRQ RI WKH SURMHFW VLWH LV SUHVHQWHGRQ)LJXUH6LWH9LFLQLW\0DS7KHSXUSRVHRIRXUJHRWHFKQLFDOVWXG\ZDVWRHYDOXDWH VRLODQGJURXQGZDWHUFRQGLWLRQVDWWKHVLWHDQGSURYLGHJHRWHFKQLFDOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUSURMHFW GHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQ7KHVFRSHRIRXUVHUYLFHVZDVSUHVHQWHGLQRXUSURSRVDOWLWOHG³3URSRVDO IRU*HRWHFKQLFDO6WXG\3URSRVHG&RVWFR:KROHVDOH:DUHKRXVHDQG)XHO)DFLOLW\1(&RI:HVW +HUQGRQ$YHQXHDQG1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYH)UHVQR&DOLIRUQLD&: ´GDWHG'HFHPEHU
:HEDVHGRXUVWXG\RQWKH&RVWFR:KROHVDOH'HYHORSPHQW5HTXLUHPHQWV &:'5V

9HUVLRQGDWHG'HFHPEHU
7KLV UHSRUW SUHVHQWV D GHVFULSWLRQ RIWKH VHUYLFHV SHUIRUPHG D GLVFXVVLRQ RIWKH JHRWHFKQLFDO FRQGLWLRQVREVHUYHGDWWKHVLWHDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVGHYHORSHGIURPRXUHQJLQHHULQJDQDO\VHV RIILHOGDQGODERUDWRU\GDWD,QGLYLGXDOVXVLQJWKLVUHSRUWVKRXOGUHDGWKHOLPLWDWLRQVSUHVHQWHGLQ 6HFWLRQ
 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
.OHLQIHOGHUXQGHUVWDQGV&RVWFRSODQVWRSXUFKDVHDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHVLWHWRFRQVWUXFWD QHZDSSUR[LPDWHO\VTXDUHIRRWZDUHKRXVHIXHOIDFLOLW\DQGFDUZDVK7KHZDUHKRXVH EXLOGLQJZLOOEHD VLQJOHVWRU\ VWHHOIUDPHG VWUXFWXUH IHHWLQKHLJKW
ZLWK FRQFUHWHPDVRQU\
XQLWDQGPHWDOZDOOV7KHIXHOIDFLOLW\ZLOOFRQWDLQWKUHHJDOORQXQGHUJURXQGVWRUDJHWDQNV

867V
DIXHODGGLWLYH867IRXUIXHOLQJLVODQGVDQGDSUHPDQXIDFWXUHGPHWDOFDQRS\7KHFDU ZDVKZLOOFRQVLVWRIDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\IRRWWXQQHODQGDXWRPRELOHTXHXLQJDUHD7KHEXLOGLQJ VXUURXQGLQJVZLOOFRQVLVWPDLQO\RIVXUIDFHSDUNLQJZLWKODQGVFDSHDUHDV7ZRRXWSDUFHOVORFDWHG RQWKHZHVWHUQVLGHRIWKHSURSHUW\SDUDOOHOWR5LYHUVLGH'ULYHDUHDOVRLQFOXGHGLQWKLVVWXG\7KH FXUUHQWFLYLOSODQVGRQRWVSHFLI\WKHIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWVIRUWKHVHRXWSDUFHOV %DVHGRQWKH&:'5VZHXQGHUVWDQGPD[LPXPFROXPQORDGVZLOOEHRQWKHRUGHURINLSV W\SLFDO ZDOO ORDGV ZLOO EH DSSUR[LPDWHO\  NLSV SHU OLQHDO IRRW FDQRS\ FROXPQ ORDGV ZLOO EH DSSUR[LPDWHO\NLSVDQGWKHWRWDOVODEORDG
GHDGSOXVOLYHORDGV
ZLOOEHDSSUR[LPDWHO\SVI
7KH ZDUHKRXVH VXUURXQGLQJV ZLOO FRQVLVW PDLQO\ RI SDUNLQJ ZLWK D ORDGLQJ GRFN DQG VRPH ODQGVFDSHGDUHDV3DUNLQJDQGGULYHDUHDVZLOOEHSDYHGZLWKHLWKHU3RUWODQGFHPHQWFRQFUHWHRU DVSKDOWFRQFUHWHSDYHPHQWV

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
*UDGLQJSODQVDUHVWLOOLQGHYHORSPHQW DQGWKHILQLVKHGIORRUHOHYDWLRQV ))(
IRUWKHZDUHKRXVH
KDVQRW\HWEHHQHVWDEOLVKHG:HDQWLFLSDWHWKHILQLVKHGJUDGHVRIZLOOJHQHUDOO\PDWFKH[LVWLQJ JUDGHVZLWKOHVVWKDQIHHWRIFXWRUILOO6XUIDFHHOHYDWLRQVLQGLFDWHWKDWH[LVWLQJJUDGHVYDU\ IURPDKLJKDWDSSUR[LPDWH(OHYDWLRQIHHWDWWKHVRXWKHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHVLWHERUGHULQJ:HVW +HUQGRQ$YHQXHWRDORZDWDSSUR[LPDWH(OHYDWLRQ
IHHWDWWKHQRUWKHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHVLWH
ERUGHULQJWKH5LYHUVLGH*ROI&RXUVH
 6&23(2)6(59,&(6
7KH VFRSH RI RXU JHRWHFKQLFDO VWXG\ FRQVLVWHGRI D OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ VXEVXUIDFH H[SORUDWLRQV JHRWHFKQLFDO ODERUDWRU\ WHVWLQJ HQJLQHHULQJ HYDOXDWLRQ DQG DQDO\VLV DQG SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKLV UHSRUW6WXGLHVWRDVVHVVHQYLURQPHQWDOKD]DUGVWKDWPD\DIIHFWWKHVRLODQGJURXQGZDWHUDWWKH VLWH ZHUH EH\RQG RXU JHRWHFKQLFDO VFRSH RI VHUYLFHV 7KH IROORZLQJ SDUDJUDSKV SUHVHQW D GHVFULSWLRQRIRXUVHUYLFHV
 7DVN±%DFNJURXQG'DWD5HYLHZ
:HUHYLHZHGUHDGLO\DYDLODEOHSXEOLVKHGDQGXQSXEOLVKHGJHRORJLFOLWHUDWXUHLQRXUILOHVDQGWKH ILOHV RI SXEOLF DJHQFLHV LQFOXGLQJ VHOHFWHG SXEOLFDWLRQV SUHSDUHG E\ WKH &DOLIRUQLD *HRORJLFDO 6XUYH\
IRUPHUO\NQRZQDVWKH&DOLIRUQLD'LYLVLRQRI0LQHVDQG*HRORJ\ DQGWKH86*HRORJLFDO
6XUYH\
86*6
:HDOVR UHYLHZHG UHDGLO\DYDLODEOHVHLVPLFDQGIDXOWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQLQFOXGLQJ GDWDIRUGHVLJQDWHGHDUWKTXDNHIDXOW]RQHVDVZHOODVRXULQKRXVHGDWDEDVHRIIDXOWLQJLQWKH JHQHUDOVLWHYLFLQLW\
 7DVN±)LHOG([SORUDWLRQ
6XEVXUIDFHFRQGLWLRQVDWWKHVLWHZHUHH[SORUHGE\GULOOLQJERULQJVDQGH[FDYDWLQJWHVWSLWV $WRWDORIERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWVZHUHGULOOHGH[FDYDWHGLQWKHEXLOGLQJDUHD ERULQJVDQG
WHVWSLWVZHUHGULOOHGH[FDYDWHGLQWKHSDUNLQJDQGGULYHDUHDV ERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWZHUH
GULOOHGH[FDYDWHGLQWKHIXHOIDFLOLW\
WHVWSLWVZHUHH[FDYDWHGZLWKLQWKHFDUZDVKIDFLOLW\ DQG
ILQDOO\WHVWSLWVZHUHH[FDYDWHGZLWKLQWKHRXWSDUFHOVDGMDFHQWWRWKH&RVWFRSDUNLQJORW 7KHERULQJVZHUHGULOOHGXVLQJWUXFNPRXQWHGKROORZVWHPDXJHUGULOOLQJHTXLSPHQWWRGHSWKVRI DSSUR[LPDWHO\òDQGòEHORZWKHH[LVWLQJJURXQGVXUIDFH EJV
LQWKHZDUHKRXVHEXLOGLQJ
DUHD
DSSUR[LPDWHO\òIHHWEJVLQWKHSDUNLQJDQGGULYHDUHDV DQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\òIHHW
EJVLQWKHIXHOIDFLOLW\DUHD7KHWHVWSLWVZHUHH[FDYDWHGWRGHSWKVRIDERXWIHHWEJVRUSUDFWLFDO UHIXVDOZLWKDUXEEHUWLUHGEDFNKRH7KHDSSUR[LPDWHORFDWLRQVRIWKHERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWVDUH SUHVHQWHGRQ)LJXUH([SORUDWLRQ/RFDWLRQ0DS

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
3ULRU WR FRPPHQFHPHQW RI WKH ILHOGZRUN 8QGHUJURXQG 6HUYLFH $OHUW 86$
 ZDV QRWLILHG DQG
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±/DERUDWRU\7HVWLQJ
/DERUDWRU\WHVWLQJZDVSHUIRUPHGRQUHSUHVHQWDWLYHEXONDQGUHODWLYHO\XQGLVWXUEHGVDPSOHVWR DVVLVWLQVRLOFODVVLILFDWLRQDQGGHYHORSPHQWRIHQJLQHHULQJSDUDPHWHUVIRUJHRWHFKQLFDOGHVLJQ /DERUDWRU\ WHVWLQJ FRQVLVWHG RI PRLVWXUH FRQWHQW GU\ XQLW ZHLJKW VLHYH DQDO\VLV ZDVK VLHYH

SHUFHQW SDVVLQJ 1R  VLHYH
 +\GURPHWHU $WWHUEHUJ OLPLWV GLUHFW VKHDU XQFRQILQHG FRPSUHVVLRQPRGLILHG3URFWRUDQG5YDOXH/DERUDWRU\WHVWLQJZDVSHUIRUPHGE\.OHLQIHOGHU¶V ODERUDWRU\ZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRIFRUURVLYLW\WHVWLQJZKLFKZDVSHUIRUPHGE\6XQODQG$QDO\WLFDORI 6DFUDPHQWR&DOLIRUQLD$SSHQGL[%SUHVHQWVWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJSHUIRUPHGIRU WKLVVWXG\
$QDO\WLFDO WHVWLQJ ZDV SHUIRUPHG RQ D FRPSRVLWH WRSVRLO VDPSOH IRU HVVHQWLDO HOHPHQWV LQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWK&:'5VDQGVL[WHHQWRSVRLOVDPSOHVZHUHWHVWHGIRURUJDQLFFRQWHQW7KHWRSVRLO DQDO\VLVDQGRUJDQLFFRQWHQWWHVWLQJZHUHSHUIRUPHGE\:D\SRLQW$QDO\WLFDOWRDVVHVVVRLOIHUWLOLW\ ORFDOL]HG FRQFHQWUDWLRQV RI YDULRXV PHWDOV DQG RUJDQLF FRQWHQW $SSHQGL[ % DOVR SUHVHQWV DQDO\WLFDOWHVWUHVXOWV
 7DVN±*HRWHFKQLFDO$QDO\VHV
:H DQDO\]HGILHOG DQG ODERUDWRU\ GDWD UHODWLYHWR WKHILQLVKHG JUDGHV ZDUHKRXVH OD\RXW DQG VWUXFWXUDO ORDGV WR SURYLGH JHRWHFKQLFDO UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU GHVLJQ DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ :H HYDOXDWHGIHDVLEOHIRXQGDWLRQV\VWHPVFRQFUHWHVODEVXSSRUWSDYHPHQWGHVLJQDQGHDUWKZRUN  7DVN±5HSRUW3UHSDUDWLRQ
7KLVUHSRUWVXPPDUL]HVWKHVHUYLFHVSHUIRUPHGGDWDDFTXLUHGDQGRXUILQGLQJVFRQFOXVLRQVDQG JHRWHFKQLFDOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUWKHGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHGLPSURYHPHQWV 
$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
2XUUHSRUWLQFOXGHVWKHIROORZLQJLWHPV

• $QH[HFXWLYHVXPPDU\

• 9LFLQLW\PDSDQGILHOGH[SORUDWLRQORFDWLRQPDSVKRZLQJWKHDSSUR[LPDWHERULQJDQGWHVW SLWORFDWLRQV

• %RULQJDQGWHVWSLWORJV
$SSHQGL[$


• 5HVXOWVRIODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJ
$SSHQGL[%


• 'LVFXVVLRQRIJHQHUDOVLWHFRQGLWLRQV

• 'LVFXVVLRQRIJHQHUDOVXEVXUIDFHFRQGLWLRQVDVHQFRXQWHUHGLQRXUILHOGH[SORUDWLRQ • 'LVFXVVLRQRIUHJLRQDODQGORFDOJHRORJ\DQGVLWHVHLVPLFLW\ 
• 'LVFXVVLRQRQOLTXHIDFWLRQDQGVHLVPLFVHWWOHPHQW

• 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUVHLVPLFGHVLJQSDUDPHWHUVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH &DOLIRUQLD
%XLOGLQJ&RGH
&%&


• 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IRXQGDWLRQ GHVLJQ DOORZDEOH EHDULQJ SUHVVXUHV HPEHGPHQW GHSWKVDQGFRPSDWLELOLW\FRQVWUDLQWVXQGHUYDULRXVORDGLQJFRQGLWLRQV 
• $QWLFLSDWHGWRWDODQGGLIIHUHQWLDOVWDWLFVHWWOHPHQWV 
• 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU VLWH SUHSDUDWLRQ HDUWKZRUN WHPSRUDU\ VORSH LQFOLQDWLRQV ILOO SODFHPHQW DQG FRPSDFWLRQ VSHFLILFDWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ WKH H[FDYDWLRQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI VXEVXUIDFHVRLOGHSRVLWVDQGIRUPDWLRQDOPDWHULDOV

• 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUVXSSRUWRIIORRUVODEVDQGVODEVRQJUDGH

• 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IOH[LEOH DQG ULJLG SDYHPHQW VWUXFWXUDO VHFWLRQV IRU OLJKW DQG KHDY\GXW\SDYHPHQWEDVHGRQ(TXLYDOHQW6LQJOH$[OHORDGLQJSUHVHQWHGLQWKH&:'5V 
• 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUGHVLJQRI UHWDLQLQJVWUXFWXUHVLQFOXGLQJDFWLYHDQGDWUHVWODWHUDO HDUWKSUHVVXUHVSDVVLYHDQGIULFWLRQDOUHVLVWDQFHDQGDSSOLFDEOHVXUFKDUJHORDGV 
• )XHO )DFLOLW\ 8QGHUJURXQG 6WRUDJH 7DQN
867
 H[FDYDWLRQ VLGH VORSHV LQFOXGLQJ
WHPSRUDU\VKRULQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLIUHTXLUHG
DQG
• 3UHOLPLQDU\HYDOXDWLRQRIWKHFRUURVLRQSRWHQWLDORIWKHRQVLWHVRLOV 
$6-25
 3DJH
RI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
 6,7(&21',7,216
 6,7('(6&5,37,21
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
$WWKHWLPHRIRXUILHOGH[SORUDWLRQWKHSURMHFWVLWHDQGDVVRFLDWHGRXWSDUFHOVZHUHFRYHUHGE\ OLJKW YHJHWDWLRQ DQG SORZHGWLOOHG VRLO 7KH VXUIDFH RI WKH VLWH ZDV IDLUO\ GU\ DW WKH WLPH RI H[SORUDWLRQ
 KRZHYHU D IHZ ZHHNV HDUO\ WKH VLWH ZDV IORRGHG DQG LQDFFHVVLEOH ZLWK D WUXFN PRXQWHGGULOOULJGXHWRUHFHQWUDLQV%DVHGRQDUHYLHZRIDHULDOSKRWRJUDSK\GDWLQJEDFNWR


WKHVLWHZDVXVHGIRUDJULFXOWXUDOSXUSRVHV

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
 *(2/2*<
 *(2/2*,&6(77,1*
*HRORJLFPDSSLQJFRPSLOHGE\WKH&*6
0DWWKHZVDQG%XUQHWW

LQGLFDWHVWKHVLWHJHRORJ\
LVFRPSRVHGRI5HFHQW*UHDW9DOOH\IDQGHSRVLWVQRUWKRIWKH6DQ-RDTXLQ5LYHU5HFHQW*UHDW 9DOOH\ VWUHDPDQG FKDQQHOGHSRVLWVZLWKLQWKH6DQ -RDTXLQ5LYHUDQG3OHLVWRFHQHQRQPDULQH GHSRVLWVVRXWKRIWKH6DQ-RDTXLQ5LYHU7KH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6XUYH\ 15&6
IRUPHUO\ 6RLO &RQVHUYDWLRQ 6HUYLFH
 KDVPDSSHGWKH VRLOV LQWKH SURMHFW VLWH DUHD DV +DQIRUG VDQG\ORDPZKLFKFRQVLVWVSULPDULO\RIVDQGDQGVLOW  68%685)$&(&21',7,216
7KH VRLOVHQFRXQWHUHGZLWKLQRXUERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWVZHUH FRPSULVHGSULPDULO\RIDOOXYLDOIDQ GHSRVLWVWRWKHPD[LPXPGHSWKRIRXUILHOGH[SORUDWLRQV òIHHWEJV
7KHUHZDVDQREVHUYHG
³SORZ]RQH´DFURVVWKHVLWHDWGHSWKVYDU\LQJEHWZHHQDQGLQFKHVGHHSDFURVVWKHVLWH7KLV SORZ]RQHRUWRSVRLOOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIWLOOHGVDQG\OHDQFOD\VDQGVLOWVZLWKYDULDEOHDPRXQWVRI VDQG7KHREVHUYHGRUJDQLFFRQWHQWRIWKHWRSVRLOZDVEHWZHHQòDQGòSHUFHQW7KHDOOXYLDO GHSRVLWVXQGHUOD\LQJWKHWRSVRLOZHUHJHQHUDOO\FRPSRVHGRILQWHUEHGGHGOD\HUVRIVWLIIWRYHU\ VWLII VLOWV DQG FOD\VZLWK YDULDEOH DPRXQWV RI VDQG DQGPHGLXPGHQVHWR GHQVH SRRUO\ JUDGHG VDQGVDQGVLOW\VDQG6RLOVEHWZHHQDSSUR[LPDWHO\WRIHHWZHUHREVHUYHGWREHZHDNO\WR VWURQJO\ FHPHQWHG

KDUGSDQ
 XQGHUODLQ E\ VRLOV ZLWK QR YLVLEOH FHPHQWDWLRQ WR WKH PD[LPXP GHSWKVH[SORUHGLQWKLVLQYHVWLJDWLRQ
 *5281':$7(5
$FFRUGLQJWRUHJLRQDOZHOOUHFRUGGDWDSXEOLVKHGE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHU5HVRXUFHV

':5
FXUUHQWJURXQGZDWHUOHYHOVLQWKHVLWHDUHDDUHEHWZHHQDSSUR[LPDWHO\(OHYDWLRQ WR
IHHWDERYHPHDQ VHDOHYHO
PVOEDVHGRQ:*6 YHUWLFDOGDWXP
*URXQGZDWHUZDVQRW
HQFRXQWHUHG DWWKHWLPH RIWKHILHOG H[SORUDWLRQWR DPD[LPXP GHSWK RI IHHW EHORZ JURXQG VXUIDFH
,WLVSRVVLEOHWKDWJURXQGZDWHUFRQGLWLRQVDWWKH VLWHFRXOG FKDQJHGXHWR YDULDWLRQVLQ UDLQIDOO JURXQGZDWHUZLWKGUDZDORU UHFKDUJH FRQVWUXFWLRQ DFWLYLWLHVZHOO SXPSLQJ RU RWKHUIDFWRUV QRW DSSDUHQWDWWKHWLPHWKHH[SORUDWLRQVZHUHSHUIRUPHG

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
 $66(660(172)327(17,$/*(2/2*,&+$=$5'6
 /RFDOL]HG)DXOWLQJ
(DUWKTXDNHVRFFXUDVIUDFWXUHVRUERXQGDULHVZLWKWHFWRQLFSODWHVZKLFKFRPSULVHWKH(DUWK¶V FUXVW RU OLWKRVSKHUH PRYH UHODWLYH WR RQHDQRWKHU 7KHVH ERXQGDULHV FDQ EH GLVFUHWH IDXOWV REVHUYHGDWWKHVXUIDFHRUDVEXULHG
EOLQG
VWUXFWXUHVDWGHSWK7KHVLWHLVQRWORFDWHGZLWKLQWKH &DOLIRUQLD *HRORJLF 6XUYH\
&*6
 GHVLJQDWHG $OTXLVW3ULROR (DUWKTXDNH )DXOW =RQH DQG QR PDSSHGDFWLYHIDXOWWUDFHVDUHNQRZQWRSURMHFWWRZDUGVRUWUDQVYHUVHWKHVLWH +DUWDQG%U\DQW

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
 /DQGVOLGLQJ
/DQGVOLGHVDQGRWKHUIRUPVRIPDVVZDVWLQJLQFOXGLQJPXGIORZVGHEULVIORZV VRLO VOLSVDQG URFNIDOOVRFFXUDVVRLORUURFNPRYHVGRZQVORSHXQGHUWKHLQIOXHQFHRIJUDYLW\/DQGVOLGHVDUH IUHTXHQWO\WULJJHUHGE\LQWHQVHUDLQIDOORUVHLVPLFVKDNLQJ'HEULVIORZVDUHNQRZQWRWUDYHOJUHDW GLVWDQFHVIURPWKHLUVRXUFHEDVHGRQWKHJUDGLHQWVFKDQQHOJHRPHWU\DQGDPRXQWRIIOXLGZLWKLQ WKHVOLGHPDVV
7KHVLWHDQGVXUURXQGLQJDUHDDUHUHODWLYHO\IODW
WKHUHIRUHODQGVOLGHVRURWKHUIRUPVRIQDWXUDO
VORSHLQVWDELOLW\GRQRWUHSUHVHQWDKD]DUGWRWKHSURMHFW  /LTXHIDFWLRQDQG6HLVPLF&RPSUHVVLRQ
7KHWHUPOLTXHIDFWLRQGHVFULEHVDSKHQRPHQRQLQZKLFKVDWXUDWHGFRKHVLRQOHVVVRLOVWHPSRUDULO\ ORVH VKHDU VWUHQJWK
OLTXHI\
 GXHWR LQFUHDVHG SRUH ZDWHU SUHVVXUHV LQGXFHG E\ VWURQJ F\FOLF JURXQGPRWLRQVGXULQJDQHDUWKTXDNH6WUXFWXUHVIRXQGHGRQRUDERYHSRWHQWLDOO\OLTXHILDEOHVRLOV PD\H[SHULHQFHEHDULQJFDSDFLW\IDLOXUHVGXHWRWKHWHPSRUDU\ORVVRIIRXQGDWLRQVXSSRUWYHUWLFDO VHWWOHPHQWV
ERWKWRWDODQGGLIIHUHQWLDO
DQGRUXQGHUJRODWHUDOVSUHDGLQJ7KHIDFWRUVNQRZQWR LQIOXHQFHOLTXHIDFWLRQSRWHQWLDOLQFOXGHVRLOW\SHUHODWLYHGHQVLW\JUDLQVL]HFRQILQLQJSUHVVXUH GHSWKWRJURXQGZDWHUDQGWKHLQWHQVLW\DQGGXUDWLRQRIWKHVHLVPLFJURXQGVKDNLQJ/LTXHIDFWLRQ 
$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
LVPRVWSUHYDOHQWLQORRVHWRPHGLXPGHQVHVLOW\VDQG\DQGJUDYHOO\VRLOVEHORZWKHJURXQGZDWHU WDEOH'XHWRWKH ODFN RI JURXQGZDWHU LQWKH XSSHU IHHW EHORZ OLTXHIDFWLRQ DQG LWV DGYHUVH HIIHFWVDUHQRWDKD]DUGDWWKLVVLWH
 ([SDQVLYH6RLOV
([SDQVLYHVRLOVDUHFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\WKHLUDELOLW\WRXQGHUJRVLJQLILFDQWYROXPHFKDQJHV VKULQN
RUVZHOO
GXHWRYDULDWLRQVLQPRLVWXUHFRQWHQW&KDQJHVLQVRLOPRLVWXUHFRQWHQWFDQUHVXOWIURP SUHFLSLWDWLRQODQGVFDSHLUULJDWLRQXWLOLW\OHDNDJHURRIGUDLQDJHSHUFKHGJURXQGZDWHUGURXJKW RURWKHUIDFWRUVDQGPD\ UHVXOWLQXQDFFHSWDEOHVHWWOHPHQWRUKHDYHRIVWUXFWXUHVRU FRQFUHWH VODEVVXSSRUWHGRQJUDGH7KHVXUILFLDOVRLOVDUHJHQHUDOO\VDQG\OHDQFOD\VDQGVLOWVZLWKYDULDEOH DPRXQWV RI VDQG %DVHG RQ ODERUDWRU\WHVW UHVXOWVWKH VXUILFLDO VRLOV H[KLELW D ORZ H[SDQVLRQ SRWHQWLDO
 &ROODSVLEOH6RLOV
&ROODSVLEOH VRLOV DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKHLU DELOLW\ WR XQGHUJR VLJQLILFDQW VKULQNDJH

FROODSVH

GXULQJ LQXQGDWLRQ ,QXQGDWLRQ LQ VRLOV FDQ UHVXOW IURP SUHFLSLWDWLRQ ODQGVFDSH LUULJDWLRQ XWLOLW\ OHDNDJH URRI GUDLQDJH SHUFKHG JURXQGZDWHU GURXJKW RU RWKHU IDFWRUV DQG PD\ UHVXOW LQ XQDFFHSWDEOHVHWWOHPHQWRUKHDYHRIVWUXFWXUHVRUFRQFUHWHVODEVVXSSRUWHGRQJUDGH%DVHGRQ VRLO GHQVLWLHV DQG ZDWHU FRQWHQWV WKH VRLOV HQFRXQWHUHG DUH QRW H[SHFWHG WR FROODSVH GXULQJ LQXQGDWLRQVRWKHLPSDFWRIFROODSVLEOHVRLOVIRUWKLVVLWHLVFRQVLGHUHGORZ  )ORRGLQJ
7KH )ORRG ,QVXUDQFH 5DWH 0DS SUHSDUHG E\ WKH )HGHUDO (PHUJHQF\ 0DQDJHPHQW $JHQF\

)(0$
ZDVUHYLHZHGWRLGHQWLI\WKHSRWHQWLDOIORRGKD]DUGIRUWKHSURMHFW7KLVPDSLQGLFDWHVWKH VLWHLVZLWKLQ=RQH;ZKLFKLVGHILQHGDVEHLQJDQDUHDRXWVLGHWKH6SHFLDO)ORRG+D]DUG$UHD DQGKLJKHUWKDQWKHHOHYDWLRQRIWKHSHUFHQWDQQXDOFKDQFHIORRG%DVHGRQWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQ WKHSRWHQWLDOIRUWKHSURMHFWVLWHWREHLPSDFWHGE\UHJLRQDOIORRGLQJLVFRQVLGHUHGORZ%DVHGRQ WKLVLQIRUPDWLRQWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUWKHSURMHFWVLWHWREHLPSDFWHGE\UHJLRQDOIORRGLQJLVFRQVLGHUHG ORZ)ORRGLQJFRXOGRFFXUIURPWKHQHDUE\6DQ-RDTXLQ5LYHUORFDWHGDWDSSUR[LPDWHO\IHHW QRUWKRIWKHVLWH
 6XEVLGHQFH
7KHVLWHLVQRWORFDWHGLQDQDUHDRINQRZQVLJQLILFDQWJURXQGVXEVLGHQFHGXHWRWKHZLWKGUDZDORI VXEVXUIDFH IOXLGV 6XEVLGHQFH PD\ EH SUHVHQW EXW DGYHUVH LPSDFWV KDYH QRW EHHQ UHFRUGHG 
$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
7KHUHIRUHWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUVXEVLGHQFHRFFXUULQJDWWKHVLWHGXHWRWKHZLWKGUDZDORIRLOJDVRUZDWHU LVFRQVLGHUHGORZ
 2LODQG*DV)LHOGV
7KH &DOLIRUQLD 'LYLVLRQ RI2LO*DV *HRWKHUPDO 5HVRXUFHV 
 KDV QRWPDSSHGWKLV VLWH
ZLWKLQDQ\H[LVWLQJORFDORLOILHOG%DVHGRQWKHPDSWKHVLWHLVORFDWHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOHV ZHVWRIDEDQGRQHGRLOZHOOVZKLFKDUHORFDWHGZLWKLQWKH6WUHHWVRI%UHQWZRRG0DOOSURSHUW\1R DFWLYH ZHOOV DUH NQRZQ WR H[LVW ZLWKLQ WKH SURMHFW ERXQGDU\ 7KH QHDUHVW ZHOO LV QXPEHU $3,
ORFDWHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOHVHDVWRIWKHSURMHFW VLWH7KLVZHOOLVOLVWHGDV SOXJJHGDQGDEDQGRQHGDVRI$SULO
'2**5



$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
 *(27(&+1,&$/'(6,*15(&200(1'$7,216
 *(1(5$/
%DVHG RQ WKH UHVXOWV RI RXU ILHOG H[SORUDWLRQ ODERUDWRU\ WHVWLQJ DQG HQJLQHHULQJ DQDO\VHV FRQGXFWHGGXULQJWKLVVWXG\LWLVRXUSURIHVVLRQDORSLQLRQWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLVJHRWHFKQLFDOO\ IHDVLEOH SURYLGHG WKH GHVLJQ DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV UHSRUW DUH LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHSURMHFW:HLGHQWLILHGWKHIROORZLQJNH\JHRWHFKQLFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQVGXULQJ RXUVWXG\
• 7KHSURSRVHG&RVWFRZDUHKRXVHEXLOGLQJIXHOIDFLOLW\DQGFDUZDVKPD\EHVXSSRUWHG RQDFRQYHQWLRQDOVKDOORZIRXQGDWLRQV\VWHP2YHUH[FDYDWLRQDQG UHFRPSDFWLRQRIWKH RQVLWHVRLOVLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRPLWLJDWHORRVHVKDOORZVRLOVDQGSURYLGHUHODWLYHO\XQLIRUP VXSSRUWIRUWKHSURSRVHGZDUHKRXVHDQGRWKHULPSURYHPHQWV • 6RLOVZLWKLQIHHWRIWKHZDUHKRXVHSDG
LQFOXGLQJWKHHQWUDQFHFDQRS\EXLOGLQJDSURQV
XWLOLW\SDGV VWDLUV UDPSV VWRRSVDQGWKHORDGLQJGRFN VKRXOGEHRYHUH[FDYDWHGWRD
GHSWKRIDWOHDVWIHHWEHORZH[LVWLQJJUDGHRUIHHWEHORZWKHERWWRPRIWKHIRRWLQJVDQG IORRUVODEVZKLFKHYHULVGHHSHUDQGUHSODFHGDVVWUXFWXUDOILOO,IILOOVRLOVDUHHQFRXQWHUHG DWWKHEDVHRIWKHRYHUH[FDYDWLRQZLWKLQWKHZDUHKRXVHSDGWKHRYHUH[FDYDWLRQVKRXOG FRQWLQXHXQWLOWKHILOOLVUHPRYHG7KHRQVLWHVRLOVFDQEHPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQHGDQGUHXVHG DVVWUXFWXUDOILOO
• ([LVWLQJ VRLOV EHORZWKH FDU ZDVKIDFLOLW\ VKRXOG EH RYHUH[FDYDWHGWR GHSWK RI DW OHDVW IHHWEHORZWKHERWWRPRIIRXQGDWLRQVPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQHGDQGUHSODFHGDVVWUXFWXUDO ILOO7KHRYHUH[FDYDWLRQVKRXOGH[WHQGEH\RQGWKHSURSRVHGLPSURYHPHQWVDKRUL]RQWDO GLVWDQFHRIDWOHDVWIHHW
• 6RLOVLQSDYHPHQWVLGHZDONDQGRWKHUIODWZRUNDUHDVVKRXOGEHRYHUH[FDYDWHGWRDGHSWK RI DW OHDVW  LQFKHV EHORZ H[LVWLQJ JUDGH RU  LQFKHV EHORZ WKH ILQLVKHG VXEJUDGH HOHYDWLRQZKLFKHYHULVGHHSHU7KHRYHUH[FDYDWHGVRLOVFDQEHPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQHGDQG UHFRPSDFWHG DV VWUXFWXUDOILOO7KH RYHUH[FDYDWLRQ VKRXOG H[WHQG EH\RQGWKH SURSRVHG LPSURYHPHQWVDKRUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHRIDWOHDVWIHHW • 'LIILFXOWH[FDYDWLRQFRQGLWLRQVPD\EHHQFRXQWHUHGZLWKLQWKHVWURQJO\FHPHQWHGKDUGSDQ OD\HUVREVHUYHGEHWZHHQDQGIHHWDFURVVWKHVLWH • 2UJDQLFPDWWHULQWKHWRSVRLOLVORZ
EHWZHHQòWRòSHUFHQW
EDVHGRQODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJ
6WULSSLQJRIWRSVRLOLVQRWQHFHVVDU\+RZHYHUDQ\URRWVDQGYHJHWDWLYHPDWWHULQH[FHVV RIRQHLQFKVKRXOGEHUHPRYHGE\VFUHHQLQJRUUDNLQJSULRUWRUHXVHDVVWUXFWXUDOILOO$IWHU 
$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
VFUHHQLQJRUUDNLQJWKHVXUIDFHVRLOVFDQEHPRLVWXUHFRQGLWLRQHGDQGXVHGDVVWUXFWXUDO ILOO
• )ROORZLQJRYHUH[FDYDWLRQDQGSULRUWR UHSODFLQJVRLOVWKHH[SRVHG VXEJUDGH VKRXOGEH FRPSDFWHG ZLWK DW OHDVW D WRQ UROOHU IXOO\ORDGHG WDQGHPD[OH GXPS WUXFN RU ZDWHU WUXFN $UHDV LGHQWLILHG DV EHLQJ VRIW RU \LHOGLQJ PD\ UHTXLUH DGGLWLRQDO FRPSDFWLRQ RU RYHUH[FDYDWLRQDVGHWHUPLQHGE\.OHLQIHOGHU
• 7KHRQVLWHFOD\VVKRXOGQRWEHXVHGDVUHWDLQLQJZDOOEDFNILOO7KHJUDQXODUEDFNILOOZKLFK VKRXOGPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRULPSRUWHGILOODVGHILQHGLQ6HFWLRQVKRXOGH[WHQG EHKLQGZDOOVDKRUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHRIDWOHDVWRQHKDOIWKHKHLJKWRIWKHZDOO • :HUHFRPPHQGJUDQXODU
VDQG\
ILOOVRLOVDQGLPSRUWHGPDWHULDOVKRXOGEHFRPSDFWHGWR DWOHDVW
SHUFHQWRIWKHPD[LPXPGU\XQLWZHLJKW
$670'
LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH
&:'5V&OD\H\ILOOVRLOVVKRXOGEHFRPSDFWHGDWOHDVW
SHUFHQWRIWKHVRLO¶VPD[LPXP
GU\ XQLWZHLJKW
$670'
&RPSDFWLQJ FOD\H\ VRLOVWR DW OHDVW
SHUFHQW UHODWLYH
FRPSDFWLRQZLOODFKLHYHWKHQHFHVVDU\VWUHQJWKDVVXPHGLQRXUGHVLJQUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV • 7KHVLWHVRLOVDUHILQHJUDLQHGPRLVWXUHVHQVLWLYHDQGVXVFHSWLEOHWRGLVWXUEDQFHUXWWLQJ DQG SXPSLQJ GXULQJ FRQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH FRQWUDFWRU VKRXOG SODQ WR UHSDLU VXEJUDGH FRQGLWLRQV WKDW EHFRPH XQVWDEOHGLVWXUEHG DQG VKRXOG GHYHORS D SODQ WR PDQDJH VXEJUDGHWUDIILFDELOLW\DFURVVWKHVLWHWKURXJKRXWWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQSHULRG)HDWXUHVRIWKLV SODQPD\LQFOXGHWHPSRUDU\VXUIDFHKDXOURDGVOLPLWHGWUDIILFURXWHVHWF • 7KHUHVLVWLYLW\YDOXHVIRXQGIRUWKHVDPSOHVWHVWHGLQGLFDWHWKDWWKHVRLOPD\EHFRUURVLYH IHUURXVPHWDOV7KHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIVROXEOHVXOIDWHVLQGLFDWHWKDWWKHVXEVXUIDFHVRLOV UHSUHVHQWD&ODVV6H[SRVXUHWRVXOIDWHDWWDFNRQFRQFUHWHLQFRQWDFWZLWKWKHVRLOEDVHG RQ$&, 7DEOH 

$&,
7KHUHIRUH LQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWK$&,%XLOGLQJ
&RGHQRVSHFLDOSURYLVLRQVIRUVHOHFWLRQRIFHPHQWW\SHDUHUHTXLUHG • %DVHGRQWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHLQILOWUDWLRQWHVWLQJDQGRXUODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJLWLVRXURSLQLRQ WKDWWKHVLWHLVVXLWDEOHIRULQILOWUDWLRQ%03VSURYLGHGWKHIROORZLQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDUH LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQ'XHWRWKHYDULDELOLW\LQLQILOWUDWLRQUDWHVZH UHFRPPHQGWKDWDGHVLJQLQILOWUDWLRQUDWHRILQFKSHUKRXUEHXVHGIRUWKHVRLOVDWWKH EDVHRIWKH%03V
7KHIROORZLQJRSLQLRQVFRQFOXVLRQVDQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDUHEDVHGRQWKHSURSHUWLHVRIWKH PDWHULDOVHQFRXQWHUHGLQWKHERULQJVDQGWHVWSLWVWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJSURJUDP DQG RXU HQJLQHHULQJ DQDO\VHV SHUIRUPHG DQG VKRXOG EH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR SURMHFW GHVLJQ DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ

$6-25
 3DJHRI 0D\
‹.OHLQIHOGHU
 
&%&6(,60,&'(6,*13$5$0(7(56
$FFRUGLQJ WR WKH 
 &DOLIRUQLD %XLOGLQJ &RGH HYHU\ VWUXFWXUH DQG SRUWLRQ WKHUHRI LQFOXGLQJ QRQVWUXFWXUDO FRPSRQHQWV WKDW DUH SHUPDQHQWO\ DWWDFKHG WR VWUXFWXUHV DQG WKHLU VXSSRUWV DQG DWWDFKPHQWV VKDOO EH GHVLJQHG DQG FRQVWUXFWHG WR UHVLVW WKH HIIHFWV RI HDUWKTXDNH PRWLRQV LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK $6&(  H[FOXGLQJ &KDSWHU  DQG $SSHQGL[ $ 7KH 6HLVPLF 'HVLJQ &DWHJRU\IRUDVWUXFWXUHPD\EHGHWHUPLQHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK6HFWLRQRIWKH &%&
%DVHGRQLQIRUPDWLRQREWDLQHGIURPWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQSXEOLVKHGJHRORJLFOLWHUDWXUHDQGPDSVDQG RQRXULQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIWKH
&%&FULWHULDLWLVRXURSLQLRQWKDWWKHSURMHFWVLWHPD\EHFODVVLILHG DV 6LWH &ODVV ' 6WLII 6RLO DFFRUGLQJ WR 6HFWLRQ  RI   &%& DQG 7DEOH  RI
$6&(6(,$SSUR[LPDWHFRRUGLQDWHVIRUWKHVLWHDUHQRWHGEHORZ /DWLWXGH

ƒ1
/RQJLWXGH


ƒ:
7KH5LVN7DUJHWHG0D[LPXP&RQVLGHUHG(DUWKTXDNH
0&(5
PDSSHGVSHFWUDODFFHOHUDWLRQVIRU
VHFRQGVDQGVHFRQGSHULRGV
6VDQG6
ZHUHHVWLPDWHGXVLQJ6HFWLRQRIWKH

&%&DQGWKH&DOLIRUQLD2IILFHRI6WDWHZLGH3ODQQLQJDQG'HYHORSPHQW 26+3'
VHLVPLFGHVLJQ
PDSV ZHEEDVHG DSSOLFDWLRQ
DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV
VHLVPLFPDSVRUJ
,Q DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK6HFWLRQ
RI$6&(DVLWHVSHFLILFJURXQGPRWLRQDQDO\VLVLVUHTXLUHGIRU6LWH&ODVV'VLWHVZLWK DQ6 JUHDWHUWKDQ  J+RZHYHU D VLWHVSHFLILF JURXQGPRWLRQ DQDO\VLV LV QRW UHTXLUHG LIWKH VHLVPLFUHVSRQVHFRHIILFLHQW
&V
LVGHWHUPLQHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKUHTXLUHPHQWVRI&KDSWHUDQG H[FHSWLRQVDVQRWHGLQ6HFWLRQ7KHDVVXPSWLRQWKDW&VPD\EHGHWHUPLQHGLQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI&KDSWHUDQGH[FHSWLRQVDVQRWHGLQ6HFWLRQVKRXOGEHYHULILHG E\WKHSURMHFWVWUXFWXUDOHQJLQHHUGXULQJILQDOGHVLJQ7KH &%&6HLVPLF'HVLJQ3DUDPHWHUV