Cities Index.
Exhibit D-1 – Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices

Fresno City Council
April 18, 2024

Document
Exhibit D-1 – Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices
Meeting
April 18, 2024
Body
Fresno City Council
Pages
17
Original file
90.3 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on legistar2.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

Exhibit D-1
Draft Environmental Impact Report
with Appendices
&LW\&RXQFLO:

Costco Commercial Center Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Fresno Costco
Commercial Center
Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443
Prepared for:

Planning and Development Department
July 2023

Draft Environmental Impact Report
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443
Prepared for:

Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3043
Fresno, California 93721
Contact:

Jose Valenzuela
Supervising Planner
559.621.8070
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:

Jessica Babcock
Project Manager
916.444.7301
July 2023

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Summary Description of the Project ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Environmental Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures ............................................................... ES-2 ES.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................................ ES-4 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of This Draft EIR ...........................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................................................................1-1

1.4 Scope of This Draft EIR .................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Public Review Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Draft EIR Organization ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-6 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-20

2.4 Agency Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................... 2-21 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3.3-1

3.4 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 3.4-1

3.5 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.6-1

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change............................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.10 Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.11 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.12 Public Services ............................................................................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.13 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................................................................ 3.13-1

3.14 Utilities ..............................................................................................................................................................................3.14-1 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction to the Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Cumulative Setting ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 4-6 Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ii Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement .......................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ....................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................................................ 5-3 6 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Considerations for Selection of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 6-2

6.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Evaluated Further ............................................................................................ 6-3

6.4 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................................. 6-7

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 6-13 7 REPORT PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................................................. 7-1 8 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................................................8-1 Appendices
Appendix A – Notice of Preparation and Comments Received During the Scoping Period Appendix B – Geotechnical Study
Appendix C – Air Quality Technical Report
Appendix D – Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix E – Energy Technical Report
Appendix F – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Appendix G – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H – Noise Calculations
Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location of Project Site and Existing Costco Facility ......................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use Designation ..................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-4 Existing Zoning Designation ......................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5 Proposed Land Use Designation ................................................................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-6 Proposed Zoning Designation ..................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-7 Existing General Plan Roadway Classifications ....................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-8 Site Plan .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-9a Visual Simulation: Entry Canopy Perspective ........................................................................................................ 2-15 Figure 2-9b Visual Simulation: Northeast Perspective ............................................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-9c Visual Simulation: Southeast Perspective ............................................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-10 Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements ..................................................................................................................... 2-18 Figure 3.1-1 Project Site Existing Conditions - Facing Southwest ......................................................................................... 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-2 Riverside Golf Course Existing Conditions - Facing Northeast ...................................................................... 3.1-4 Figure 3.1-3 Preliminary Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 3.1-7 Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR iii
Figure 3.2-1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Designation ............................................................................ 3.2-4 Figure 3.11-1 Noise-Sensitive Receptors ....................................................................................................................................... 3.11-13 Figure 4-1 Cumulative Project Map ................................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... ES-5 Table 2-1 Project Elements ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-10 Table 2-2 Construction Equipment List ...................................................................................................................................... 2-19 Table 3.2-1 FMMP Mapping Categories ....................................................................................................................................... 3.2-2 Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................................. 3.3-2 Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ....................................................................................... 3.3-11 Table 3.3-3 Attainment Status Designations for Fresno County ........................................................................................ 3.3-12 Table 3.3-4 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2018-2020)1 ................................................................. 3.3-14 Table 3.3-5 Maximum Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Construction of the Project ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3.3-19 Table 3.3-6 Maximum Annual Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Operation of the Project ............................................................................................................................................................... 3.3-20 Table 3.3-7 Health Risk Assessment Results ............................................................................................................................. 3.3-23 Table 3.3-8 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Screening Levels for Potential Odors Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3.3-25 Table 3.5-1 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site and Their Potential for Occurrence on the Site ...................................................................................................................... 3.5-4 Table 3.5-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site and Their Potential for Occurrence on the Site ...................................................................................................................... 3.5-6 Table 3.6-1 Operational Energy Consumption ........................................................................................................................... 3.6-7 Table 3.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption ........................................................................................................................... 3.6-8 Table 3.7-1 Statewide GHG Emissions by Economic Sector .................................................................................................. 3.7-7 Table 3.7-2 City of Fresno 2016 Inventory Update and Business-as-Usual Projections (in MTCO2e)...................... 3.7-7 Table 3.7-3 Adjusted Business-as-Usual Emissions from the Project in 2030 and 2035 ............................................ 3.7-11 Table 3.7-4 Project Emissions in 2030 and 2035 including Project Design Features .................................................. 3.7-12 Table 3.11-1 Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria for General Assessment ................................................. 3.11-1 Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
iv Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.11-2 Caltrans Recommendations Regarding Levels of Vibration Exposure ....................................................... 3.11-2 Table 3.11-3 Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Source ....................................................................................................... 3.11-2 Table 3.11-4 Stationary Noise Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 3.11-3 Table 3.11-5 Acceptable Ambient Noise Level ............................................................................................................................ 3.11-5 Table 3.11-6 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels ........................................................................................................................... 3.11-7 Table 3.11-7 Human Response to Different Levels of Ground Noise and Vibration ...................................................... 3.11-9 Table 3.11-8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...................................................................................... 3.11-9 Table 3.11-9 Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................ 3.11-12 Table 3.11-10 Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment .................................................................................... 3.11-17 Table 3.11-11 Levels of Noise Exposure at Noise-Sensitive Receptors during Typical Daytime Construction Activity ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3.11-17 Table 3.11-12 Levels of Noise Exposure at Noise-Sensitive Receptors during a Nighttime Concrete Pour .......... 3.11-18 Table 3.11-13 Levels of Noise Exposure at Noise-Sensitive Receptors during Off-Site Construction ...................... 3.11-19 Table 3.11-14 Levels of Noise Exposure at Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Receptors during Operational NonTransportation Activity ............................................................................................................................................ 3.11-23 Table 3.11-15 Noise Measurements at Similar Tire Centers in California .......................................................................... 3.11-24 Table 3.11-16 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................... 3.11-26 Table 3.13-1 Proposed Project Daily VMT 3.13-13
Table 3.13-2 Existing Costco Daily VMT ...................................................................................................................................... 3.13-14 Table 3.13-3 Existing West Shaw Avenue Building Backfill Retail Use and Costco Fuel Station Daily VMT ........ 3.13-14 Table 3.13-4 Overall Change in Regional Daily VMT with Relocated Costco Warehouse ........................................ 3.13-14 Table 3.13-5 Transportation Sector Measures to Reduce VMT .......................................................................................... 3.13-15 Table 3.14-1 Utilities Providers for the Project Area ................................................................................................................. 3.14-4 Table 3.14-2 Normal Year Supply and Demand ........................................................................................................................ 3.14-5 Table 3.14-3 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand ................................................................................................................... 3.14-6 Table 3.14-4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand ............................................................................................................. 3.14-6 Table 4-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2 Cumulative Project List ................................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 6-1 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to the Proposed Project .................... 6-13 Ascent Environmental Screencheck Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation List of Abbreviations City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS ambient air quality standard
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
af acre-feet
AFV alternative fuel vehicles
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BAU business-as-usual
BMP best management plans
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE corporate average fuel economy
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP climate action plans
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CC Community Commercial
CC/EA/UGM/cz Community Commercial/Expressway Overlay/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
Central Valley RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEUS California Commercial End Use Survey
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG/UGM/cz General Commercial/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning City City of Fresno
CMP Congestion Management Process
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency’s
List of Abbreviations Screencheck Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
vi Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COG Council of Governments
Costco Costco Wholesale Corporation
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVP Central Valley Project
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
diesel PM exhaust from diesel engines
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
Draft EIR draft environmental impact report
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances’
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAX Fresno Area Express
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ fire hazard severity zones
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICAN Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
FID Fresno Irrigation District
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Fresno COG Fresno County Council of Governments
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GBV Ground-Borne Vibration
GC General Commercial
General Plan City of Fresno’s General Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
GIS Geographic Information System
GPA General Plan amendment
GSA groundwater sustainability agencies
GSP groundwater sustainability plan
HAP hazardous air pollutants
Ascent Environmental Screencheck Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation List of Abbreviations City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR vii
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency/Contingency Plan Hz hertz
IEPR Integrate Energy Policy Report
in/sec inches per second
kBtu/year kilo British Thermal Unit per year
km kilometers
kV kilovolt
kWh/year kilowatt hours per year
lb/day pounds per day
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn Day-Night Level
LEED™ Leadership in Energy Efficient Design
Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
Lmax Maximum Sound Level
LOS level of service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDO market delivery operation
MEI Maximally Exposed Individual
mgd million gallons per day
mgy million gallons per year
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent mPa micro-Pascals
mph miles per hour
MPO metropolitan planning organizations
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MW megawatts
MY Model Year
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP natural community conservation plan
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFWRF North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NKGSA North King Groundwater Sustainability Agency
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP notice of preparation
North Kings GSA North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
List of Abbreviations Screencheck Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
viii Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OCP organochlorine pesticides
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 or less Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
project Costco Commercial Center Project
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
RMS root-mean-square
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB regional water quality control board
RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
SAFE Rule Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule SB Senate Bill
SENL single-event noise levels
SESWTF Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOX oxides of sulfur
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SPL sound pressure level
SR State Route
SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
State CEQA Guidelines California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines SWE snow water equivalent
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWQDV Stormwater Quality Design Volume
SWTF Surface water treatment facilities
Ascent Environmental Screencheck Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation List of Abbreviations City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ix
TAC toxic air contaminants
TCP Traffic Control Plan
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TPY tons per year
USC U.S. Code
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tanks
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMPA Urban Water Management Planning Act
UV ultraviolet
VdB vibration decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WSA water supply assessment
WQO Water Quality Objective
ZEV zero emissions vehicle

List of Abbreviations Screencheck Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
x Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
This summary is provided in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines) Section 15123. As stated in Section 15123(a), “an EIR [environmental impact report] shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical.” As required by the guidelines, this chapter includes (1) a summary description of the Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project (project or proposed project), (2) a synopsis of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures (Table ES-1), (3) identification of the alternatives evaluated and of the environmentally superior alternative, and (4) a discussion of the areas of controversy associated with the project.

ES.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
ES.2.1 Project Location
The project site is a 22.4-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive in the city of Fresno. The project site is a single parcel, bordered by West Spruce Avenue to the north, the right-of-way of (currently unbuilt) North Arthur Avenue to the east, West Herndon Avenue to the south, and North Riverside Drive to the east.

ES.2.2 Background and Need for the Project
The Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) proposes to construct a membership-only Costco Commercial Center, including a new Costco facility with an attached tire center and home delivery services, as well as a detached gas station and drive-through car wash, in the city of Fresno. The existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue would be relocated to the project site, and the new facility would be sized to accommodate the membership base in northwest Fresno.

Costco has occupied the commercial building at 4500 West Shaw Avenue in the city of Fresno since 1985. Costco’s customer base in the area has outgrown the capacity of the current facility. For this reason, Costco would relocate to the proposed building, which would serve the same customers as the existing facility plus additional growth in the area. 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 delivery of purchases directly to homes in the Fresno area.

ES.2.3 Project Objectives
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a statement of objectives for the project and that the objectives include the underlying purpose of the project. The following is a list of project objectives:

X Construct and operate a new membership-only Costco Commercial Center 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.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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.

ES.2.4 Characteristics of the Project
The proposed Costco building would occupy 241,342 square feet, of which approximately 24,000 square feet would be reserved for storage and receiving. The sales floor area would include a tire center, optical exams and optical sales, hearing aid testing and sales, pharmacy, food service preparation and sales, meat preparation and sales, bakery and sales of baked goods, and alcohol sales. In addition to the general sales floor, the southwest portion of the warehouse would contain an area for receiving, storing, and loading big and bulky items for Costco’s home delivery program. This 47,000-square foot relocated market delivery operation (MDO) is a last-mile facility for delivery of large and bulky items and is not open to visitation by Costco members. At MDO facilities, large goods are dropped off, organized, and loaded for daily deliveries to Costco members’ homes. Services would be the same scale as the existing program but would be consolidated into the proposed retail facility. A dual-sided loading dock for large trucks would be located along the southern façade of the building. The MDO deliveries would be loaded onto box trucks at one of the loading spaces on the western façade.

PEDESTRIAN TRAILS AND BIKE PATHS
The project 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 facilities would be consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan.

OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The project would include adjustments to the configuration of the southbound turn lanes on North Riverside Drive and North Golden State Boulevard to accommodate additional vehicle traffic turning onto West Herndon Avenue. The project would also include the construction of North Arthur Avenue along the eastern edge of the project site and the construction of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue.

ES.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

MEASURES
ES.3.1 Project-Specific Impacts
This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 1500, et seq.) to evaluate the physical environmental effects of the project. The City of Fresno is the lead agency for the project. The City of Fresno has the principal responsibility for approving and carrying out the project and for ensuring that the requirements of CEQA Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-3
have been met. After the Final EIR is prepared and the EIR public-review process is complete, the Fresno City Council is responsible for certifying that the EIR adequately evaluates the impacts of the project.

Table ES-1, presented at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the project. The table provides the level of significance of the impact before mitigation, recommended mitigation measures, and the significance of the impact after implementation of the mitigation measures.

ES.3.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts and Cumulative Impacts

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
X Impact 3.11-1: Generation of a substantial temporary increase of construction noise levels in excess of applicable standards
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
ES.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following provides brief descriptions of the alternatives 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 efficient vehicle travel.

ES.4.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Development Alternative (described above in Section ES.4) would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project, as analyzed in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR. For this reason, it is the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Development Alternative would not meet the objectives the project. The No Project Alternative would also reduce the significant effects of the proposed project related to construction noise, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and safety hazards due to intersection capacity. This alternative would achieve several of the project objectives related to introducing commercial development into northwest Fresno.

Objectives related to the size of the facility and inclusion of a car wash would not be achieved due to the constraints of the existing zoning designation (i.e., Community Commercial).

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 described in Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” Alternative 2: Reduced Size Costco Warehouse would be environmentally superior action alternative. Although the environmental impacts would be similar to the proposed Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
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.

ES.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The City released a notice of preparation (NOP) for this EIR on October 22, 2021. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR was being prepared and to solicit input on the scope and content of the document. A virtual public meeting was held on November 2, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. The scoping period for the project ended on November 22, 2021. The NOP and comments received in response to the NOP are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Comments were received regarding traffic congestion, safety, and access; air quality and the proximity of the gas station to nearby sensitive receptors; access to existing recreational trails; and lighting. Issues to be resolved include the choice among alternatives and whether to adopt the mitigation measures identified in Table ES-1.

Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-5 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Aesthetics Impact 3.1-1: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and Its Surroundings or Conflict with Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality Implementation of the project would alter views by adding built-environment elements on a vacant parcel. However, the existing visual quality of the parcel is low. The project elements proposed would not change the suburban visual character of the general area, as elements of the project’s design (such as building height, color, massing, architectural detailing, screening vegetation and landscaping, and setback requirements) would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding environment. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.1-2: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Nighttime Views in the Area The project would introduce new sources of light onto the existing, vacant project site. Light spillover onto adjacent land uses would be reduced by using less powerful lights on fixtures at the edge of a property. Reflective, glare causing materials would not be used. All fixtures would be downcast and would not exceed the 0.5-foot-candle standard for light spillover onto residential areas. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impact 3.2-1: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment, Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to NonAgricultural Use The project would result in the development of a parcel that was formerly used for agriculture and is recognized by DOC as Farmland of Local Importance. The project site is no longer used for agriculture and is designated for commercial land use per the General Plan. Similarly, surrounding parcels are designated, and in LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable some cases developed as, residential and commercial uses. The project would not involve changes to the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. This impact would be less than significant. 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Air Quality Impact 3.3-1: Generate Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Considering SJVAPCD’s guidance, annual and daily construction-generated emissions were quantified for the project. The project would not generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria. These thresholds are inherently tied to long-term regional air quality planning (i.e., SJVAPCD’s AQMPs) which demonstrates that the project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plans. Because construction-generated emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria, construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.3-2: Generate Long-Term Operational Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Considering SJVAPCD’s guidance, annual and daily operation-generated emissions were quantified for the project for permitted and non-permitted operations. The project would not generate operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria for permitted and non-permitted sources following compliance with SJVACPD’s Rule 9510 (ISR) for this land use type. Because operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would be less than SJVAPCD’s annual and daily mass emissions threshold, impacts would be less than significant LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-7 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Impact 3.3-3: Expose Receptors to TAC Concentrations Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People Based on the HRA prepared for the project, construction and operation of the project would not produce significant diesel PM or other TACs such that SJVAPCD’s thresholds for TAC cancer risk exposure of 20 in 1 million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index of 1 for the MEI for non-carcinogens would be exceeded.

Using these numerical thresholds established by SJVAPCD, the project would not generate substantial emissions of TACs causing an adverse health impact from TAC expose. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.3-4: Expose Receptors to Substantial CO Concentrations Buildout of the project would not contribute to localized concentrations of mobilesource CO that would exceed an applicable ambient air quality standard. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.3-5: Generate Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People Buildout of the project would not introduce an odor source identified by SJVAPCD that could result in an adverse odor impact. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Archaeological Resources Although no known archaeological resources have been identified on the project site, project-related ground-disturbing activities may result in the discovery of or damage to yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologists to prepare a worker environmental awareness program. The program shall be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources. A copy of the worker environmental awareness program shall be provided to the City’s Planning Division before construction activities begin. The topics to be addressed in the worker environmental awareness program will include, at a minimum:

LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable f types of cultural resources expected on the project site; f types of evidence that indicates cultural resources might be present (e.g., glass shards, lithic scatters);
f what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; f what to do if a worker encounters animal bones or possible human bones; and f repercussions for removing or intentionally disturbing archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Retain an Archaeological Monitor and Native American Monitor, and Halt Ground-Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features or Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that any historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., glass, metal, and/or ceramic refuse scatters), or prehistoric subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., locally darkened soil (“midden”), stone tool chipping debris, bones, shell beads, or concentrated charcoal layers), are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified. The applicant will then retain the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Specifically, the archaeologist shall determine whether the find qualifies as an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or tribal artifacts. If the find does fall within one of these three categories, the qualified archaeologist shall then make recommendations to the City regarding appropriate procedures that should be used to protect the integrity of the resource and to ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, and/or data recovery, with preservation in place being the preferred option if feasible. If the find is a tribal artifact, the City shall provide a reasonable opportunity for input from a Native American tribal representative affiliated with the location of the discovery; affiliation shall be determined by the City, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, based on the City’s AB 52 list or the contact list provided by the NAHC. If responsive, the tribal representative will then determine whether the artifact is considered a tribal cultural resource, as defined by PRC Section 21074. The applicant, in consultation with the City and Tribe, shall implement the recommended preservation options (which may include preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation of significant artifacts, if it determines that the measures are feasible in light of project design, logistics, and cost considerations.

Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-9 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Impact 3.4-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource Tribal consultation has not resulted in the identification of tribal cultural resources on the project site. Despite this, excavation activities associated with project construction may disturb or destroy previously undiscovered significant subsurface tribal cultural resources. Impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures by requiring that a worker environmental awareness program be prepared and provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter cultural resources, requiring construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b. LTS Impact 3.4-3: Disturb Human Remains Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic-period marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, ground-disturbing preconstruction and construction activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would make this impact less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.4-4: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature Although no known paleontological resources have been identified on the project site, project-related ground-disturbing activities may result in the discovery of or damage to yet undiscovered resources. This impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of mitigation measures.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Halt Ground-Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Paleontological Resources If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the project applicant shall immediately halt operations within 30 feet of the find and notify the City. If the find is determined to be significant, it shall be salvaged by a qualified paleontologist retained by the project applicant following the standards of the SVP (2010) and curated at a certified repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

LTS
Biological Resources Impact 3.5-1: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Project activities would include ground disturbance, tree removal, and other vegetation removal, which could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special-status wildlife species if present, reduced breeding productivity of these PS Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a: Conduct Take Avoidance Survey for Burrowing Owl, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Compensate for Loss of Occupied Burrows f A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey for burrowing owls in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the project site no less than 14 LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable species, and loss of species habitat. This impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b would minimize impacts by requiring preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other common raptors, and other native birds, and implementation of protective measures for active nests. days before initiating ground disturbance activities using survey methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report (CDFW 2012). Much of the area within this 1,640-foot survey area does not contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., residential areas, commercial development, roads) and would not require surveys. Inaccessible areas that contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course property) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope. f If no occupied burrows are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. f If an active burrow is found within 1,640 feet of pending construction activities during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), the applicant shall establish and maintain a minimum protection buffer of 164 feet (50 meters) around the occupied burrow throughout construction. If an active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The actual buffer size shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the time of year and level of disturbance in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer shall not disturb burrowing owl use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no-disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be developed, as described in Appendix E of the CDFW Staff Report. Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW. The exclusion plan shall include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below). f If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. If an Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-11 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad-scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFWapproved burrowing owl exclusion plan developed in accordance with Appendix E of CDFW 2012 Staff Report. f If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) shall be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to develop a burrowing owl mitigation and management plan that incorporates the following goals and standards:
ƒ Mitigation lands shall be selected based on comparison of the habitat lost to the compensatory habitat, including type and structure of habitat, disturbance levels, potential for conflicts with humans, pets, and other wildlife, density of burrowing owls, and relative importance of the habitat to the species throughout its range. ƒ If feasible, mitigation lands shall be provided adjacent or proximate to the project site so that displaced owls can relocate with reduced risk of injury or mortality. Feasibility of providing mitigation adjacent or proximate to the project site depends on availability of sufficient habitat to support displaced owls that may be preserved in perpetuity. ƒ If habitat suitable for burrowing owl is not available for conservation adjacent or proximate to the project site, mitigation lands can be secured off-site and shall aim to consolidate and enlarge conservation areas outside of planned development areas and within foraging distance of other conservation lands. Mitigation may be also accomplished through purchase Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable of mitigation credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank, if available. Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultation with CDFW. ƒ If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permitteeresponsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan shall include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and responsibilities, vegetation management goals, financial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures. Success shall be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the site and if the numbers are maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, shall include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distribution, and trends in stressors.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b: Conduct Focused Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk, WhiteTailed Kite, Other Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Buffers f To minimize the potential for loss of Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other raptors, and other native birds, project construction activities (e.g., tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1-January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), if feasible. If project construction activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation shall be required. f Within 14 days before the onset of project construction activities during the breeding season (approximately February 1 through August 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys shall conduct focused surveys for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other nesting raptors, and other native birds. Surveys shall be conducted in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) within 0.5 mile of the project site for Swainson’s hawk and whitetailed kite; within 500 feet of the site for other raptors; and within 50 feet of the site for non-raptor common native bird nests. Inaccessible areas that contain habitat suitable for nesting birds (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course property) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope.

Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-13 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable f If no nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. f Impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity, including tree removal, shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. An avoidance buffer shall be implemented for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite in consultation with CDFW. CDFW guidelines recommend implementation of 0.25- or 0.5-mile-wide buffers for Swainson’s hawk nests, but the size of the buffer may be decreased if a qualified biologist and the City of Fresno, in consultation with CDFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. For other species, a qualified biologist shall determine the size of the buffer for nests of non-special-status species after a site- and nest-specific analysis. Buffers typically shall be 500 feet for common raptors. Buffer size for non-raptor common bird species generally shall be at least 20 feet. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size shall include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and proposed project construction activities. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for a listed or fully protected species (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite) shall require consultation with CDFW. If an active nest is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project construction activities shall be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project construction activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Energy Impact 3.6-1: Result in a Potentially Significant Environmental Impact Due to the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources, During Project Construction or Operation The project would not use energy for construction that would be considered wasteful or unnecessary, as that energy expenditure would facilitate operation of the project and achievement of project goals. The project does not include any construction activity beyond what is needed to provide a functional facility. Construction of the project would adhere to best management practices (BMPs) for construction (e.g., restrict idling time to 5 minutes or less). Moreover, the project would utilize Tier 3 construction equipment or construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). The project would introduce new electricity and natural gas consumption relative to baseline conditions; however, the project would be enrolled in the PG&E’s Solar Choice Program to procure 100 percent of its electricity from solar resources. The project would also be served by existing infrastructure capable of meeting the project’s operational energy needs. During operation, energy would not be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.6-2: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Energy Measures of a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency The project would be consistent with the relevant energy measures from the City of Fresno’s GHGRP that pertain to nonresidential development. Because the project would incorporate relevant measures as project design features, such as a commitment to PG&E’s Solar Choice Program, and would incorporate energy-reducing measures from the GHGRP, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City of Fresno’s GHGRP. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-15 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impact 3.7-1: Generate GHG Emissions That Would Conflict with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan The project would incorporate various measures that align with similar GHG reduction measures included in the GHGRP as project design features. The project’s emissions would also be reduced by new regulatory mechanisms that are in place at the time of writing this Draft EIR that were not in effect at the time the GHGRP was prepared such as the Advanced Clean Cars II Program and the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation. Through the incorporation of on-site reduction measures derived from the GHGRP and reductions realized from these aforementioned programs, the project would reduce its emissions by 3,140 and 6,719 MTCO2e in 2030 and 2035, respectively, as compared to BAU levels of emissions. To demonstrate compliance with the GHGRP, the project would be require to reduce its emissions by 1.5 percent or 381 MTCO2e and 11.6 percent or 2,711 MTCO2e below BAU emissions by 2030 and 2035, respectively, and this level of reduction exceeds these standards. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the GHGRP. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.8-1: Create a Significant Hazard through Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Project construction and operation would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Given compliance with applicable regulations which would reduce impacts associated with the use, transport, storage, and sale LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable of hazardous materials, including measures taken to address the safety of USTs and the handling of hazardous materials in accordance with the HMBEP and the local CUPA, impacts associated the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Impact 3.8-2: Create a Significant Hazard through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment or be Located on a Site which is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment Implementation of the project could result in release of hazardous materials due to release of chemicals associated with past agricultural use of the site, location on a site that is on a list of known hazardous materials sites, or due to operation of the project, which would involve the use, storage, and sale of potentially hazardous materials. The potential for past use of the project site to result in substantial hazard has been evaluated in, including soil sampling as part of a Phase II ESA. Operation of the project would be subject to regulations designed to reduce the potential for the project to create hazardous conditions through a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition. There is no evidence of a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.8-3: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within 0.25 Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Compliance with all relevant regulations for the handling and transport of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for the generation of hazardous waste typical of construction activities. Additionally, the potential for operation of the project to result in hazardous effects on either school would be limited because the gas station would be designed to minimize potential for accidental releases of fuel into the environment. For these reasons, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on schools within 0.25 mile of the project site.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-17 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Impact 3.8-4: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with the Implementation of an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify formal evacuation routes. Compliance with the conditions of the Street Work and Traffic Control Permit during any potential road closures, applicable general plan policies, and review of the site plan by the City Fire Department would result in a less-than-significant impact on implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 3.8-5: Expose People or Structures, Either Directly or Indirectly, to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires The project site is not located within a designated urban-wildland interface area nor is it near designated State Responsibility Areas. Existing development and irrigated agricultural land surround the project site, and the likelihood for wildland fire in the area is low. The project design would comply with existing regulations and would ensure the Costco facility and associated tire center, gas station, and drive-through car wash meet the standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent damage to structures or people by reducing wildfire hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.9-1: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Project construction activities such as grading, excavation, and trenching could result in erosion and sedimentation, and discharge of other nonpoint source pollutants. In addition, the project would include fuel storage and dispersal, tire maintenance, and a car wash facility that could generate stormwater pollutants LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-18 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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.

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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-19 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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 Regionwide MS4. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Land Use and Planning Impact 3.10-1: Cause a Significant Environmental Impact Due to a Conflict with Relevant Plans, Policies, and Zoning Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect The proposed project would require a general plan amendment (GPA), rezone, and conditional use permit (CUP). Requests for discretionary permits require that the project be evaluated for compliance and consistency with a variety of policy and regulatory programs adopted to avoid or reduce the severity of potential environmental effects. 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-20 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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 implementation 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Noise and Vibration 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 Proposed construction areas are 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.

S 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:
f 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. f 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. f Noise-reducing enclosures and techniques shall be used around stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g., concrete mixers, generators, compressors). f 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 SU
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-21 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation. f 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 nonself-adjusting backup alarms shall be set to the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise levels.
f 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.

Impact 3.11-2: Generate Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels Construction activity associated with the proposed project would generate shortterm 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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 PS 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.

LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-22 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable could result in potentially significant levels of noise depending on project design. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 would 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. 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact.LTS
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 Measures 3.11-3 and 3.11-5 would require the use of design interventions and/or restricted access along North Riverside Drive during noise-sensitive hours (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-3 and 3.11-5 would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

PS 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 any combination of the following measures:
f Pave the roadway segment with rubberized hot-mix asphalt or equivalent surface treatment with known noise-reducing properties on top of the roadway surface. The rubberized hot-mix asphalt overlay shall be designed with appropriate thickness and rubber component quantity (typically 15 percent by weight of the total blend), such that traffic noise levels are reduced by an average of 4 to 6 dB (noise levels vary depending on travel speeds, meteorological conditions, and pavement quality) as compared to noise levels generated by vehicle traffic traveling on standard asphalt. Rubberized hot-mix asphalt has been found to achieve this level of noise reduction in other parts of LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-23 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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. f 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.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-24 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact.LTS
Public Services and Recreation Impact 3.12-1: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Fire or Police Facilities or the Need for New or Physically Altered Governmental Facilities The project site is in a developing suburban area that is within the service area of the City’s fire and police departments. The proposed facility would serve the city’s existing population in northwest Fresno. The project would 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Transportation and Circulation Impact 3.13-1: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, Including Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities The proposed project would be consistent with established City and regional policies and plans related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit service in the project area. The proposed project’s off-site improvements include construction of bicycle facilities along its western, southern, and northern frontages (North Riverside Drive, West Herndon Avenue, and Spruce Avenue, respectively) and would be consistent with the City of Fresno Active Transportation Program. Additionally, although demand would be minimal, the existing transit service has the capacity to accommodate any increase in ridership generated by the proposed project. Lastly, the proposed project’s reclassification of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue would allow the project to construct the proposed intersection that would provide additional access to the LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-25 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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 beless than significant. 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.

S 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:
f 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. f Provide Ridesharing Program (estimated to result in up to 8 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall develop and implement a ridesharing. 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
ƒ providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

SU
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-26 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable f 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. f 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. f Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool (estimated to result in up to 20.4 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall implement an employersponsored 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 longdistance, single-occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions (CAPCOA 2021).

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.

S Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: Provide Off-Site Improvements Costco shall provide the following off-site improvements to alleviate queuing that would result in transportation hazards to the greatest extent feasible prior to issuance of building permit:
f 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 leftturn pocket as far north as possible without interfering with the existing north bound left-turn pocket at West Kathryn Avenue.

All off-site improvements shall be designed in accordance with City roadway design standards and are subject to review by the City and responsible emergency service providers.

SU
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-27 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = 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 is impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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 191,032daily 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 single-destination 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 becumulatively considerable.

S No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts. SU Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-28 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Utilities Impact 3.14-1: Require or Result in the Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment or Storm Water Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities, the Construction or Relocation of which could cause Significant Environmental Effects The project would develop a currently vacant site into a Costco facility, which would require extending the surrounding utility infrastructure onto the project site. All utility infrastructure extensions and hookups would occur within the disturbance area of the project site, the environmental effects of which have been analyzed in 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR ES-29 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable 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 aless-than-significant impact.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Source: Compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ES-30 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project (project or proposed project). This Draft EIR has been prepared under the direction of City of Fresno (City), the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) is the project applicant. This chapter of the Draft EIR provides a synopsis of the project under analysis; information on the type, purpose, intended uses, and scope of the Draft EIR; the public review process; and the organization of this document.

1.1 PROJECT REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Costco proposes to construct a membership-only Costco Commercial Center, including a new warehouse with an attached tire center and home delivery services, and a detached gas station and drive-through car wash. The proposed project site is a vacant 22.4-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive in the 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) North Arthur Avenue to the east, West Herndon Avenue to the south, and North Riverside Drive to the east.

The existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue would be relocated to the project site, and the new facility would be sized to accommodate the membership base in northwest Fresno. For further information on the proposed project, see Chapter 2, “Project Description.”

1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS DRAFT EIR
According to CEQA, preparation of an EIR is required whenever it can be fairly argued, based on substantial evidence, that a proposed project may result in a significant environmental impact. An EIR is a document used to inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental impacts of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant impacts, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts. Public agencies are required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a project.

This Draft EIR has been prepared to meet the requirements of a project EIR as defined by Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A project EIR focuses on the changes in the physical environment that would result from the implementation of a project, including its planning, construction, and operation. The City’s intention in preparing a project EIR is that no further environmental analysis would be required for additional regulatory approvals following approval of the project, absent conditions requiring a subsequent EIR, a supplement to the EIR, or an addendum. (See State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162–15164.)

1.3 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Within Article 5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15065 provides guidelines for the preliminary review of projects and conduct of an initial study. This section establishes that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:
(1) The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
1-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
(2) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
(3) The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
(4) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Based on evidence in the record at the time application for the proposed project was submitted, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the potential effects of project implementation.

Following the decision to prepare an EIR, Section 15065(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes that if a lead agency determines that any of the conditions specified above will occur, such a determination shall apply to:
(1) the identification of effects to be analyzed in depth in the environmental impact report or the functional equivalent thereof,
(2) the requirement to make detailed findings on the feasibility of alternatives or mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment, (3) when found to be feasible, the making of changes in the project to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment, and
(4) where necessary, the requirement to adopt a statement of overriding considerations.

1.4 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT EIR
This Draft EIR includes a detailed evaluation of the following environmental issue areas:

X Aesthetics;
X Agricultural and Forestry Resources;
X Air Quality;
X Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources; X Biological Resources;
X Energy;
X Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change;
X Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
X Hydrology and Water Quality;
X Land Use;
X Noise and Vibration;
X Public Services and Recreation;
X Transportation and Circulation; and
X Utilities.

Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 1-3
Under the CEQA statutes and the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may limit an EIR’s discussion of environmental effects when such effects are not considered potentially significant (PRC Section 21002.1[e]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15128, 15143). (See Section 1.3.2, “Effects Found Not to Be Significant.”) Information used to determine which impacts would be potentially significant was derived from review of the project; review of applicable planning documents and CEQA documentation; field work; feedback from public and agency consultation; and comments received during the scoping period (see Appendix A of this Draft EIR).

1.4.1 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation
The City released a notice of preparation (NOP) for this EIR on October 22, 2021. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR was being prepared and to solicit input on the scope and content of the document. A virtual public meeting was held on November 2, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. The scoping period for the project ended on November 22, 2021. The NOP and comments received in response to the NOP are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Comments were received regarding traffic congestion, safety, and access; air quality and the proximity of the gas station to nearby sensitive receptors; access to existing recreational trails; and lighting. The effects of the project on visual resources, including substantial new sources of light that would adversely affect views in the area are evaluated in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics.” Emissions of pollutants during project operation are evaluated in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” and Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.” Transportation, including safety hazards due to design or incompatible use and consistency with planned pedestrian facilities, is evaluated in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation.” Additional information about trails can be found in Section 3.12, “Public Services and Recreation.”

1.4.2 Effects Found Not to Be Significant
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a brief discussion stating the reasons why various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and are, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR. The following topics are not evaluated in detail in this Draft EIR because effects would not be significant: geology and soils, mineral resources, population and housing, and wildfire.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Directly or Indirectly Cause Adverse Effects Related to Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault, Strong Seismic Shaking, Seismic Related Ground Failure, or Landslides Earthquakes occur when fractures or boundaries between tectonic plates, which comprise the Earth’s crust, or lithosphere, move relative to one-another. The project site is located in a region traditionally characterized by low seismic activity. It is not located within the California Geologic Survey designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no mapped active fault traces are known to project towards or transverse the site. Because there are no mapped active or potentially active faults in the general vicinity of the site, the potential for fault-related ground surface rupture at the site is considered low. The primary sources of seismic shaking are anticipated to be the Great Valley Fault and San Andreas Fault, which are located at distances of about 42 miles and 65 miles from the site, respectively (Appendix B). All buildings would be constructed in compliance with California Building Code Title 24, which identifies specific design requirements to reduce damage resulting from strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and landslide. For this reason, development of the project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil
Based on soil borings and test pits excavated on the site, soils are comprised primarily of alluvial fan deposits overlain by topsoil. The alluvial deposits are generally composed of interbedded layers of stiff to very stiff silts and clays with variable amounts of sand and medium dense to dense poorly graded sands, and silty sand (Kleinfelder 2021).

Following construction, all disturbed areas would be either landscaped consistent with the City code or would be paved to reduce the potential for erosion.

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
1-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Location on a Geologic Unit or Soul that is Unstable or that would Become Unstable as a Result of the Project, Potentially Resulting in On- or Off-Site Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse
The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. The project site and surrounding area are relatively flat; therefore, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability are unlikely to occur. Liquefaction and associated adverse effects are not anticipated on the project site due to the lack of near-surface groundwater (Kleinfelder 2021). Therefore, there would be no impacts related to exacerbation of these potential hazards.

Location on Expansive Soil, Creating Substantial Direct and Indirect Risks to Life and Property
Based on laboratory test results, the surficial soils exhibit a low expansion potential (Kleinfelder 2021). All buildings would be constructed in compliance with California Building Code Title 24, which identifies specific design requirements to reduce damage resulting from expansive soils.

Soils Incapable of Supporting use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Waste Water Disposal Systems Where Sewers are Not Available for the Disposal of Waste Water The project would connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks and alternative disposal systems would not be constructed.

Conclusion
Based on site conditions and existing regulatory requirements, no significant impacts or a cumulatively considerable incremental effect related to geology and soils would occur, and no further analysis is required by CEQA. Potential impacts on paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.4, “Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources.”

MINERAL RESOURCES
Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource that would be of Value to the Region and Residents of the State
Impacts to mineral resources can occur if the project would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. In the city of Fresno, mineral resources primarily consist of aggregate, which are located in the San Joaquin River Corridor (City of Fresno 2014:8-1). The project site is not within a mineral resource zone identified by the California Department of Conservation Mineral Resource Zone Map and there are no mining activities within or near the project site (Fresno County 2000).

Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan The site is not delineated in any local land use plans as an important mineral resources recovery site.

Conclusion
Therefore, the project would not have any significant impacts or a cumulatively considerable incremental effect related to mineral resources, and no further analysis is required by CEQA.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Inducement of Substantial Unplanned Population Growth in an Area, either Directly or Indirectly
The project site is currently designated as Community Commercial and would be redesignated to General Commercial to accommodate the relocated commercial facility. The project does not include residential uses, nor does it include elements that would directly or indirectly affect population or housing (e.g., expand service infrastructure). Therefore, the project would not result in direct population growth or any substantial indirect Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 1-5
population growth. Construction would be short-term and would not result in construction employees relocating to the project vicinity due to this short duration and small scale.

As discussed further in Chapter 5, “Other Considerations,” the project would not induce growth by creating new employment positions; a maximum of 300 employees would work at the proposed Costco facility, which is the same maximum number of employees at the existing Costco on West Shaw Avenue (which would close once the project is operational). It is assumed that the employees at the existing Costco facility would relocate to the new facility.

The Fresno County General Plan Background Report (City of Fresno 2014:5.12-3) reports that the number of employees residing in Fresno County exceeded the number of jobs available after the year 2000. Therefore, demand for local jobs is high and some employees who live in Fresno County travel outside the county to their place of employment.

Because most of the jobs would be filled by existing employees, the project would not substantially increase the city's population or result in notable demand for additional housing or services. Any new employees would most likely be derived from the existing labor pool that resides locally (within the city or county). For these reasons, the project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth, Displacement of Substantial Numbers of Existing People of Housing, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere
The project would not remove any existing housing and would not displace any people or housing.

Conclusion
Potential impacts would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable, and no further analysis is required by CEQA.

WILDFIRE
Location on or near State Responsibility Areas or Lands Classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The project site is not in or near the State Responsibility Area designated by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. In addition, the city of Fresno does not contain any land classified as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.” Therefore, wildfire issues associated with lands under these designations are not discussed further in this EIR.

The potential for the project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires is discussed in Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.” Conclusion
Potential impacts would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable, and no further analysis is required by CEQA.

1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
This Draft EIR is being circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. During this period, comments may be submitted to the lead agency. Upon completion of the public review and comment period, a Final EIR will be prepared that will include both written and oral comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period, responses to those comments, any revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to public comments, and any other information added by the lead agency. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will comprise the EIR for the project.

Before adopting the project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
1-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

1.6 DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIR is organized into chapters, as identified and briefly described below. Chapters are further divided into sections (e.g., Chapter 3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” and Section 3.6, “Energy”):

The “Executive Summary” introduces the project; provides a summary of the environmental review process; and lists impacts evaluated, significance determinations, and mitigation measures.

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” provides a description of the lead and responsible agencies, the legal authority and purpose for the document, and the public review process.

Chapter 2, “Project Description,” describes the location, background, and goals and objectives for the project, and describes the project elements in detail.

Chapter 3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” provides an evaluation of the anticipated changes to existing conditions after development of the project. For any significant or potentially significant impact that would result from project implementation, mitigation measures are presented and the level of impact significance after mitigation is identified.

Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” presents an analysis of the project’s impacts considered together with other past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts, as required by Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Chapter 5, “Other Considerations,” evaluates growth-inducing impacts and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.

Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” presents a reasonable range of alternatives and evaluates the environmental effects of those alternatives relative to the proposed project, as required by Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The environmentally superior alternative is identified.

Chapter 7, “Report Preparers,” identifies the preparers of the document.

Chapter 8, “References,” provides the full references associated with the parenthetical references found throughout this EIR, organized by chapter and section.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Costco proposes to construct a membership-only Costco Commercial Center, including a new Costco facility with an attached tire center and home delivery services, as well as a detached gas station and drive-through car wash in the city of Fresno. The existing Costco warehouse facility on West Shaw Avenue would close following construction of the proposed project, and the new facility would be sized to accommodate the membership base in northwest Fresno (Figure 2-1). The Costco warehouse building is consistent with established zoning for the parcel; however, an amendment to the City of Fresno’s General Plan (General Plan) and rezoning of the site would be required to permit the proposed car wash. The project also includes a proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning to reclassify West Herndon Avenue from North Riverside Drive to North Hayes Avenue as a superarterial. The following discussion provides information about the project background, existing conditions, elements of the proposed project, buildout and operation assumptions used in the analysis, project objectives, and required approvals for the project.

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project site is a 22.4-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive in the city of Fresno. The project site is a single parcel, bordered by West Spruce Avenue to the north, the right-of-way of (currently unbuilt) North Arthur Avenue to the east, West Herndon Avenue to the south, and North Riverside Drive to the east. The project site’s address is 7120 North Riverside Drive and the assessor’s parcel number (APN) is 50302012 (Figure 2-2). Local access to the site is provided by West Herndon Avenue, West Spruce Avenue, and North Riverside Drive. Regional access is provided by State Route (SR) 99, via the West Herndon Avenue interchange approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest.

2.1.1 Existing Conditions
The project site was used as an orchard from approximately 1937 through 1998. Based on historical photographs, the orchard was removed sometime between 1998 and 2002 (NIC 2022). The site has been vacant since the orchard was removed. The undeveloped project site is roughly rectangular and sparsely vegetated with grasses. An electrical transmission line extends diagonally across the northern portion of the project site from a tower in the northwest corner to the eastern side of the site. 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.

CITY OF FRESNO GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING
The general plan assigns the project site the land use designation of Community Commercial (Figure 2-3). As shown in Figure 2-4, the zoning designation for the project site is CC (Commercial – Community). The existing Community Commercial designation and CC district are 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.

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
The project would develop a new commercial warehouse facility with local and regional access for both residents and visitors of Fresno. The project site is in an area that has recently experienced substantial retail growth. The project would be required to comply with applicable standards for commercial development prescribed in the Citywide Development Code.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-1 Regional Location of Project Site and Existing Costco Facility Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-3
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-2 Project Location
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Source: Data downloaded from the City of Fresno in 2021; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use Designation
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-5
Source: Data downloaded from the City of Fresno in 2021; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-4 Existing Zoning Designation
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONING
As described above, the project would require a general plan amendment to change the land use designation of the project site from Community Commercial to General Commercial. The General Commercial designation proposed for the site is described in Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element of the general plan as appropriate for retail and service uses that may generate high volumes of vehicle traffic. The proposed land use designation is shown in Figure 2-5.

Similarly, the project site would be rezoned from CC to CG, as shown in Figure 2-6. Large-format retail and fuel sales, which are the primary uses at the site, are allowed (after review and approval of a conditional use permit) within the existing CC zoning (see Section 15-1201 of the Fresno Municipal Code). The proposed rezone is necessary to permit the development of the car wash, which is not allowed under the current zoning. Development standards for the CG district are focused on ensuring that structures fit into the surrounding development pattern and architectural or traffic conflicts are minimized.

West Herndon Avenue is designated, depending on the specific segment, as either an expressway or superarterial, the two highest roadway classifications in the General Plan, throughout the project site’s vicinity and is designated as a superarterial between the project site and SR 99 (Figure 2-7). The project includes a general plan amendment to reclassify the portion of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue from expressway to superarterial to allow the construction of an intersection where West Herndon Avenue meets the private North Arthur Avenue right-of-way. The current classification of expressway would not permit the construction of this intersection. The proposed intersection where West Herndon Avenue meets the North Arthur Avenue right-ofway would allow access to the project site via two north-south streets, rather than solely from North Riverside Drive.

This may result in easier travel for southbound drivers along North Riverside Drive, including nearby residents and visitors to the Riverside Golf Course.

Customers traveling to the store from neighborhoods to the south of the project site would have access along North Riverside Drive, which is classified as an arterial south of the site, and Veterans Boulevard, a superarterial.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-7
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-5 Proposed Land Use Designation
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-6 Proposed Zoning Designation
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-9
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-7 Existing General Plan Roadway Classifications Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Article 59 of Chapter 15 of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes regulations and procedures for Planned Development Permits (PD Permits), which are permits for “development on large areas of land and infill sites to allow for projects that desire greater flexibility than already provided for in this Code.” The PD Permit process allows developments to request deviations from development standards to respond to site conditions in more customized and tailored manner than allowed by the standards specified in the Municipal Code.

The project applicant has applied for a PD Permit to request deviations from Section 15-2015 of the Municipal Code, which specifies that lighting fixtures in commercial districts have a maximum height of 25 feet. Costco aims to achieve 2.5 footcandles of light throughout the parking area to maximize safety within the parking lot. This level of lighting is intended to provide security and safety for drivers and pedestrians navigating the parking lot at night. The project would include light fixtures with a maximum height of approximately 36.5 feet instead of the allowed 25-foot-tall fixtures to reduce the number of lights needed to achieve the desired light levels within the parking field. The proposed 36.5-foot-tall light poles also allow a more diffuse distribution of light, reducing the difference in light levels in the areas between poles. The taller lighting also ensures that the area beneath the PG&E easement that runs directly through the parking field has adequate lighting. (No structures, including light poles, are allowed within this overhead easement.) Off-site glare and light spillover from parking lot light fixtures would be minimized by using less powerful lights on fixtures at the edge of the property.

2.2.1 Project Purpose and Need
Costco has occupied the commercial building at 4500 West Shaw Avenue in the city of Fresno since 1985. Costco’s customer base has outgrown the capacity of the current facility, which could lead to future traffic and parking concerns. For this reason, the existing Costco warehouse would close, and the new facility would serve the same customers as the existing facility plus additional growth in the area.

The project would allow Costco to expand services in the area to include an additional gas station and a car wash, as well as a loading area to facilitate delivery of purchases directly to homes in the Fresno area.

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The project would contribute to the availability of integrated retail sales of goods and services in the northwest area of Fresno in response to recent growth. The project would continue and increase Costco’s contribution to the City’s tax base through store sale tax revenues received by the City.

2.2.2 Project Elements
Each of the proposed project elements is described in detail below. A site plan for the proposed facilities is provided in Figure 2-8. Table 2-1 summarizes the different elements of the project and the square footage of each.

Table 2-1 Project Elements
Structure Area (square feet)
Warehouse Retail Building Footprint 241,342
Warehouse/Retail 162,264
Loading/Back of house/Storage/Receiving 23,881
Market delivery operation 46,834
Open canopy space 5,126
Building envelope 2,9555
Fuel canopy 12,885
Car wash 4,800
Source: Data provided by Urban Planning Partners in 2022.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-11
Source: Image produced and provided by Kimley Horn & Associates in 2021.

Figure 2-8 Site Plan

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-13

COSTCO WAREHOUSE BUILDING
The proposed warehouse would occupy 241,342 square feet of which approximately 24,000 square feet would be reserved for storage and receiving. The structure would be set in the southeastern corner of the project site, with parking provided primarily to the north and west of the building. The entrance and exit doorways would be located in the northwest corner of the building. The sales floor area would include a tire center, optical exams and optical sales, hearing aid testing and sales, pharmacy, food service preparation and sales, meat preparation and sales, bakery and sales of baked goods, and alcohol sales. Temporary outdoor sales may occur within the parking field adjacent to the warehouse for seasonal sales, such as Christmas trees from late November through December.

In addition to the general sales floor, the southwest portion of the warehouse would contain an area for receiving, storing, and loading items big and bulky items for Costco’s home delivery program. This approximately 47,000- square-foot relocated market delivery operation (MDO) is a last-mile facility for delivery of large and bulky items and is not open to visitation by Costco members. At MDO facilities, large goods are dropped off, organized, and loaded for daily deliveries to Costco members’ homes. Services would be the same scale as the existing program but would be consolidated into the proposed warehouse facility. The existing facility averages approximately 20 MDO trips per day and an average trip length of approximately 160 miles. In each trip, the box trucks typically make roughly 14 deliveries. It is anticipated that these trip characteristics would apply to the proposed MDO site.

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 13,000 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 gas 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. An 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.

COSTCO CAR WASH
A Costco members-only automated carwash would be located at the northwest corner of the project site, adjacent to the gas station. The car wash structure would be approximately 4,800 square feet. The car wash facility would include only the automated car wash within the structure. Wash water would be recycled. No self-service car vacuum stations would be provided.

EXISTING FACILITIES
Costco would close the existing Costco warehouse (see Figure 2-1). The City anticipates that the existing Costco building may be purchased or leased by another large-format retailer; however, no specific use, including the potential for redevelopment, is known at this time. The fueling station would remain.

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 full-service 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 the eastern edge of the site is a private Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
driveway, North Arthur Avenue. The North Arthur Avenue roadway would provide a north-south connection between West Spruce Drive and West Herndon Avenue, providing West Herndon Avenue with right-in and left-in access from West Herndon Avenue and right-out access from North Arthur Avenue. At the eastern edge of the project site, two additional right-in/right-out driveways are proposed along North Arthur Avenue for customer access. A third driveway is proposed along North 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 North Arthur Avenue, with a secondary truck route using the southernmost driveway along North Riverside Drive.

North Arthur Avenue
A portion of this project involves vacating an existing public street right-of-way for North Arthur Avenue, between West Spruce Avenue and West Herndon Avenue. North Arthur Avenue was originally dedicated on a May 26, 1920, map for the J.C. Forkner Fig Garden Subdivision. North Arthur Avenue was never developed or constructed as a public street. There are no current or future plans to develop or construct North Arthur Avenue as a public street. The purpose of this proposed street vacation is to dispose of excess public street right-of-way to accommodate the development of this project in accordance with the Streets and Highways Code.

West Spruce Avenue
The applicant would extend West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue. The connection would be consistent with the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan. The asphalt roadway would include curb, gutter, sidewalk, Class II bicycle facilities, and streetlights.

Loading
The truck loading dock would be located on the southern facade of the building. This dual-sided loading dock would allow trucks convenient access to loading positions with minimal maneuvering. The bay doors would be equipped with sealed gaskets to limit noise. A smaller on-grade door would also be located on the south side of the building.

This door would be used to receive bread delivery and Federal Express-type trucks. A transformer and two trash compactors would also be located along the southern edge of the building. As discussed below, dense landscape material would provide visual screening for these service areas when viewed from North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue.

In addition to the full-size truck loading dock on the southern side of the building, the southwestern portion of the building would accommodate the loading of small box trucks for Costco’s online order and delivery service. Goods ordered online by Costco members would be delivered to the warehouse along with normal warehouse stock in fullsize trucks. The southwestern portion of the warehouse would have space for receiving, sorting, and storing goods ordered online. When ready for delivery, these items would be loaded onto box trucks at one of the loading spaces on the western façade. The bay doors for this loading area would also be equipped with sealed gaskets to limit noise.

Parking
The project includes 889 total parking stalls, which meets the City of Fresno’s minimum parking requirements for the project. These parking stalls would include a total of 21 accessible spaces and 53 electric vehicle-ready parking stalls.

The design would be in compliance with City and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The project also would provide bicycle parking in accordance with the City’s Citywide Development Code.

Pedestrian Trails and Bike Paths
The project would include construction of 12-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle paths along the project site’s frontage with West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive. These facilities would be consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-15

2.2.3 Project Design

BUILDING DESIGN
The warehouse design is proposed to be contemporary and would include a variety of design elements that add depth and dimension. Costco intends to create scale and architectural interest with the use of design techniques such as the location of building materials, landscaping, and the incorporation of varying parapet cap heights that break the long elevations both horizontally and vertically. The technique of breaking a long elevation into smaller elements with varied materials and colors is used to create a more pedestrian-friendly scale in the proposed design. The proposed colors are natural earth tones, which will relate to the proposed surrounding development by utilizing similar building materials and architectural detailing. Figures 2-9a through 2-9c provide representative visual simulations of the proposed warehouse building.

The warehouse design is consistent with the requirements of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), an internationally accepted benchmark for green building design and construction. The buildings would use recycled metal in construction, and restroom fixtures would be high efficiency to reduce water use. In addition, mechanical heat from refrigeration systems would be captured to preheat hot water tanks.

Source: Image produced and provided by MG2 Corporation in 2021.

Figure 2-9a Visual Simulation: Entry Canopy Perspective Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Source: Image produced and provided by MG2 Corporation in 2021.

Figure 2-9b Visual Simulation: Northeast Perspective
Source: Image produced and provided by MG2 Corporation in 2021.

Figure 2-9c Visual Simulation: Southeast Perspective
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-17

LANDSCAPING
The landscape plan includes a mix of climate-adapted shrubs and grasses, and a variety of shade trees. The landscape design has incorporated a perimeter buffer which includes evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs to enhance the streetscape. The proposed trees and landscaping would meet the City’s shading requirement; the provided landscaping would shade at least 51 percent of the parking lot in 15 years. Additionally, the proposed landscaping represents 13 percent of the total project site and provides 354 trees, which meets the City’s requirements of 10 percent of total project site and 121 trees, respectively.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Costco would construct utility improvements within the project site to service the proposed uses and connect to available utilities adjacent to the site. Additional water and/or sewer infrastructure improvements would be constructed adjacent to the site, in the fronting streets. Water and 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.

Stormwater from the site would be directed to existing Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District drainage facilities in North Riverside Drive, West Spruce Avenue, and West Herndon Avenue.

The project would participate in PG&E’s Solar Choice program, which provides 100 percent renewable energy to customers enrolled in the program. The project would also implement a solid waste diversion program that is consistent with the measures of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (LSA 2021). Specifically, the project would implement techniques of solid waste segregation, disposal, and reduction (such as recycling, composting, and waste separation), to reduce the volume of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities consistent with Policies PU-9-a and RC-11-a.

During construction, the project would recycle construction and demolition waste consistent with Policy RC-11-a.

Infrastructure Improvements
As discussed above, the project would include construction of off-site improvements to improve circulation and provide utilities to the site. Specific improvements include the following and are depicted in Figure 2-10:

1. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of West Fir Avenue, North Riverside Drive, and the main Costco driveway.

2. The construction of a private 36-foot asphalt right-of-way (currently named North Arthur Avenue) running along the eastern boundary of the project site.

3. Construction of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Arthur Avenue to allow right-in/right-out and left-in turning, which would require a median cut on West Herndon Avenue.

4. The construction of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue. The asphalt roadway would include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights, as well as the installation of sewer and water mains underneath this portion of West Spruce Avenue. Existing turf and mature trees within the right-of-way would be removed. In addition, the existing irrigation system at the golf course and path for the golf carts would be relocated. A new fence and nets to prevent errant balls from striking vehicles and pedestrians would be installed along the northern boundary of the roadway.

5. Improvements to the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive.

6. Improvements to North Riverside Drive, including moving the concrete median approximately 5 feet to the west, construction of a second southbound left-turn lane, construction of a second northbound lane, and construction of a 12-foot-wide multiuse trail and a 3-foot-tall landscaped berm between trail and parking lot.

7. The construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a trail as identified by the City’s Active Transportation Plan along the project site’s frontage with West Herndon Avenue.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-18 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 2-10 Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-19

2.2.4 Construction
Construction would occur Monday through Saturday for a duration of approximately 170 days. The City of Fresno Municipal Code exempts from noise standards site preparation, grading, and construction work accomplished pursuant to a construction permit issued by the City or other governmental agency that takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday. Peak construction workforce numbers would be 80 to 100 people in the last four weeks of construction. Construction would typically occur within daytime hours; however, some activities, such as pouring concrete slabs, could require work to start early (2:00 a.m.). Costco uses premanufactured building elements wherever possible to streamline the construction process and reduce the duration and intensity of these impacts at the site.

Table 2-2 lists equipment anticipated to be used during construction. In addition, approximately 325 loads of aggregate base would be imported onto the project site and approximately 3,000 cubic yards of utility and foundation spoils would be off hauled. Grading of the project site would be otherwise balanced and would not require additional import or export of soils. All staging would occur on the project site. Trucks would enter the project site from North Riverside Drive and exit the site via North Arthur Avenue.

Table 2-2 Construction Equipment List
Activity Quantity Equipment Type
Earthwork (Site Preparation and Grading) 2 Skip Loader
2 Scrapers
2 Motor Grader
2 Soil Compactor
1 Vibratory Roller
4 Loaders/Tractor/Backhoes
1 Paver
1 AC Roller
Utilities 3 Excavators
3 Loaders
3 Backhoe Loaders
2 Gradall Forklift
Landscaping 2 Mini Excavators
2 Skidsteer Front Loader
Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coating 2 Excavators 3 Rubber Tired Dozers
3 Loaders/Tractors/Backhoes
2 Gradall Forklift
Source: Data provided by Urban Planning Partners in 2021.

2.2.5 Operation
Costco 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 gas station would operate from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. It is anticipated that the proposed facilities would employ approximately 300 individuals, which would transfer from the existing Costco facility on West Shaw Avenue. A maximum of 165 to 175 employees would be on-site at any given time. In total, the project is estimated to generate 10,616 net new weekday trips and 14,266 weekend daily net new trip ends.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-20 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Costco anticipates an average of about 10 to 13 trucks delivering goods on a typical weekday. The trucks range in size from 26-foot-long single-axle trailers to 70-foot-long double-axle trailers. Receiving time would be from 2:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., averaging two to three trucks per hour, with most of the deliveries completed before the 10:00 a.m. opening time. Deliveries to the warehouse would be made primarily in Costco trucks from its freight consolidation facility in Tracy, California, coming to the project site from SR 99 and West Herndon Avenue. Costco anticipates one daily delivery of large goods to the MDO facility. Typical receiving time is before 6:00 a.m., made primarily in Costco trucks from its freight consolidation facility (depot) in Tracy, California.

It is estimated that fuel would be delivered to the facility in two to three trucks per day. The largest fuel trucks would be approximately 70 feet long. While delivering the fuel, the trucks would be parked over the underground tanks. The trucks would not block access to any of the fueling positions or occupy any queuing space or parking spaces. The facility has been located and specifically designed to avoid traffic and queuing conflicts with the warehouse.

The tire center would typically receive shipments of tires one to two times per week in single- or double-trailer trucks of up to 70 feet in length, and the same delivery truck would pick up old tires for recycling. Deliveries to, and pickups from, the tire center would be scheduled for pre-opening hours, typically about 6:00 a.m.

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a statement of objectives for the project and that the objectives include the underlying purpose of the project. These objectives help the lead agency determine the alternatives to evaluate in the EIR (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[b]) and gauge whether alternatives or mitigation measures are feasible. The following is a list of project objectives:

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.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 2-21

2.4 AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.4.1 Lead Agency
The City is the lead agency responsible for approving and carrying out the project and for ensuring that the requirements of CEQA have been met. After the EIR public review process is complete, the City Council will determine whether to certify the EIR (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090) and approve the project.

2.4.2 Trustee and Responsible Agencies
A trustee agency is a State agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. The only trustee agency that has jurisdiction over resources potentially affected by the project is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Responsible agencies are public agencies, other than the lead agency, that have discretionary-approval responsibility for reviewing, carrying out, or approving elements of a project. 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 State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB);
f Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB); f San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD); and f Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD).

2.4.3 Required Permits and Approvals
The purpose of an EIR is to analyze the proposed development or activity described in the EIR, and this EIR is intended to apply to the listed project approvals, as well as to any other approvals that may be necessary or desirable to implement the project. A list of discretionary approvals, permits, and entitlements anticipated for the proposed project includes the approvals noted below. However, this EIR may be utilized by the City and any other governmental entities, such as responsible and trustee agencies, for approvals needed in connection with the proposed project, whether or not such agencies or specific approvals are expressly listed below. The following list identifies permits and other approval actions likely to be required from responsible agencies before implementation of the proposed project.

X SWRCB: Coverage under the State General Stormwater Permit.

X Central Valley RWQCB: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Wastewater Discharge Permit.

X SJVAPCD: Permit to construct and permit to operate.

X FMFCD: Plan and drainage report review.

The proposed project would also require the following entitlements from the City of Fresno:

X Amend the 2035 Fresno General Plan to change the planned land use designations for the project site from the Community Commercial to the General Commercial planned land use designation and reclassify a portion of West Herndon Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue from Expressway to Superarterial.

X Amend the Official Zoning Map of the City of Fresno to reclassify the project site from the CC/EA/UGM/cz (Community Commercial/Expressway Area Overlay/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone district to the CG/UGM/cz (General Commercial/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone district.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-22 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Approve a Conditional Use Permit to construct a ±241,342 square-foot, warehouse retail building with a ±4,800 square-foot car wash; and an ±13,000 square-foot, 32-station fuel canopy.

X Approve an Alcoholic Beverage Control Conditional Use Permit to establish a Type 21 alcohol license that would allow the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold.

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.

X Approve a Parcel Map for the subdivision of the existing parcel into two resultant parcels.

X Approve vacation of an existing public street right-of -way for North Arthur Avenue, between West Spruce Avenue and West Herndon Avenue.

X Approve a permit for construction noise.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3-1
3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This Draft EIR evaluates and discloses the environmental impacts associated with the project, in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). Sections 3.1 through 3.14 of this Draft EIR present a discussion of regulatory background, existing conditions, environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the project, mitigation measures to reduce the level of impact, and residual level of significance (i.e., after application of mitigation, including impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable after application of all feasible mitigation measures). Issues evaluated in these sections consist of the environmental topics identified for review in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared for the project (see Appendix A of this Draft EIR).

Sections 3.1 through 3.14 of this Draft EIR each include the following components:

Regulatory Background: This subsection presents information on the laws, regulations, plans, and policies that relate to the issue area being discussed. Regulations originating from the federal, state, and local levels are each discussed as appropriate.

Environmental Setting: This subsection presents the existing environmental conditions on the project site and in the surrounding area as appropriate, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The discussions of the environmental setting focus on information relevant to the issue under evaluation.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: This subsection presents thresholds of significance and discusses potentially significant effects of the project on the existing environment, including the environment beyond the project boundaries, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2. The methodology for impact analysis is described, including technical studies upon which the analyses rely. The thresholds of significance are defined, and thresholds for which the project would have no impact are disclosed and dismissed from further evaluation. Project impacts and mitigation measures are numbered sequentially in each subsection (Impact 3.2-1, Impact 3.2-2, Impact

3.2-3, etc.). A summary impact statement precedes a more detailed discussion of the environmental impact. The discussion includes the analysis, rationale, and substantial evidence upon which conclusions are drawn. The determination of level of significance of the impact is defined in bold text. A “less-than-significant” impact is one that would not result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment. A “significant” impact is one that would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment. These impacts are also described as “potentially significant” when the potential for substantial adverse change is less certain; however, both significant and potentially significant impacts are treated the same under CEQA in terms of procedural requirements and the need to identify feasible mitigation. Mitigation measures are identified, as feasible, to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for significant or potentially significant impacts, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Any required mitigation measures are numbered to correspond to the impact numbering; therefore, the mitigation measure for Impact 3.2-2 would be Mitigation Measure 3.2-2. Unless otherwise noted, the mitigation measures presented are recommended in the EIR for consideration by the City to adopt as conditions of approval.

Where an existing law, regulation, or permit specifies mandatory and prescriptive actions about how to fulfill the regulatory requirement as part of the project definition, leaving little discretion in its implementation, and would avoid an impact or maintain it at a less-than-significant level, the environmental protection afforded by the regulation is considered before determining impact significance. Where existing laws or regulations specify a mandatory permit process for future projects, performance standards without prescriptive actions to accomplish them, or other requirements that allow substantial discretion in how they are accomplished, or have a substantial compensatory component, the level of significance is determined before applying the influence of the regulatory requirements. In this circumstance, the impact would be potentially significant or significant, and the regulatory requirements would be included as a mitigation measure.

Approach to Environmental Analysis Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
3-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This subsection also describes whether mitigation measures would reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels. Significant-and-unavoidable impacts are identified as appropriate in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b). Significant-and-unavoidable impacts are also summarized in Chapter 5, “Other Considerations.”

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.1-1

3.1 AESTHETICS
This section provides a description of existing visual conditions, meaning the physical features that make up the visible landscape near the project site and an assessment of changes to those conditions that would occur from project implementation. The effects of the project on the visual environment are generally defined in terms of the project’s physical characteristics and potential visibility, the extent to which the project’s presence would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, and the expected level of sensitivity that the viewing public may have where the project would alter existing views.

Comments pertaining to aesthetic resources were received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix A) and included concern about lighting, loss of greenspace, and impacts to the adjacent golf course. These impacts are analyzed in this section.

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to aesthetics, light, and glare are applicable to the project.

STATE
California Scenic Highway Program
California Scenic Highway Program California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the California Legislature in 1963 and is managed by the California Department of Transportation. The goal of this program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to highways. A highway may be designated “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on travelers’ enjoyment of the view. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is a portion of Route 180 located approximately 25 miles southeast of the project site.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno’s General Plan (City of Fresno 2014) includes the following policies that pertain to aesthetic resources:

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.

X Policy C-19-e. Working with utility companies the city will continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.

X Policy MT-3-a: Scenic Corridors. Implement measures to preserve and enhance scenic qualities along scenic corridors or boulevards, including:
ƒ Van Ness Boulevard – Weldon to Shaw Avenues
ƒ Van Ness Extension – Shaw Avenue to the San Joaquin River Bluff Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.1-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
ƒ Kearny Boulevard – Fresno Street to Polk Avenue
ƒ Van Ness/Fulton couplet – Weldon Avenue to Divisadero ƒ Butler Avenue – Peach to Fowler Avenues
ƒ Minnewawa Avenue – Belmont Avenue to Central Canal
ƒ Huntington Boulevard – First Street to Cedar Avenue
ƒ Sheperd Avenue – Friant Road to Willow Avenue
ƒ Audubon Drive – Blackstone Avenue to West Herndon Avenue ƒ Fiant Road – Audubon to Millerton Roads
ƒ Tulare Avenue – Sunnyside to Armstrong Avenues
ƒ Ashland Avenue – Palm to Maroa Avenues
Bullard Community Plan
The Bullard Community Plan includes the following policies that pertain to aesthetic resources in commercial areas:
7g. Within an area 100 feet wide abutting property zoned or planned for residential use, exterior area lighting for parking areas, carports, garages, access drives and loading areas for commercial uses and office uses shall be shielded, to prevent line of sight visibility of the light source from abutting property zoned or planned for residential use.

Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 15, “City Wide Development Code,” of the City’s code contains specific design and development standards applicable to development within different land use districts and zoning overlay districts. The project site is within the City’s Community Commercial (CC)/Expressway Overlay/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning district.

Section 15-1201 through Section 15-1205
Section 15-1201 through Section 12-1205 of the Fresno Municipal Code establish design standards including height limits, setback, screening, and lighting height requirements, and reference to the landscaping standards that apply to development in commercial districts, including the CC and General Commercial (GC) districts.

Section 15-2015: Outdoor Lighting and Illumination
This section of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes additional standards to prevent spillover illumination or glare onto adjoining properties and prohibit interference with normal operation of adjacent property. Pursuant to this section, all outdoor lighting is required to be shielded. Light fixtures in commercial districts have a maximum height of 25 feet.

Sections 15-2420 and 15-2421: Parking Area Lighting, and Parking Lot Landscaping and Shading These sections of the Fresno Municipal Code establish additional standards to prevent spillover illumination or glare onto adjoining properties and prohibit interference with normal operation of adjacent property. All outdoor lighting is required to be shielded, and should not exceed a height of 20 feet within 100 feet of any street frontage or Residential District. Parking areas must have a minimum lighting level of 0.5-foot candle in parking areas. Section 15- 2420 establishes standards for tree cover, landscaping cover, and screening requirements for parking lots in MultiFamily, Mixed-Use, Office, Business Park, Regional Business Park, and Commercial developments: 10 percent of parking lots are to be landscaped.

Section 15-2508: Lighting and Glare
This section of the Fresno Municipal Code requires lighting design to deflect glare away from adjacent properties and prohibits or requires mitigation for direct heat or glare that may cause disruption to traffic or adjoining properties.

Light casting onto residential properties should not exceed 0.5 foot-candle.

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.1-3

3.1.2 Environmental Setting

VISUAL CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE PROJECT SITE
As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project site is 22.4 acres, flat, and undeveloped. The property was previously used as an orchard and has been disturbed and graded. The site currently supports minimal vegetation such as grasses and weeds. There are no trees on the project site, except for several large blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) trees adjacent to the project site to the north and northeast, including a windrow along the southern boundary of the Riverside Golf Course. These trees are located within the right-of-way for the Spruce Avenue extension. As shown in Figure 3.1-1, the site is maintained to manage vegetation. Electric transmission lines bisect the project site, and overhead utility lines are located along its southern boundary. The project site is bounded by roadways to the south and west. From adjacent roadways, the seasonal grassland offers relatively open views, although isolated between existing urban uses. The visual character of the site is vacant land.

Visual quality is the overall visual impression or attractiveness of an area in relation to its visual character as determined by the particular landscape characteristics, including natural features such as landforms, rock forms, water features, and vegetation patterns; or features of the built environment such as historic or aesthetically valuable structures, vegetation, or scenic roadways. The project site does not contain notable natural features such as landforms, rock forms, water features, vegetation patterns, and does not support any historic or aesthetically valuable built environment features. The project site is not within, visible from, or in proximity to, state scenic roadways or scenic corridors identified in General Plan Policy MT-3-a. The visual quality of the project site is low.

Source: Photograph taken by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 3.1-1 Project Site Existing Conditions - Facing Southwest Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.1-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
On the east side of the project site is a vacant parcel with similar visual characteristics that is zoned for multi-family housing. A commercial self-storage facility is located east of this parcel. A golf course (Riverside Golf Course) is located north of the West Spruce Avenue right of way and project site. Single family residential developments are located to the northwest, west, and northeast of the project site. Low to medium density commercial development is located southwest of the project site, at the southwest corner of the intersection of North Riverside Drive and West Herndon Avenue (refer to Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, “Project Description”). The existing commercial areas and residential communities are generally auto oriented in design, of low to medium density, and contain structures of similar height (i.e., one or two stories). Colors are predominately neutral tones. The limited height, density, and types of land uses comprising the areas surrounding the project site have a suburban visual character. The occurrence of interspersed vacant parcels in the vicinity of the project site results in an overall visual character that indicates transition from a rural community to a developed suburban environment.

Except for the Riverside Golf Course, development surrounding the project site does not contain natural features such as landforms, rock forms, water features, and vegetation patterns; or features of the built environment such as historic or aesthetically valuable structures, vegetation, or scenic roadways. The Riverside Golf Course supports gently sloping green hills, along with deliberately placed landscaping such as shrubs and trees. The range (or distance) of views of and within the golf course are short to medium. Landscaping on the golf course prevents direct line of site.

In addition, fencing and netting to block errant golf balls create visual separation along North Riverside Drive north of the project site. Figure 3.1-2 shows existing views of the golf course in the area north of the project site.

Source: Photograph taken by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 3.1-2 Riverside Golf Course Existing Conditions - Facing Northeast Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.1-5

VIEWS OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The project site is visible from adjacent roadways including West Spruce Avenue to the northeast, West Herndon Avenue to the south, and North Riverside Drive to the west, and from adjacent land uses including the golf course to the north, and the middle school located south of West Herndon Avenue. Primary viewers of the project site include occupants of the residential community approximately 80 feet to the west of the project site; individuals recreating at the golf course to the north; and drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians using adjacent roadways. Views from the middle school are limited due to vegetation that screens the school from West Herndon Avenue. The project site is also visible from commercial areas located approximately 260 feet southwest of the site, but views from this location are limited by interfering roadway traffic, distance, and vegetation.

LIGHT AND GLARE CONDITIONS
The project site is undeveloped and is, therefore, void of light and glare sources. However, the adjacent residential areas, roadways, and commercial areas located in proximity to the site include interior and exterior lighting around buildings, facilities, and surface parking lots, which introduce lighting onto the parcel and the surrounding areas.

3.1.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
First, the predominant built and natural features contributing to the project site’s appearance were identified (including built, natural, or cultural features) to describe the site’s visual character. The quality of the visual environment (e.g., low, moderate, high) was determined relative to the visual character of the project site and surrounding areas. Publicly accessible areas from which the site is visible were identified, and the level of viewer exposure was determined. These existing conditions were compared to the plans for the proposed project to characterize the change in the aesthetic quality of the site.

The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Different viewers react to viewsheds and aesthetic conditions differently. Because the project site is in a rapidly urbanizing part of the city that some viewers may not characterize as fully urbanized, the following evaluation discusses degradation of views of the site as well as potential for conflict with applicable regulations.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on aesthetics, light, and glare would be significant if implementation of the project would:

X have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
X substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
X in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point), and in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or X create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.1-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Substantial Adverse Effects on Scenic Vistas
A scenic vista is considered a view of an area that has remarkable scenery or a natural or cultural resource that is indigenous to the area. The project site is currently vacant and is located in a semi-developed, suburban setting. The site and surrounding areas do not contain remarkable scenery or views of natural areas that would be considered a scenic vista. There would be a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Substantial Damage to Scenic Resources
The project site is not visible from a state scenic highway or locally designated scenic roadway. No scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, are located within or in proximity to the site. There would be no impact. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.1-1: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and Its Surroundings or Conflict with Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality
Implementation of the project would alter views by adding built-environment elements on a vacant parcel. However, the existing visual quality of the parcel is low. The project elements proposed would not change the suburban visual character of the general area, as elements of the project’s design (such as building height, color, massing, architectural detailing, screening vegetation and landscaping, and setback requirements) would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding environment. This impact would be less than significant.

The project would construct an approximately 241,342-square-foot single story, contemporary-style retail building in the southeast corner of the project site, and a car wash and fueling stations along the northern portions of the site.

Supporting site improvements would include a parking lot, landscaping, and on-site utility connections. Landscaping would include shrubs, and evergreen and deciduous trees. As depicted in Figure 3.1-3, the project would place trees along most of perimeter of the project site to partially screen project elements from surrounding land uses. The building colors would be primarily neutral earth tones and would use exterior materials and architectural detailing consistent with surrounding development (see Figure 2-9a in Chapter 2, “Project Description”). 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. These facilities would be consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan.

The City of Fresno General Plan establishes policies related to land use and planning, as detailed above in Section

3.1.1, “Regulatory Setting.” Policy LU-6-a requires that the City foster high quality design, diversity, and a mix of amenities through compliance with guidelines, regulations, and design review procedures. The proposed facility would comply with applicable design review procedures. Policy LU-6-d requires the City to plan for 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. The project would be developed on a currently vacant lot and would not remove existing elements that could reduce the stability and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, as detailed in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” roadway design changes are proposed to ensure efficient access to the project site without compromising the operational effectiveness of the existing street system.

As described the in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project site currently has a land use designation of Community Commercial per the City’s official zoning map and is within the City’s CC/Expressway Area Overlay/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning district. Implementation of the project would result in a change from the CC land use designation to the GC land use designation.

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.1-7
Source: Landscape site plan provided by David Babcock and Associates in 2021 and adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 3.1-3 Preliminary Landscape Plan
Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.1-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
As described in the “Regulatory Setting” section, above, the Fresno Municipal Ordinance contains design standards and regulations pertaining to aesthetics that apply to each land use designation and zoning district. Section 15-1203 “Intensity and massing development standards” describes development standards applicable to different commercial uses. The maximum height for buildings in both GC and CC districts is 35 feet per Section 15-1203 of the Fresno Municipal Code. Additional aesthetics-related requirements (Sections 15-1201 through 15-1205) for these districts include landscaping standards, as well as building façade and setback requirements. For example, Section 15-1205 requires all street-facing façades to include one projection or recess at least 2 feet in depth for every 25 feet of wall. Section 15- 2420 establishes standards for tree cover, landscaping cover, and screening requirements for parking lots. The project design would comply with height, setback, façade, landscaping and tree cover requirements, and other aesthetics requirements contained in the Fresno Municipal Ordinance that are applicable to commercial zoning districts.

Currently, south-facing views from the Riverside Golf Course are minimally screened with vegetation, but also include views of the vacant project site and transmission lines in the foreground, and longer-distance views of surrounding commercial development. From this vantage point, views of the commercial development at the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive include buildings that are predominantly earth tones and similar in height amongst each other. Views from the golf course would be altered to include a net, parking, landscaping elements, the fueling station, and carwash in the foreground; and the retail warehouse building, and additional landscaping features in the mid-range views. The net and fencing that would be installed along the extension of West Spruce Avenue would have an appearance similar to the existing fence and net along North Riverside Drive (see Figure 3.1-2). Landscaping and trees proposed along the perimeter of the project site would provide partial screening. The existing visual quality of the site is low, and the project would introduce visual features that are consistent with local ordinances. Therefore, although the project would reduce the vacant land visible from this vantage point, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality and would be consistent with the visual character of the existing development in the vicinity.

East-facing views of the project site from the residential community are partially screened by vegetation and neutral fencing made of natural materials at the pedestrian level, but include vacant land associated with the site, views of the energy infrastructure on the site and views of street lighting in the foreground. Mid-range views from this vantage point include fencing and structures associated with the self-storage facility, and views of additional transmission lines, residences, and tree canopy in the long range. The project would introduce automobile traffic, parking and landscaping, and views of structures associated with the golf course nets, carwash, fueling facility, and warehouse structure in the short- to mid-range views of the site. The project would also increase viewers from this vantage point by placing additional pedestrian and bicyclist viewers along the proposed bike path planned along North Riverside Drive. The project would reduce the vacant land visible from this vantage point but would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality, which is relatively low, and would be consistent with the visual character of surrounding development.

North facing views of the project site from West Herndon Avenue are primarily short to mid-range. Viewers along this road include motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and visitors of the commercial development at the corner of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive. Elements visible from the extent of West Herndon Avenue include views of the project site in the foreground (vacant land, utility infrastructure), and mid-range views of vegetation associated with the southern boundary of the golf course. Existing views would be altered by eliminating the vacant land, and introducing parking, landscaping, and the warehouse structure in the short range. For motorists on West Herndon Avenue, the project would appear consistent with the character and scale of existing development along the roadway. The project would reduce the vacant land visible from this vantage point but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character because existing views are low quality and the project would be consistent with the visual character of surrounding development.

Implementation of the project would alter views by adding built-environment elements on a vacant parcel, but would not substantially degrade existing views of the project site or the surrounding areas. Elements of the project’s design (such as building height, color, massing, architectural detailing, landscaping, and setback requirements) would be consistent in visual character with the surrounding development, and consistent with applicable regulations pertaining to aesthetics.

These established standards would result in a development that would not detract from or degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.1-9
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.1-2: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Nighttime Views in the Area
The project would introduce new sources of light onto the existing, vacant project site. Light spillover onto adjacent land uses would be reduced by using less powerful lights on fixtures at the edge of a property. Reflective, glare causing materials would not be used. All fixtures would be downcast and would not exceed the 0.5-foot-candle standard for light spillover onto residential areas. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

The project site is currently vacant and is devoid of existing light and glare sources. However, the adjacent residential areas, roadways, and commercial areas located in proximity to the site include interior and exterior lighting around buildings, facilities, and surface parking lots, which introduce lighting onto the parcel and the surrounding areas. The project applicant has applied for a Planned Development Permit to request deviations from Section 15-2015 of the Municipal Code, which specifies that lighting fixtures in commercial districts have a maximum height of 25 feet, and proposes 36.5-foot-tall fixtures. This would reduce the number of light fixtures needed to achieve a lighting level of

2.5 foot-candles within the parking lot. Taller lighting is intended to allow a more diffuse distribution of light, reducing the difference in light levels in the areas between poles. The taller lighting also ensures that the area beneath the Pacific Gas and Electric Company easement that runs directly through the parking field has adequate lighting. (No structures, including light poles, are allowed within this overhead easement.) Light spillover onto adjacent land uses would be reduced by using less powerful lights on fixtures at the edge of a property. Reflective, glare causing materials would not be used in the building design. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that all fixtures would be downcast and would not exceed the 0.5-foot-candle standard established in Section 15- 2420 of the Fresno Municipal Code and the Bullard Community Plan for light spillover onto adjacent residential areas.

Shielding requirements in Section 15-2015 of the Fresno Municipal Code would also prohibit light pollution associated with upcast light and reduce effects on dark skies and day or nighttime views in the area.

The project would introduce new sources of light and proposes to erect lighting that is higher than existing City standards for parking lot lighting fixtures. All fixtures would be downcast and would not exceed the 0.5-foot-candle standard for light spillover onto residential areas that are adjacent. Therefore, the project impact of the new lighting would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.1-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Agricultural and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.2-1

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on agricultural and forestry resources. The existing forest and agricultural resource characteristics are described and the relationship between the proposed project and existing plans and policies is addressed. No comments regarding agricultural or forestry resources were received in response to the notice of preparation prepared for this project, which may be found in Appendix A.

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Natural Resources Conservation Service, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the agency primarily responsible for the implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides technical assistance to federal agencies, state, and local governments; tribes or non-profit organizations that desire to develop farmland protection programs and policies.

STATE
California Public Resources Code
Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 defines “agricultural land” as:
prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance or unique farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California.

This EIR uses these definitions for evaluating impacts associated with the loss of agricultural lands resulting from implementing the project.

California Department of Conservation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) administers and supports several programs, including the Williamson Act, the California Farmland Conservancy Program, the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. These programs are designed to preserve agricultural land and provide data on conversion of agricultural land to urban use. Key DOC tools available for land conservation planning are conservation easement grants, tax incentives to keep land in agriculture or open space, and farmland mapping and monitoring.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) develops mapping tools and statistical data that tracks and assesses changes to farmland land use. The FMMP designates portions of the state landscape as “prime farmland,” “unique farmland,” “farmland of statewide importance,” “farmland of local importance,” “grazing land,” urban and built-up land,” or “other land” as described in Table 3.2-1, below.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.2-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.2-1 FMMP Mapping Categories
Category
Considered Important
Farmland under CEQA1 Definition
Prime Farmland Yes Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain longterm agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years before the mapping date.

Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
Yes Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years before the mapping date.

Unique Farmland Yes Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years before the mapping date.

Farmland of
Local Importance
No Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

Grazing Land No Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.

Urban and BuiltUp Land No Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

Other Land No Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and non-agricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

Water No Perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres. 1 Important farmland is defined by CEQA under Public Resources Code Section 21060.01 and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

Source: Compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was adopted in 1965 to encourage the preservation of the state’s agricultural lands and to prevent their premature conversion to urban uses. Landowners receive reduced property tax assessments in return for enrollment under Williamson Act contract. Property tax assessments of Williamson Act contracted land are based upon generated income as opposed to potential market value of the property. In return, the landowners guarantee that these properties remain under agricultural production for a 10-year period. The contract is renewed automatically unless the owner files a notice of non-renewal.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
Policies in the City of Fresno General Plan emphasize preservation of farmland by incentivizing new development within and adjacent to already-urbanized land, only extending public utilities to new development that adheres to the plan, and not expanding the City’s sphere of influence. The Resource Conservation and Reliance Element also addresses the broader planning issues of farmland preservation (City of Fresno 2014). As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the land use designation of the project site is Community Commercial, and the site is within an urbanized area of the incorporated city with established utility service. General plan policies intended to preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under the general plan would not apply to the project.

Ascent Environmental Agricultural and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.2-3

3.2.2 Environmental Setting
The project site was used as an orchard from approximately 1937 through 1998. The orchard was removed sometime between 1998 and 2002, and the site has been vacant since then. Currently, the site is undeveloped and is sparsely vegetated with grasses. No agricultural uses occur on or adjacent to the project site. Surrounding land uses include a residential neighborhood to the west, a public golf course to the north (Riverside Golf Course), a vacant lot and selfstorage 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 project site and surrounding areas to the east, south, and west are classified as farmland of local importance (DOC 2018) (Figure 3.2-1).

As shown in Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” no agricultural uses occur adjacent to the project site and adjacent parcels are designated for residential and commercial uses in the general plan (City of Fresno 2022). No timberland, Timber Production Zones, or forest land are identified within or adjacent to the project site.

3.2.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
State and local mapping of farmland and forest land was used to identify the potential for resources on and adjacent to the project site. Evaluation of potential impacts of the project was based on review of documents pertaining to the project area, including the general plan, associated policies and zoning information, and FMMP Important Farmlands data.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on agricultural and forestry resources would be significant if implementation of the project would:
f convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; f conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; f conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)); f result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; and/or f involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.2-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Source: 2018 data downloaded from DOC in 2021
Figure 3.2-1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Designation Ascent Environmental Agricultural and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.2-5

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to NonAgricultural Use or Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson Act Williamson Act Contract
There are no lands under Williamson Act contract within or adjacent to the project site. No agricultural land use or zoning is present within or adjacent to the site. There would be no impact. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Conflict with Existing Zoning For, Or Cause Rezoning of, Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production; Result in the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest use; and/or Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment, Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use There are no forestland and timberland production zones within, or in proximity to, the project site. There would be no impact. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.2-1: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment, Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use The project would result in the development of a parcel that was formerly used for agriculture and is recognized by DOC as Farmland of Local Importance. The project site is no longer used for agriculture and is designated for commercial land use per the City of Fresno General Plan. Similarly, surrounding parcels are designated, and in some cases developed as, residential and commercial uses. The project would not involve changes to the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. This impact would be less than significant.

Farmlands of concern under CEQA (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance) would not be directly or indirectly affected by the development of the project. The 22.4-acre project site is classified as locally important farmland (DOC 2018) and has historically supported agricultural uses. As described above, the DOC’s farmland of local importance designation is intended to identify land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined at the local level. The site has been vacant since 2002 and is designated for commercial uses under the general plan. No agricultural land uses are identified on or adjacent to the project site.

As described further in Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” the project site and surrounding uses are designated for non-agricultural uses in the general plan. Land within the City’s sphere of influence is no longer identified for agricultural uses or anticipated to contribute to the local agricultural economy. Through the general plan and Development Code, the City has designated all land within the city for use other than farmland. The project supports the City’s intent to concentrate urban development within the City’s sphere of influence while supporting preservation of agricultural land in the unincorporated area. Therefore, while implementation of the project would result in the conversion of fallow land formerly used for agriculture, this conversion would not result in the loss of Farmland as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the project would not involve changes to the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.2-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-1

3.3 AIR QUALITY
This section includes a discussion of existing air quality conditions, a summary of applicable regulations, and an analysis of potential construction and operational air quality impacts caused by proposed development of the project. Mitigation is developed as necessary to reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible.

Public comments received in response to the notice of preparation articulated concerns related to pollution caused by operation of the project, specifically the proposed gas station. The effect of project operation on air quality is discussed below.

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting
Air quality in the project area is regulated through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, planning, policy making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) are discussed below.

REGULATORY
Federal Plans, Regulations, and Laws
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with implementing national air quality programs.

EPA’s air quality mandates draw primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments were made by Congress in 1990. EPA’s air quality efforts address both criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Criteria Air Pollutants
The CAA required EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants found all over the U.S., referred to as criteria air pollutants. EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. Criteria air pollutants are compounds that, at certain concentrations, can cause harm to human and animal health and the environment. Extensive scientific and economic research has been conducted to evaluate the specific concentrations where these pollutants may cause harm to health and environment and are reflected in EPA’s NAAQS, which are shown in Table 3.3-1. The primary standards protect public health and the secondary standards protect public welfare. The CAA also required each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. EPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, EPA may prepare a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

California’s SIP is updated periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The current SIP is a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region and state will comply with the CAA requirements to attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California (CAAQS)
a,b National (NAAQS)
c

Primaryb,d Secondaryb,e
Ozone
1-hour 
SSP
njJP3) –e
Same as primary standard 8-hour SSP
njJP3) SSP
njJP3)
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
1-hour SSP
PJP3) SSP
PJP3)
Same as primary standard 8-hour 9 ppmf
PJP3) 9 ppm

PJP3)
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Annual arithmetic mean SSP
njJP3) SSE
njJP3) Same as primary standard
1-hour SSP

njJP3) SSE
njJP3) —
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
24-hour SSP
njJP3) — —
3-hour — — SSP
njJP3)
1-hour SSP
njJP3) SSE

njJP3) —
Respirable
particulate matter
(PM10)
Annual arithmetic mean njJP3 —
Same as primary standard 24-hour njJP3 njJP3
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual arithmetic mean njJP3 njJP3 njJP3
24-hour — njJP3 Same as primary standard
Lead f
Calendar quarter — njJP3 Same as primary standard
30-Day average njJP3 — —
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 njJP3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour SSP
njJP3)
No
national
standards
Sulfates 24-hour njJP3
Vinyl chloride f 24-hour SSP
njJP3)
Visibility-reducing
particulate matter
8-hour Extinction of 0.23 per km
1RWHV
˜JP3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million. a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. c National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24- KRXUDYHUDJHFRQFHQWUDWLRQDERYHnjJP3
is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for further clarification and current federal policies.
d National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
f The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Source: CARB 2016.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-3
The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards determine the fuel efficiency of certain vehicle classes in the U.S. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets CAFE standards for passenger cars and for light trucks (collectively, light-duty vehicles), and separately sets fuel consumption standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and engines. With improved gas mileage, fewer gallons of transportation fuel would be combusted to travel the same distance, thereby reducing nationwide GHG emissions associated with vehicle travel. The most recent standards require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026, by increasing fuel efficiency by 8 percent annually for model years 2024 and 2025, and 10 percent annually for model year 2026.

EPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and off-road heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), PM10, and PM2.5, and because the EPA has identified diesel particulate matter as a probable carcinogen. Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on-road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce particulate matter and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.

In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, EPA regulations have also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for offhighway diesel fuel (from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S. All the aforementioned federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner.

Hazardous Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs, or in federal parlance, HAPs, are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage; or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches.

For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non-carcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the ambient standards have been established (Table 3.3-1). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.

EPA regulates HAPs through its National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The standards for a particular source category require the maximum degree of emission reduction that the EPA determines to be achievable, which is known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology—MACT standards. These standards are authorized by Section 112 of the 1970 CAA and the regulations are published in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63.

STATE PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, which was adopted in 1988, required CARB to establish CAAQS (see Table 3.3-1).

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Criteria Air Pollutants
CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned federally regulated criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to attain and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. The CCCA also provides air districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources, such as vehicle movement and residential, commercial, and industrial development.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, in 1998, particulate matter exhaust from diesel engines (diesel PM) was added to CARB’s list of TACs.

After a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate best available control technology for toxics to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare an inventory of toxic emissions, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportationrelated mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators).

Over time, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile-source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, diesel PM) have been reduced significantly over the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory PHDVXUHV
HJ/RZ(PLVVLRQ9HKLFOH&OHDQ)XHOVDQG3KDVH,,UHIRUPXODWHGJDVROLQHUHJXODWLRQV DQGFRQWURO
technologies. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan and other regulatory programs, it is estimated that emissions of diesel PM will be less than half of those in 2010 by 2035. Adopted regulations are also expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions emitted by cars and light-duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions will also be reduced.

LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Criteria Air Pollutants
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the primary agency responsible for meeting the NAAQS and CAAQS in the SJVAB. The SJVAB has been designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 (Table 3.3-3) (CARB 2020, EPA 2022). SJVAPCD works with CARB and EPA to maintain the region’s portion of the SIP for ozone and PM2.5.

SJVAPCD also enforces air quality regulations, educates the public about air quality, and implements a number of programs to provide incentives for the replacement or retrofit of older diesel engines. SJVAPCD’s air quality guidance also influences land use development in the SJVAB by providing decision makers with suggested goals, policies, and VFLHQFHSHUWDLQLQJWRVLWLQJUHFHSWRUVWRNQRZQRUSODQQHGORFDWLRQVRIVWDWLRQDU\DQGRUPRELOHVRXUFHVof air pollution.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-5
SJVAPCD adopted its 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Standards (PM2.5 Plan) on November 15, 2018. The PM2.5 Plan utilizes extensive science and research, state of the art air quality modeling, and best available information to develop a strategy to attain the federal health-based 1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS (SJVAPCD 2018).

Additionally, SJVAPCD adopted its 2016 Ozone Plan for 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Standard (2016 Ozone Plan) in June 2016. The 2016 Ozone Plan provides a comprehensive strategy to reduce NOX emissions, which combine with reactive organic gases (ROG) to form ground-level ozone, by 60 percent between 2012 and 2031 to assist SJVAPCD in attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (SJVAPCD 2016).

All projects are subject to adopted SJVAPCD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the project may include but are not limited to the following:

X Regulation VIII—Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions: Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust and dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, and landfill operations.

Compliance with Regulation VIII is mandatory and enforced through civil penalties, so compliance by the project proponent is assumed in this analysis. SJVAPCD is made aware of actions that violate their regulations and rules, such as Regulation VIII, and may investigate claims that, if found to be accurate, may incur financial penalties.

X Rule 1177—Gasoline Dispensing Facility Tester Certification: The purpose of this rule is to specify the requirements for persons electing to obtain certification as a Gasoline Dispensing Facility (GDF) Tester. The GDF Tester Certification Program has been established to provide GDF operators with a qualified pool of testers to SURSHUO\FRQGXFWWKHJDVROLQHYDSRUUHFRYHU\SHUIRUPDQFHWHVWVUHTXLUHGE\'LVWULFWUXOHVDQGRU$LU5HVRXUFHV Board (ARB) executive orders.

X Rule 2010—Permits Required: This rule applies to anyone who plans to or does operate, construct, alter, or replace any source operation that may emit air contaminants or may reduce the emission of air contaminants.

The proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD permitting requirements for stationary sources such as boilers or back-up generators.

X Rule 3180—Administration Fees for Indirect Source Review: This rule serves to recover SJVAPCD’s costs for administering the requirements of Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review (summarized below).

X Rule 3135—Dust Control Plan Fee: This rule requires applicants to submit a fee in addition to a dust control plan.

The purpose of this fee is to recover SJVAPCD’s cost for reviewing such plans and conducting compliance inspections.

X Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: This rule applies to all stationary sources of HAPs and requires them to comply with the standards, criteria, and requirements set forth therein.

X Rule 4101—Visible Emissions: This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.

X Rule 4102—Nuisance: This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other PDWHULDOV,IVXFKHPLVVLRQVFUHDWHDSXEOLFQXLVDQFHWKHRZQHURSHUDWRUFRXOGEHLQYLRODWLRQDQGEHVXEMHFWWR enforcement action by SJVAPCD.

X Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings: This rule limits ROG from architectural coatings by specifying storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements for architectural coatings. This rule also establishes ROG limits for various architectural coating types.

X Rule 4622—Gasoline Transfer Into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks: The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of gasoline vapors from the transfer of gasoline into motor vehicle fuel tanks. This rule applies to any gasoline storage and dispensing operation or mobile fueler from which gasoline is transferred into motor vehicle fuel tanks.

X Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations: This rule applies to the manufacture and use of certain asphalt types for paving and maintenance operations.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review: Also known as the Indirect Source Rule (ISR), this rule is intended to reduce or mitigate emissions of NOX and PM10 from the construction- and operation-related emissions of new land use development in the SJVAPCD. This rule requires specific percentage reductions in estimated on-site construction DQGRSHUDWLRQHPLVVLRQVDQGRUSD\PHQWRIDSUHVFULEHGRII-site mitigation fee for required reductions that cannot be met on the project site. Construction emissions of NOX and PM10 exhaust must be reduced by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively. Operational emissions of NOX and PM10 must be reduced by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The rule applies to residential developments of 50 units or more, and commercial development projects of 2,000 square feet and larger, so the proposed development would be subject to the ISR. The provisions of Rule 9510 are described in more detail in the analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) is an advisory document that provides lead agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. The GAMAQI describes the criteria that the SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. It recommends thresholds for determining whether projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methods for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. If modeled construction- or operation-related emissions for a project exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds for criteria air pollutants and precursors, then SJVAPCD recommends implementing mitigation to reduce these emissions. SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds are presented in Section 3.3.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.” SJVAPCD states in its GAMAQI that “[d]esign elements, mitigation measures, and compliance with District rules and regulations may not be sufficient to reduce project-related impacts on air quality to a less than significant level. In such situations, project proponents may enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the District to reduce the project related impact on air quality to a less than significant level” (SJVAPCD 2015a: 116).

SJVAPCD directs project applicants to reduce project-level emissions to the best extent, then allows project applicants to engage in regional programs or a VERA to further reduce emissions to a less-than-significant level.

Typically, air districts develop thresholds of significance for CEQA evaluation (summarized below) in consideration of maintaining or achieving attainment under the NAAQS and CAAQS for the geographical area they oversee (long-term regional air quality planning). These thresholds are often tied to the SIP of an air district in nonattainment for criteria air pollutants within a cumulative context. The associated air quality plans are submitted to CARB and contain an inventory of existing ambient air pollutant concentrations and, if applicable, a suite of measures to reduce air pollution along with a projected date of achieving attainment under the NAAQS and CAAQS. Air quality plans identify a budget that accounts for new, future sources of pollution from land use development and stationary sources. These budgets inform the development of CEQA thresholds of significance; “projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to ‘not conflict or obstruct implementation of [SJVAPCD’s] air quality plan’” (SJVAPCD 2015a: 65).

As discussed previously, the NAAQS and CAAQS represent concentrations of criteria air pollutants protective of human health and are substantiated by extensive scientific evidence. CARB states that ambient air quality standards “are established to protect even the most sensitive individuals in our communities. An air quality standard defines the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be present in outdoor air without harm to the public’s health” (CARB 2022a). As stated previously, SJVAPCD, like other air districts in California and within the U.S., are tasked with producing local air quality plans to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS by an eventual date. These plans include mass emissions inventories coupled with control measures that achieve necessary reductions in certain criteria pollutants and precursors to meet the concentration-based NAAQS and CAAQS. In developing CEQA thresholds of significance, SJVAPCD has developed quantitative, project-level thresholds based on anticipated levels of growth in the SJVAB in consideration of existing sources of air pollution and a future attainment date. These thresholds of significance are intended to optimize emission elimination of proposed projects while requiring a level of mitigation that is realistic DQGDFKLHYDEOH7KXVSURMHFWVWKDWGHPRQVWUDWHOHYHOVRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGRURSHUDWLRQDOHPLVVLRQVEHORZWKHVH thresholds would be consistent with long-term regional planning efforts in the SJVAB to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS and, therefore, avoid subjecting residents of the region to harmful concentrations of criteria air pollutants.

Consequently, such projects would not result in emissions that would conflict with an area achieving future attainment status under the NAAQS and CAAQS as outlined by an applicable air quality plan.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-7
Similarly, projects that demonstrate emissions levels in exceedance of an applicable threshold could contribute to the continued nonattainment designation of a region or potentially degrade a region from attainment to nonattainment, resulting in acute or chronic respiratory and cardiovascular illness associated with exposure to concentrations of criteria air pollutants above what EPA and CARB consider safe. Symptoms can include coughing, difficulty breathing, chest pain, eye and throat irritation and, in extreme cases, death caused by exacerbation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, cancer, and impaired immune and lung function. However, the exact location and magnitude of specific health impacts that could occur as a result of an individual project’s construction or operational emissions of primary and secondary pollutants are difficult to model with any degree of reliability for several reasons. Below includes a discussion of the types of modeling that may be used to estimate dispersion of pollutants, their inputs and scientific limitations, and use in estimating health impacts.

The most common approach to determining the fate and transport of directly emitted criteria air pollutants is through dispersion modeling.

Dispersion modeling is best suited for primary criteria air pollutants, such a CO, PM10 and PM2.5, which are directly emitted into the atmosphere and, at certain concentrations, cause adverse health and environmental impacts. Other pollutants of concern are identified as secondary pollutants, which are emitted as one compound, which then combines with other pollutants, to form criteria air pollution. To follow these secondary pollutants into the ambient atmosphere, use of a photochemical model is required.

The secondary pollutants of concern for this analysis are ROG, NOX, and oxides of sulfur (SOX), which combine in the atmosphere to form ground-level ozone and secondary PM. Photochemical modeling of these secondary pollutants is a more difficult exercise than the modeling of primary pollutants for the following reasons. With respect to the formation of ground-level ozone from the oxidation (i.e., combination) of ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight, rates of ozone formation are a function of a variety of complex physical factors, including topography, building influences on air flow (e.g., downwash), ROG and NOX concentration ratios, multiple meteorological conditions, and sunlight exposure (Seinfeld and Pandis 1996:298). For example, rates of ozone formation are highest in elevated temperatures and when the ratio of ROG to NOX is 5.5:1. When temperatures are lower and this ratio shifts, rates of ozone formation are stunted (Seinfeld and Pandis 1996:299–300). In addition, ROG emissions are composed of many compounds that have different levels of reactivity leading to ozone formation. Methane, for instance, is the most common ROG compound, yet it has one of the lowest reactivity potentials (Seinfeld and Pandis 1996:309, 312).

Moreover, as confirmed by epidemiological studies reviewed and confirmed by EPA and CARB, some groups may develop more severe health impacts than others. For instance, infants, children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting medical conditions are more susceptible to developing illnesses from exposure to air pollutants.

Additionally, environmental conditions (e.g., exposure to secondhand smoke), lifestyle choices (e.g., diet, exercise, use of drugs or tobacco products), and presence of a health condition (e.g., cancer, chronic illness) that may affect an individual's existing health is privileged information unknown to an air quality expert, regulator, lead agency, or any other person using photochemical models. Air dispersion and photochemical modeling cannot account for the locations of these individuals on a regional basis, and, therefore, the degree to which an individual may respond to certain concentrations of criteria air pollutants (e.g., the development of lifelong chronic conditions such as asthma or the exacerbation of an existing respiratory or cardiovascular condition) cannot be meaningful predicted. As explained in greater detail in Section 3.3.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” the best modeling tools available use regional and national health data to quantify potential health effects; however, these results are not specific to any one location and cannot account for nuances in health data that are unknown.

A recent court decision, known as the Friant Ranch Decision, shaped the way in which air quality impacts are analyzed in EIRs (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno). During the litigation process that led to the Friant Ranch Decision, SJVAPCD submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of Fresno County and Friant Ranch LP (the parties that ultimately did not prevail in the Friant Ranch Decision). In that brief, SJVAPCD provided scientific context and expert opinion regarding the feasibility of performing regional dispersion and photochemical modeling for ozone from one specific project. SJVAPCD described the challenges of trying to correlate pollutants in the atmosphere and cited several variables as to how and where pollutants would ultimately settle and the connection to actual health effects that would be realized in any one specific location from the generation of such pollutants. Such modeling, that could reasonably link secondary Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
pollution formation to specific health effects in a meaningful context from one project alone was not readily available (in 2009) for use by lead agencies. Notably, given improvements in scientific methodologies and modeling techniques, such modeling could be performed now using regional modeling tools such as EPA’s Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions and BenMap-CE; however, the degree of accuracy in applying models designed to trace the secondary formation of criteria air pollutants on a regional scale to project-level analysis is highly questionable given that compounding variables (e.g., temperature, sunlight, cumulative sources of air pollution, meteorological conditions) affect the accuracy of tracking the transport of these pollutants. This concern led SJVAPCD to state that “CEQA does not require an EIR to correlate a project’s air quality emissions to specific health impacts, because such an analysis is not reasonably feasible.” As SJVAPCD explains (SJVAPCD 2015b [footnotes omitted]):

Attainment of a particular NAAQS occurs when the concentration of the relevant pollutant remains below a set threshold on a consistent basis throughout a particular region. For example, the San Joaquin Valley attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when ozone concentrations remained at or below 0.124 parts per million Valley-wide on 3 or fewer days over a 3-year period. Because the NAAQS are focused on achieving a particular concentration of pollution region-wide, the Air District's tools and plans for attaining the NAAQS are regional in nature.

For instance, the computer models used to simulate and predict an attainment date for the ozone or particulate matter NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley are based on regional inputs, such as regional inventories of precursor pollutants (NOX, SOX and [ROG]) and the atmospheric chemistry and meteorology of the Valley. At a very basic level, the models simulate future ozone or PM levels based on predicted changes in precursor emissions Valley wide. Because the NAAQS are set levels necessary to protect human health, the closer a region is to attaining a particular NAAQS, the lower the human health impact is from that pollutant.

The goal of these modeling exercises is not to determine whether the emissions generated by a particular factory or development project will affect the date that the Valley attains the NAAQS. Rather, the Air District's modeling and planning strategy is regional in nature and based on the extent to which all of the emissiongenerating sources in the Valley (current and future) must be controlled in order to reach attainment.

Accordingly, the Air District has based its thresholds of significance for CEQA purposes on the levels that scientific and factual data demonstrate that the [SJVAB] can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the NAAQS. The Air District has tied its CEQA significance thresholds to the level at which stationary pollution sources must “offset” their emissions…. Thus the CEQA air quality analysis for criteria air pollutants is not really a localized, project-level impact analysis but one of regional cumulative impacts.

The brief explains that these CEQA thresholds of significance are not intended to be applied such that any localized human health impact associated with a project’s emissions could be identified. Rather, CEQA thresholds of significance are used to determine whether a project’s emissions would obstruct a region’s capability of attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS according to the emissions inventory prepared in a SIP, which is then submitted and reviewed by CARB and EPA. This sentiment is corroborated in an additional brief submitted to the California Supreme Court by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2015).

Note that this section aligns with the sentiments of these amicus curiae briefs and does not perform dispersion or photochemical modeling to numerically correlate the project’s emissions to potential human health impacts. Rather, the following analysis follows SJVAPCD’s guidance in evaluating the project’s emissions against SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance and provides a qualitative correlation between the project’s emissions and resulting health impact.

SJVAPCD has not developed its own model(s) for project-level evaluation of resulting concentrations of ozone precursors within the SJVAB that link emissions of an individual project to changes in health of individuals.

Toxic Air Contaminants
At the local level, air districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (“Permits Required”) and Rule 2201 (“New and Modified Stationary Source Review”), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SJVAPCD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including New Source Review standards and air Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-9
toxics control measures (e.g., CARB’s Hots Spots Program). SJVAPCD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through multiple programs. SJVAPCD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are people or facilities that generally house people (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals), that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants. SJVAPCD’s District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document, Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments, and Draft Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling are tools that may be utilized by experts to assess potential health effects at locations of sensitive receptors from the construction and operation of projects emitting TACs (SJVAPCD 2015c and 2018).

City of Fresno General Plan
The following existing City of Fresno General Plan Policies have been adopted to protect air quality:

X Policy RC-4-a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.

X Policy RC-4-b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.

X Policy RC-4-c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.

X Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.

X Policy RC-4-k: Electric Vehicle Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric vehicle charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes more widespread.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

3.3.2 Environmental Setting

METEROLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY/CLIMATE
The project site is within the city of Fresno and the SJVAB. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the levels of emissions released by pollutant sources and the ability of the atmosphere to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and the presence of sunlight.

The SJVAB is the southern half of California's Central Valley and is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide. The SJVAB is bordered by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south. There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeast end (elevation 408 feet) to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Straits. The bowl-shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the SJVAB.

The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean Climate Zone and is influenced by a subtropical high-pressure cell most of the year generated by the Pacific Ocean that influences the amount of rain that is deposited, the characteristics of WHPSHUDWXUHDQGWKHGHSRVLWLRQFROOHFWLRQRIDLUSROOXWLRQLQWKH6-9$%5DLQIDOOLVVSDUVHDQGRFFXUVPDLQO\LQZLQWHU Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).

The subtropical high-pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions, or a reversal of the normal behavior of temperature in the troposphere that results in a layer of cool air at the surface is overlaid by a layer of warmer air, in the SJVAB. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500–3,000 feet). These mountains can function as a physical barrier to trap emissions of regional pollutants in the SJVAB leading to degraded, stagnant air quality.

Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks with surface temperatures often lowering to 30–40°F.

During these events, fog can be present, and inversions are extremely strong. These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet.

Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of photochemical smog (ozone) formation.

The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Photochemical air pollution (primarily ozone) is produced by the atmospheric reaction of organic substances (such as ROG and NOX) under the influence of sunlight (SJVAPCD 2015a).

The local meteorology of the project site and surrounding area is represented by measurements recorded at the Western Regional Climate Center Friant Government CP Station. The average annual precipitation from a 1912 to 2016 period is approximately 14.3 inches. Average January temperatures range from a normal minimum of 36.7°F to a normal maximum of 55.4°F. July temperatures range from a normal minimum of 61.0°F to a normal maximum of 100.3°F (WRCC 2016). The prevailing wind direction is from the northwest (WRCC 2002).

EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Criteria Air Pollutants
Concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used to indicate the quality of the ambient air. A description of key criteria air pollutants in the SJVAB and their potential impacts on human health is provided below. Emission source types and health effects are summarized in Table 3.3-2. Fresno County’s attainment status for the CAAQS and the NAAQS are shown in Table 3.3-3.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-11
Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of
ROG and NOX in presence of sunlight. ROG
emissions result from incomplete combustion
and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels;
NOX results from the combustion of fuels
increased respiration and pulmonary
resistance; cough, pain, shortness of
breath, lung inflammation
permeability of respiratory
epithelia, possibility of
permanent lung
impairment
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor vehicle
exhaust
headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, death
permanent heart and brain
damage
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
combustion devices; e.g., boilers, gas turbines,
and mobile and stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines
coughing, difficulty breathing,
vomiting, headache, eye irritation,
chemical pneumonitis or pulmonary
edema; breathing abnormalities,
cough, cyanosis, chest pain, rapid
heartbeat, death
chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung function
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries,
and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory tract,
increased asthma symptoms
Insufficient evidence linking
SO2 exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable
particulate matter
(PM10), Fine
particulate matter
(PM2.5)
fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and
stationary sources, construction, fires and
natural windblown dust, and formation in the
DWPRVSKHUHE\FRQGHQVDWLRQDQGRU
transformation of SO2 and ROG
breathing and respiratory symptoms,
aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, premature
death
alterations to the immune
system, carcinogenesis
Lead metal processing UHSURGXFWLYHGHYHORSPHQWDOHIIHFWV (fetuses and children)
numerous effects including
neurological, endocrine,
and cardiovascular effects
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. 1 Acute health effects refer to immediate illnesses caused by short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants at fairly high concentrations. An example of an acute health effect includes fatality resulting from short-term exposure to carbon monoxide levels in excess of 1,200 parts per million. 2 Chronic health effects refer to cumulative effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations. An example of a chronic health effect includes the development of cancer from prolonged exposure to particulate matter at concentrations above the national ambient air quality standards.

Source: CARB 2022a.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.3-3 Attainment Status Designations for Fresno County Pollutant National Ambient Air Quality Standard California Ambient Air Quality Standard Ozone — Nonattainment (1-hour) Classification-Serious1
Nonattainment (8-hour)2 Classification=Extreme Nonattainment (8-hour) Respirable particulate
matter (PM10)
Attainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (24-hour)
— Nonattainment (Annual)
Fine particulate matter
(PM2.5)
Nonattainment (24-hour) —
Nonattainment (Annual) Nonattainment (Annual)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8QFODVVLILHG$WWDLQPHQW
-hour) Attainment (1-hour)
8QFODVVLILHG$WWDLQPHQW
-hour) Attainment (8-hour)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 8QFODVVLILHG$WWDLQPHQW
-hour) Attainment (1-hour)
8QFODVVLILHG$WWDLQPHQW
$QQXDO
Attainment (Annual)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
5 8QFODVVLILHG$WWDLQPHQW
-Hour)
Attainment (1-hour)
Attainment (24-hour)
Lead (Particulate) Attainment (3-month rolling avg.) Attainment (30-day average) Hydrogen Sulfide
No Federal Standard
Unclassified (1-hour)
Sulfates Attainment (24-hour)
Visibly Reducing Particles Unclassified (8-hour)
Vinyl Chloride Unclassified (24-hour)
1 Per Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 40921.5(c), the classification is based on 1989 – 1991 data, and therefore does not change. 2 2015 Standard.

Sources: CARB 2020, EPA 2022.

Ozone
Ozone is a photochemical oxidant (a substance whose oxygen combines chemically with another substance in the presence of sunlight) and the primary component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. ROG are volatile organic compounds that are photochemically reactive. ROG emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. NOX are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen that result from the combustion of fuels. As discussed in greater detail above under the heading, “San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,” in Section 3.3.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the formation of ozone from the oxidation of ROG and NOX is a complex interaction and is reliant on various functions and conditions.

Acute health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include restriction of lung function and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2018). Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX have decreased over the past several years because of more stringent motor vehicle standards and cleaner burning fuels. Emissions of ROG and NOX decreased from 2000 to 2010 and are projected to continue decreasing from 2010 to 2035 (CARB 2013).

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban environments. The major human-made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide, which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2.

The term NOX is used to represent the combined emissions of seven compounds. The combined emissions are reported as equivalent NO2, which are regulated by EPA and CARB through the CAA and CCAA. Because NO2 is formed and Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-13
depleted by reactions associated with photochemical smog (ozone), the NO2 concentration in a particular geographical area may not be representative of the local sources of NOX emissions (EPA 2012).

Acute health effects of exposure to NOX includes coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting, headache, eye irritation, chemical pneumonitis, or pulmonary edema, breathing abnormalities, cyanosis, chest pain, rapid heartbeat, and death. Chronic health effects include chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function (CARB 2022a).

Particulate Matter
Respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less is referred to as PM10. PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires and natural windblown dust, and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by reaction of gaseous precursors (CARB 2013). Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) includes a subgroup of smaller particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. PM10 emissions in the SJVAB are dominated by emissions from area sources, primarily fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved and paved roads, farming operations, construction and demolition, and particles from residential fuel combustion. Direct emissions of PM10 are projected to remain relatively constant through 2035. Emissions of PM2.5 in the SJVAB are dominated by the same sources as emissions of PM10 (CARB 2013). Additionally, emissions of ambient PM2.5 are heavily influenced from secondary source emissions such as nitrates, sulfates, and organic compounds from combustion processes including biomass burning, soil and road dust, livestock operations, and use of aerosols (Behera and Sharma 2010). While primary PM2.5 is from direct emissions, secondary PM2.5 is formed in the atmosphere through photochemical reactions, condensation, and other atmospheric processes.

A number of adverse health impacts have been associated with exposure to both PM2.5 and PM10 (CARB 2022a).

Short-term exposures to PM10 have been associated primarily with worsening of respiratory diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leading to hospitalization and emergency department visits. For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24 hours in duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung cases, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days. These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases. In addition, of all the common air pollutants, PM2.5 is associated with the greatest proportion of adverse health effects related to air pollution, both in the U.S. and worldwide. Long-term (months to years) exposure to PM2.5 has been linked to premature death, particularly in people who have chronic heart or lung diseases, and reduced lung function growth in children.

Carbon Monoxide
CO is an odorless, colorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO is a product of motor vehicle exhaust, which comprises the majority of ambient CO concentrations. High concentrations of CO generally occur in areas with heavy traffic congestion. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes such as carbon black manufacturing, non-transportation related fuel combustion, and natural sources such as wildfires. CO can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen delivery to the body’s organs (including the heart and brain) and tissues.

For people with heart disease, short-term exposure to CO can further affect their body’s capacity to respond to the increased oxygen demands of exercise or exertion. CO can also be deadly in indoor environments and closed spaces.

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.

The main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of SO2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits placed on the sulfur content of fuels. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Lead
Lead (Pb) in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline, the manufacturing of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phase-out of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95 percent. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, EDWWHU\UHF\FOLQJDQGPDQXIDFWXULQJIDFLOLWLHVDUHEHFRPLQJOHDGŠHPLVVLRQVRXUFHVRIJUHDWHUFRQFHUQ Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth.

Monitoring Station Data and Attainment Designations
Criteria air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in the SJVAB. The Table Mountain station is the station closest to and most representative of the project area with recent data for ozone. Because no PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are collected at the Table Mountain station, measured concentrations from the next closest station, the Clovis-N Villa Avenue station, was used. Table 3.3-4 summarizes the air quality data from a recent 3-year period (2018–2020).

Both CARB and EPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants (attainment designations are summarized above in Table 3.3-2). As shown in Table 3.3-4, measured emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 in 2020 were elevated due to wildfire activity in southern and central California.

Table 3.3-4 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2018-2020)1 2018 2019 2020
Ozone
Maximum concentration (1-KRXU-KUDYJ
SSPSSP
2 * * 

1XPEHURIGD\VVWDWHQDWLRQDOVWDQGDUGH[FHHGHG
-hr avg, 0.070 ppm) * * 5
Number of days national standard exceeded (1-hr, 0.09 ppm) * * 2 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum concentration (24-KRXUnjJP3) 82.3 39.1 193.7 Number of days national standard exceeded (24-KRXUPHDVXUHGnjJP3) 2 25 1 40
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
Maximum concentration (24-KRXUnjJP3) 118.6 155.7 296.0 Number of days state standard exceeded (24-KRXUnjJP3) 14 11 114 Number of days national standard exceeded (24-KRXUnjJP3) 0 0 1 1RWHV
njJP3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million. 1 Measurements from the Table Mountain station for ozone. Measurement for respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) were taken from the Clovis-N Villa Avenue station. 2 The 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS matches the 8-hour ozone CAAQS.

Source: CARB 2022b.

Toxic Air Contaminants
According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB 2013), the majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel PM. Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances.

Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emissions control Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-15
system is being used. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. These estimates can be used as a surrogate for diesel PM where information specific to diesel PM is limited due to its highly dispersive character. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, paradichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene.

Diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among these 10 TACs mentioned. Overall, levels of most TACs, except paradichlorobenzene and formaldehyde, have decreased since 1990 (CARB 2013).

Existing sources of TACs in the project area include gasoline vapors such as benzene, toluene, and methyl tertiarybutyl ether from operation of the Valero gas station to the south of the project site. Also, diesel PM emissions are produced from vehicle trips on West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors include those land uses where exposure to pollutants could result in health-related risks to sensitive individuals, such as children or the elderly. Residential dwellings, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, and similar IDFLOLWLHVDUHRISULPDU\FRQFHUQEHFDXVHRIWKHSUHVHQFHRISHRSOHSDUWLFXODUO\VHQVLWLYHWRSROOXWDQWVDQGRUWKH potential for increased and prolonged exposure to pollutants. The project site is in a mixed-use area with commercial development to the south, the Riverside Golf Course to the north, residences to the east and west of the project site, and the Rio Vista Middle School and River Bluff Elementary School to the southeast.

The nearest 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. 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.

Odors
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., fast food restaurant). It is important to also note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. Odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting operations, rendering plants, and food packaging plants. None of these odorous land uses are within proximity to the project site.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

3.3.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The following resources were used for this analysis:

X the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2020.4.0 Computer Program (CAPCOA 2021), X SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI (SJVAPCD 2015a), and
X the 2022 Air Quality Technical Report (Ramboll 2022) (included as Appendix C to this EIR).

Criteria Air Pollutants
SJVAPCD has established thresholds for determining environmental significance of air pollutant emissions. These thresholds distinguish between a project’s short-term emissions from its long-term emissions. The short-term emissions are related to the construction phase of a project, which are recognized to be short in duration. The longterm emissions are related to the activities that will occur on an ongoing basis as a result of project operations.

Impacts are evaluated both on the basis of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G questions and SJVAPCD significance criteria.

The impacts evaluated are those involving construction, operational emissions of criteria pollutants [i.e., ROG and NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5], and cumulative air quality impacts. Because the area is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, a major criterion for review is whether the project would result in a net increase of pollutants impacting ozone precursor pollutants, PM10, and PM2.5.

Modeling was based on project-specific information (e.g., size, area to be graded, area to be paved) where available; reasonable assumptions based on typical construction activities; and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the project’s location and land use types. Based on scheduling information provided by the project applicant, this analysis assumes that construction would commence in May 2023 and end in November 2023. Construction equipment mix assumptions were based on project-specific data. The CalEEMod mitigation module was used to account for Rule 8011 of Regulation VIII to reduce fugitive dust emissions. The modeling prepared for the project also assumes that all construction equipment over 50 horsepower would be held to EPA’s Tier 3 engine standards.

Operational emissions were estimated for sources permitted by the air district (e.g., stationary sources like the project’s gas station) and those that the air district does not directly regulate (e.g., mobile sources), which are referred to as “non-permitted” sources.

The project’s emissions from the permitted gas station were based on anticipated throughput. Emissions from area sources were estimated using CalEEMod defaults. Energy-related emissions were estimated assuming that the project would be constructed to meet the 2022 California Energy Code requirements. Mobile-source emissions were calculated using project-specific VMT data and anticipated use of transportation refrigeration units accessing the project’s loading dock. Mobile source emissions were estimated using project-specific VMT information from the TIA prepared for the project and accounts for: the movement of existing member VMT from the existing Costco warehouse at 4500 West Shaw Avenue to the project site, the increase in VMT from the project associated with expanded operations as compared to the existing Costco, and the assumed reuse of the Shaw Avenue facility with a new retail use.

In addition, a portion of warehouse delivery trucks will be equipped with transportation refrigeration units (TRUs), which result in emissions when the warehouse delivery truck is docked at the site. Emissions associated with these TRUs were calculated as mobile source emissions using the trip rates and trip length information.

See Appendix C for more details regarding modeling assumptions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
An HRA was prepared to quantify and evaluate TAC impacts from construction and operational activities. Construction activities accounted for the volume of diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) generated during the project’s construction period. Operational impacts were estimated from project-generated traffic, operation of diesel generators, gasoline and diesel transfer and dispensing, and delivery trucks. The HRA was completed by referencing the SJVAPCD Update to Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-17
District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document, the SJVAPCD Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments, the SJVAPCD Draft Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Risk Assessment Guidelines (SJVAPCD 2015c, SJVAPCD 2018, and OEHHA 2015). Specific model assumptions and inputs for these calculations can be found in Appendix C.

Carbon Monoxide
CO impacts are evaluated using SJVAPCD’s preliminary screening tool. Based on the CO Protocol Analysis developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and due to the fact that increased CO concentrations are usually associated with roadways that are congested and with heavy traffic volume, the SJVAPCD has established that preliminary screening can be used to determine with fair certainty that the effect a project has on any given intersection would not result in a CO hotspot. Therefore, SJVAPCD has established that if neither of the following criteria are met at all intersections affected by the developmental project, the project will result in no potential to create a violation of the CO standard:

X A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or X A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at more or more intersections in the project vicinity. ,IHLWKHURIWKHDERYHFULWHULDFDQEHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDQ\LQWHUVHFWLRQDIIHFWHGE\WKHSURMHFWWKHDSSOLFDQWFRQVXOWDQW would need to conduct a CO analysis to determine a project’s significance.

Additionally, concentrations of CO were evaluated using the City of Fresno’s General Plan and Development Code Update which determines that a CO hotspot would not occur for roadway intersections that support less than 36,000 peak hour trips. This value was determined by a sensitivity analysis conducted for the General Plan using the CALINE4 CO Hotspot model, which found that intersections that supported this level of trips would result in hourly concentrations of 7.5 ppm and an 8-hour concentration of 6.0, which is well below the NAAQS and CAAQS for CO.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In its March 2015 GAMAQI, SJVAPCD provides evidence to support the development and applicability of its thresholds of significance for project-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, which may be used at the discretion of a lead agency overseeing the environmental review of projects located within the SJVAB. As stated in the GAMAQI, “a Lead Agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the Lead Agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (SJVAPCD 2015a: 63-64). CEQA-related air quality thresholds of significance are tied to long-term air quality planning, which focuses on achieving or maintaining attainment designations with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS for criteria air pollutants, which are scientifically substantiated, numerical concentrations considered to be protective of human health.

These numerical thresholds for construction- and operation-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would determine whether a project’s discrete emissions would result in a regional contribution (i.e., significant) to the baseline nonattainment status of SJVAPCD. In developing thresholds of significance for individual project emissions, SJVAPCD analyzed emissions values against the SJVAPCD’s offset thresholds to ozone precursors, which, when applied, prevent further deterioration of ambient air quality in the SJVAB. Thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 were adopted from the SJVAPCD’s PM10 New Source Review (NSR) offset thresholds for stationary sources, which represent the greatest component of SJVACPD’s long-term regional air quality planning (SJVAPCD 2015a: 82). Using these parameters, SJVAPCD developed quantitative thresholds of significance for project-level CEQA evaluation that may be used to determine the extent to which a project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would contribute to the regional degradation of ambient air quality within the SJVAB. According to SJVACPD, projects with emissions below these thresholds of significance would demonstrate consistency with SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Notably, annual mass emissions thresholds of significance are not designed to determine whether a project’s contribution of emissions would directly result in a violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS, which are hourly, concentration-based standards.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-18 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
SJVACPD has also developed daily mass emissions screening criteria for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine whether project emissions would result in a violation of an ambient air quality standard (AAQS). Unlike SJVACPD’s annual mass emissions thresholds, which are used to evaluate a project’s consistency with long-term regional air quality planning, these daily mass emissions screening criteria serve to determine the location where an exceedance of an AAQS, and resulting adverse health impacts, could occur. Because the NAAQS and CAAQS are concentrationbased standards presented hourly, daily mass emissions are a more suitable estimate to determine whether a project would contribute to a violation of an AAQS. Projects that emit emissions below these daily screening criteria would likely not generate emissions in levels that would result in a violation of an AAQS, and air dispersion modeling would not be required. Consequently, projects that emit emissions above these criteria are recommended to perform an ambient air quality analysis to evaluate whether an exceedance, and resulting health impact, would occur.

Using federal and state guidance pertaining to TACs, in addition to the findings of several scientific studies, SJVAPCD developed cancer risk and non-cancer health hazard thresholds for TAC exposure. Unlike criteria air pollutants, there is no known safe concentration of TACs for cancer risk. Moreover, TAC emissions contribute to the deterioration of localized air quality. Due to the dispersion characteristics of TACs, emissions generally do not cause regional-scale air quality impacts. SJVAPCD’s thresholds are designed to ensure that a source of TACs does not contribute to a localized, significant impact to existing or new receptors.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines includes the following criteria for assessing an air quality impact:
a) conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
SJVAPCD also has recommended mass emissions thresholds for use in CEQA documents. Using the aforementioned criteria of Appendix G and SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, air quality impacts from project implementation would be found to be significant if the project would:

X generate emissionsduring project construction that exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emissions threshold of 10 tons per year (TPY) for ROG and NOX, 15 TPY for PM10 and PM2.5, and 27 TPY for SOX. Additional air dispersion modeling would be required if construction emissions would exceed SJVACPD’s mass emissions screening criteria of 100 SRXQGVSHUGD\
OEGD\
IRU52*12X, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5;
X generate emissionsduring project operation that exceed 10 TPY, PM10 and PM2.5 that exceed 15 TPY, and SOX that exceed 27 TPY. Additional air dispersion modeling would be required if operational emissions would exceed SJVACPD’s mass emissions scUHHQLQJFULWHULDRISRXQGVSHUGD\ OEGD\
IRU52*12X, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM 2.5;
X generate levels of TACs so that the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 20 in 1 million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index that equals or exceeds 1 for the MEI for noncarcinogens; X contribute CO emissions leading to a CO concentration that exceeds the CAAQS of 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour
DQGRU
X generate emissions that expose members of the public to objectionable odors.

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

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-19

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.3-1: Generate Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5
Considering SJVAPCD’s guidance, annual and daily construction-generated emissions were quantified for the project.

The project would not generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria. These thresholds are inherently tied to long-term regional air quality planning (i.e., SJVAPCD’s AQMPs) which demonstrates that the project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plans. Because construction-generated emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria, construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would be less than significant.

Although the impacts from construction related air pollutant emissions are temporary in duration, such emissions can become a significant air quality impact. Construction activities such as grading, excavation, building construction, and paving can generate substantial amounts of air pollution. Emissions from construction equipment engines also contribute to elevated concentrations of ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SOX.

Several pieces of diesel-powered heavy equipment would operate during the construction of the proposed project.

Site preparation activity emissions have been estimated based on the maximum fleet recommended by SJVAPCD.

Exhaust and fugitive dust emissions would be generated by excavation and grading, construction vehicle traffic, wind blowing over exposed earth, construction workers traveling to and from the construction sites, heavy-duty construction equipment operation, and application of architectural coatings.

Dust from construction activities can cause impacts both locally and regionally. The dry climate of the area during the summer months, combined with regional fine, silty soils, create a high potential for dust generation. Increased dustfall and locally elevated PM10 levels near the construction activity are expected. Depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place at any one time, and the nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could affect existing land uses near the project site. See the discussion in the “Methodology” section and Appendix C for additional modeling information.

Construction emissions estimates for the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod (refer to Appendix C).

Based on the outputs of CalEEMod, the project would produce the emissions shown in Table 3.3-5, estimated as annual and daily values and compared to applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.

Table 3.3-5 Maximum Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Construction of the Project
ROG1 NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Annual Emissions
Maximum (TPY) 2.1 3.9 4.6 <1 0.6 0.2

SJVAPCD CEQA
Significance Threshold
10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions
0D[LPXP
OEGD\
11 21 25 <1 3 1
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria 100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Notes: TPY = tons per year, OEGD\ SRXQGVSHUGD\ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = oxides of nitrogen, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = respirable particulate matter, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter, SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 1 Appendix C expresses ROG emissions as VOCs, which are interchangeable terms that describe the same group of pollutants. SJVAPCD’s thresholds are established for ROG emissions; therefore, ROG is the term used in this analysis.

Source: Modeling performed by Ramboll Environ in 2023.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-20 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
As shown in Table 3.3-5, annual and daily emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions threshold of significance or screening criteria. This level of emissions indicates that the project would not conflict with long-term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB, would not result in a cumulative contribution to air pollution and would not conflict with SJVAPCD’s relevant air quality plans. Additionally, as long-term regional air quality planning is directly tied to attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS, the project would not directly result in an adverse health outcome. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.3-2: Generate Long-Term Operational Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Considering SJVAPCD’s guidance, annual and daily operation-generated emissions were quantified for the project for permitted and non-permitted operations. The project would not generate operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance or daily screening criteria for permitted and non-permitted sources following compliance with SJVACPD’s Rule 9510 (ISR) for this land use type. Because operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would be less than SJVAPCD’s annual and daily mass emissions threshold, impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the project would result in additional development and urbanization in the city of Fresno, which would in turn increase criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors in an area that is currently designated as an extreme nonattainment area with respect to the NAAQS.

Operational emissions estimates for the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod (Appendix C). Table 3.3-6 summarizes the total modeled operational emissions associated with the project for the assumed first full year of operation (i.e., 2023) for the permitted (i.e., gas station) and non-permitted (i.e., mobile, energy, area) sources of pollution. Emissions are presented for the entire project including permitted and non-permitted emissions associated with project operation.

Table 3.3-6 Maximum Annual Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Operation of the Project
ROG1 NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Permitted (Annual Emissions)
Total (TPY) 9.92 – – – – –

SJVAPCD CEQA
Significance Threshold
10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Permitted (Daily Emissions)
0D[LPXP
OEGD\
542 – – – – –
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria 100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Non-Permitted (Annual Emissions)
3 Total (TPY) 9.5 11.9 81.4 0.2 18.1 4.6

SJVAPCD CEQA
Significance Threshold
10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No Yes No
Emissions Reductions from
Compliance with Rule 9510
– -3.0 – – -9.1 –
Total (TPY) 9.5 8.9 81.4 0.3 9 6.5
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-21

ROG1 NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Non-Permitted (Daily Emissions)
0D[LPXP
OEGD\
17 10 98 <1 <1 <1
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria 100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Notes: TPY = tons per year, OEGD\ SRXQGVSHUGD\ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = oxides of nitrogen, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = respirable particulate matter, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter, SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 1 Appendix C expresses ROG emissions as VOCs, which are interchangeable terms that describe the same group of pollutants. SJVAPCD’s thresholds are established for ROG emissions; therefore, ROG is the term used in this analysis. 2 The permitted activity of the gas station would be limited to emissions of ROG, thus emissions of NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are not presented in the table. While the gas station would be a source of non-permitted emissions (e.g., on-road vehicle trips), the permitted actions of the gas station are limited to gasoline and diesel fuel distribution. 3 Non-permitted sources include landscaping activity, natural gas combustion, and on-road vehicle trips.

Source: Modeling performed by Ramboll Environ in 2023.

As shown in Table 3.3-6, permitted emissions of ROG would not exceed SJVAPCD’s annual CEQA thresholds or daily mass emissions screening criteria; therefore, additional air dispersion modeling is not required.

Non-permitted emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would similarly not exceed SJVAPCD’s daily mass emissions thresholds. However, non-permitted sources of NOX and PM10 would exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions prior to compliance with SJVAPCD’s Rule 9510. Following compliance with Rule 9510 (discussed in Section

3.1.1, “Regulatory Setting”), emissions of NOX and PM10 would be reduced by 3 and 9.1 tons per year, respectively, thus reducing emissions to below SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project would not conflict with long-term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB and SJVAPCD’s air quality plans.

Additionally, as long-term regional air quality planning is directly tied to attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS, the project would not directly result in an adverse health outcome.

Moreover, the project would include several project design features which would benefit regional air quality within the SJVAB. For instance, as discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project is committed to procuring 100 percent of its electricity from PG&E’s Solar Choice program, which provides 100 percent renewable energy to customers enrolled in the program. While this would not reduce on-site emissions from the project, it would reduce emissions expelled elsewhere at energy generation facilities, which would assist the SJVAB in attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS for those pollutants for which it is in nonattainment.

Additionally, as noted in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” the project would construct Class I bike paths along the proposed project’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. The use of these bike paths would serve to reduce VMT generated from the project, and would reduce exhaust emissions from on-road mobile sources. Inclusion of these on-site project design elements align with the direction provided by SJVAPCD to prioritize mitigating emissions from on-site sources.

Because the project would incorporate these project design features and would have emissions below SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds following compliance with the ISR requirements of Rule 9510, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-22 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Impact 3.3-3: Expose Receptors to TAC Concentrations Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Based on the HRA prepared for the project, construction and operation of the project would not produce significant diesel PM or other TACs such that SJVAPCD’s thresholds for TAC cancer risk exposure of 20 in 1 million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index of 1 for the MEI for non-carcinogens would be exceeded. Using these numerical thresholds established by SJVAPCD, the project would not generate substantial emissions of TACs causing an adverse health impact from TAC expose. This impact would be less than significant.

SJVAPCD has developed quantitative threshold of significance for carcinogenic risk exposure (i.e., 20 in 1 million) and non-carcinogenic risk exposure (i.e., acute or chronic Hazard Index of 1 for the MEI) in consideration of dosage, risk exposure, background risk levels, and guidance established by AB 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act. SJVAPCD’s threshold for carcinogenic risk was updated in 2016 from 10 in 1 million to 20 in 1 million in consideration of improved ambient air quality due to efficacy of various programs such as CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (SJVAPCD 2016). A 2015 study demonstrated dramatic declines in cancer risk from exposure to air toxics from CARB-implementation regulations and policies (Propper et al. 2015).

Also, AB 2588 directs each air district to establish a prioritization score threshold for stationary sources of TACs. In order to assist the districts with this requirement, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Toxics Committee, in cooperation with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and CARB, developed the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization Guidelines (July 1990). The purpose of the guideline is to provide districts with suggested procedures for prioritizing facilities. However, districts may develop and use prioritization methods which differ from the CAPCOA guidelines. In 2015, CAPCOA updated these guidelines to incorporate the changes made to the OEHHA risk assessment methodology.

Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary, short-term project-generated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., demolition, clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; and other miscellaneous activities. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel PM were identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. Construction activity is anticipated to take place over a 6-month timeframe for the project and would not result in intensive construction activities for any one extended period of time during project construction. Nevertheless, a construction HRA was prepared to evaluated potential TAC exposure from project construction.

Based on the findings of the HRA, the lifetime cancer risk for the MEI (identified as a residential receptor type approximately 900 feet from the project site) was estimated to be 1.3 in one million, which is below SJVAPCD’s significance threshold of 20 in one million. Additionally, estimated chronic and acute hazard risk at the MEI was found to be 0 which is below SJVAPCD’s threshold of one. Because construction-emissions of diesel PM would be below SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance for TAC impacts, construction related TAC emissions would be less than significant.

Operation
The project would generate TACs from new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicle trips, operation of a new gas station, and transportation refrigeration units accessing the project site. Cancer risks and non-cancer chronic and acute hazards from these sources for the first year of operation (i.e., 2023) were evaluated in the HRA.

Based on the findings of the HRA, the lifetime cancer risk for the MEI (identified as a residential receptor type approximately 2,000 feet from the project site) was estimated to be 5.1 in one million, which is below SJVAPCD’s significance threshold of 20 in one million. Additionally, estimated chronic and acute hazard risk at the MEI was found to be 0.01 and 0.14, respectively, which are below SJVAPCD’s threshold of one.

Conclusion
Table 3.3-7 summarizes the total health risk from project construction and operation combined.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-23
Table 3.3-7 Health Risk Assessment Results
Receptor Type Maximum Estimated Cancer Risk (in
one Million)
Maximum Estimated Chronic
Hazard Index
Maximum Estimated Acute
Hazard Index
Project Construction
Residential 1.3 0 0
Sensitive 0.2 0 0
Worker 0 0 0
Project Operation
Residential 5.1 0.01 0.14
Sensitive 0.8 0 0.02
Worker3.4 0.07 0.52
Total Health Risk
Residential6.4 0.01 0.14
Sensitive1 0 0.02
Worker3.4 0.07 0.52
SJVACPD Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Note: SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Source: Modeling performed by Ramboll Environ in 2023.

Construction and operation of the project would not expose receptors to a cancer risk exceeding 20 in one million or a noncancer chronic and acute hazard index greater than one. For these reasons, TAC emissions would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.3-4: Expose Receptors to Substantial CO Concentrations Buildout of the project would not contribute to localized concentrations of mobile-source CO that would exceed an applicable ambient air quality standard. This impact would be less than significant.

Local mobile-source CO emissions near roadway intersections are a direct function of traffic volume, vehicle speed, and traffic delay. A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. Transport of CO is extremely limited because it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under stable meteorological conditions, &2FRQFHQWUDWLRQVQHDUURDGZD\VDQGRULQWHUVHFWLRQVPD\UHDFKXQKHDOWKy levels, adversely affecting nearby sensitive land uses, such as residential units, hospitals, schools, and childcare facilities. CO is a pollutant of localized concern and, therefore, is analyzed at the local level. Construction activities are rarely a cause of localized CO impacts because they do not typically result in substantial traffic increases at any one location. This impact focuses on operational increases in mobile sources of CO.

The Transportation Impact Analysis (see Appendix D) prepared for this project evaluated the LOS impacts at six existing intersections and three proposed intersections resulting from new roadways for site access. The traffic study evaluated impacts for the following scenarios:

X Scenario 1: Existing Conditions (2021),
X Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions (2021),
Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-24 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
X Scenario 3: Existing Plus Project Conditions with Off-Site Improvements (2021), X Scenario 4: Future Conditions (2042),
X Scenario 5: Future Plus Project Conditions (2042),
X Scenario 6: Future Plus Project with Reclassification Conditions with Off-Site Improvements (2042) X Scenario 7: Future Plus Project Conditions without Reclassification of West Herndon Avenue (2042), and X Scenario 8: Future Plus Project Conditions without Reclassification of West Herndon Avenue with Off-Site Improvements (2042).

Scenarios 3, 6, and 8 would not result in a reduction of LOS on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity to LOS E or F.

Based on the analysis performed in the Traffic Study, the LOS impacts show that the following intersections have the potential to reduce to LOS E or F with the project:

X Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions (2021)
ƒ Intersection No. 2 (North Riverside Drive:est Fir Avenue): PM and Saturday peak hours ƒ Intersection No. 3 (North Riverside Drive:est Herndon Avenue): AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours ƒ Intersection No. 4 (North Golden State BoulevarG:est Herndon Avenue): PM and Saturday peak hours X Scenario 5: Future Plus Project Conditions (2042):
ƒ Intersection No. 2 (North Riverside Drive:est Fir Avenue): PM and Saturday peak hours ƒ Intersection No. 3 (North Riverside Drive:est Herndon Avenue): AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours ƒ Intersection No. 4 (North Golden State BoulevarG:est Herndon Avenue): PM and Saturday peak hours X Scenario 7: Future Plus Project Conditions without Reclassification of West Herndon Avenue (2042) ƒ Intersection No. 2 (North Riverside Drive:est Fir Avenue): PM and Saturday peak hours ƒ Intersection No. 3 (North Riverside Drive:est Herndon Avenue): AM, PM, and Saturday peak hour ƒ Intersection No. 4 (North Golden State BoulevarG:est Herndon Avenue): PM and Saturday peak hours For these intersections listed above, the total traffic volumes would be less than 36,000 vehicles per hour. Based on the City of Fresno’s General Plan and Development Code Update intersections that support less than 36,000 peak hour trips would not create a CO hotspot. SJVAPCD provides two criteria for determining whether a CO impact would occur: (1) a traffic study for the project indicates that the LOS on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F, or (2) a traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at more or more intersections in the project vicinity.

Either threshold may be used to determine the significance of a CO impact. Because the project satisfies the SJVAPCD screening criterion that no existing LOS F on any of the studied intersections would be substantially worsened, the project would not result in the potential to create a violation of the CO standard. Additionally, mobile-source CO emissions have historically decreased since the advent of catalytic converters, which decrease mobile-source exhaust emissions. There have also been improvements in fuel economy since 2015, when the GAMAQI was developed, through regulatory compliance implemented by EPA and CARB (e.g., the CAFE standards and Advanced Clean Cars program) that also result in reduced vehicular CO emissions. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-25
Impact 3.3-5: Generate Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Buildout of the project would not introduce an odor source identified by SJVAPCD that could result in an adverse odor impact. This impact would be less than significant.

According to SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, each project that would generate odors should be evaluated to determine the likelihood that it would result in nuisance odors. SJVAPCD recognizes the subjective nature of odor impacts and recommends that each project should be assessed on a “case-by-case” basis, taking into consideration all available pertinent information to qualitatively determine if a significant impact is likely to occur, such as information regarding the characteristics of the buffer zone between the sensitive receptor(s) and the odor source(s), local meteorological conditions, and the nature of the odor source. To facilitate the evaluation of odors, SJVAPCD has produced a list of common types of facilities, along with the distance from the source within which odors could possibly be significant. The list provides a qualitative assessment of a project’s potential to adversely affect off-site receptors. Table 3.3-8, below, presents the list of common facilities and the minimum distance from the source below which the odor impacts may be significant. The project does not include any uses identified by the SJVAPCD as being associated with odors, and thus the project would not result in odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Table 3.3-8 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Screening Levels for Potential Odors Sources Type of Facility Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facility 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
3DLQWLQJ&RDWLQJ2SHUDWLRQV 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
)HHG/RW'DLU\ 1 mile
Rending Plant 1 mile
Source: SJVAPCD 2015a.

Although there is a gas station proposed as a component of the project, odors from gasoline and diesel fuel transfer would be concentrated on the site and are not considered significant sources of odor to nearby receptors due to the high dissipation rates of benzene, the chemical component of gasoline associated with its notable odor. Additionally, SJVAPCD’s Rule 4622 would limit emissions of gasoline vapors from the transfer of gasoline into motor vehicle tanks, which would also serve to reduce odors from gasoline dispensing. Because the project would not site a new source of odor listed above in Table 3.3-8, highly dispersive characteristics of benzene, and the efficacy of Rule 4622, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.3-26 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-1

3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
This section analyzes and evaluates the potential impacts of the project on known and unknown cultural resources, addressing the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G categories of “Cultural Resources” and “Tribal Cultural Resources.” It also addresses paleontological resources, listed in Subsection (f) in the “Geology and Soils” Appendix G category.1 Cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects generally older than 50 years and considered to be important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. They include pre-historic resources, historic-period resources, and “tribal cultural resources” (the latter as defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 52, Statutes of 2014, in Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21074).

Archaeological resources are locations where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of prehistoric or historic-period physical remains (e.g., stone tools, bottles, former roads, house foundations). Historical (or built environment) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges, roads, districts), or landscapes. A cultural landscape is defined as a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects, with cultural value to a tribe.

One comment letter regarding tribal cultural resources was received in response to the AB 52 notification letters (see Appendix A). The comment letter received in response to the notification expressed a general tribal interest in the project area, as well as a request for copies of the record search and cultural resources documentation. This issue is addressed in this section.

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic properties. It is administered by the National Park Service and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.

The formal criteria (36 CFR 60.4) for determining NRHP eligibility are as follows:

1. The property is at least 50 years old (however, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP);

2. It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations; and

3. It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:

Criterion A Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events).

Criterion B Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past (persons).

Criterion C Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture).

Criterion D Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (information potential). 1 The remaining Appendix G subcategories of “Geology and Soils” are addressed in Section 1.2.1, “Effects Found Not to Be Significant.” Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
For a property to retain and convey historic integrity it must possess most of the seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. Integrity of location refers to whether the property has been moved since its construction. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property that illustrates the character of the place. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. This is an intangible quality evoked by physical features that reflect a sense of a past time and place. Association is the direct link between the important historic event or person and a historic property. Continuation of historic use and occupation help maintain integrity of association.

Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection or assistance for a property but it does guarantee consideration in planning for federal or federally assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic preservation assistance. Additionally, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

The National Register Bulletin series was developed to assist evaluators in the application of NRHP criteria. For example, National Register Bulletin #36 provides guidance in the evaluation of archaeological site significance. If a property cannot be placed within a particular theme or time period, and thereby lacks “focus,” it will be unlikely to possess characteristics which would make it eligible for listing in the NRHP. Evaluation standards for linear features (such as roads, trails, fence lines, railroads, ditches, and flumes) are considered in terms of four related criteria that account for specific elements that define engineering and construction methods of linear features: (1) size and length, (2) presence of distinctive engineering features and associated properties, (3) structural integrity, and (4) setting. The highest probability for NRHP eligibility exists in the intact, longer segments, where multiple criteria coincide.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) (42 U.S. Code Section 1996) pledges to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights of American Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, and Native Hawaiians. It establishes a national policy that traditional Native American practices and beliefs, sites (and right of access to those sites), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. If a place of religious importance to American Indians could be affected by a federal undertaking, AIRFA promotes consultation with Indian religious practitioners, which could be coordinated with Section 106 consultation. Amendments to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1992 strengthened the interface between AIRFA and the NHPA by clarifying that (1) properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization could be determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and (2) in carrying out its responsibilities under Section 106, a federal agency shall consult with any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to properties described under (1).

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 The intent of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S. Code Section 3001) is to identify Native American affiliation or lineal descent and ensure the rightful disposition, or repatriation, of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony that are in federal possession or control. The regulations implementing the requirements of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act relating to the inadvertent discovery of human remains and objects of cultural patrimony of Native American origin on federal or tribal lands are described in 43 CFR Section 10.4.

Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-3
STATE
California Register of Historical Resources
All properties in California that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is a listing of State of California resources that are significant in the context of California’s history. It is a Statewide program with a scope and with criteria for inclusion similar to those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR.

A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 15, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 to be included in the CRHR. The CRHR criteria are tied to CEQA because any resource that meets the criteria below is considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. As noted above, all resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR.

The CRHR uses four evaluation criteria:

Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Similar to the NRHP, a historical resource must meet one of the above criteria and retain integrity to be listed in the CRHR. The CRHR uses the same seven aspects of integrity used by the NRHP.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “historical resources,” “unique archaeological resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment."
Historical Resources
“Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]). Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
resource will be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1).
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1[g]) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Unique Archaeological Resources
CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074 states:
a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

Public Resources Code Section 21080.3
AB 52, signed by the California Governor in September of 2014, established a new class of resources under CEQA:
“tribal cultural resources,” defined in PRC Section 21074. Pursuant to PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3, lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American Tribe, begin consultation before the release of an EIR, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.

PRC Section 21080.3.2 states:

Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or to undertake a project, the lead agency must provide formal notification, in writing, to the tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction. If it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, the tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification. The lead agency must begin the consultation process with the tribes that have requested consultation within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation.

Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-5
Consultation concludes when either: 1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act (PRC Section 5097.9) applies to both State and private lands. The act requires, upon discovery of human remains, that construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which notifies and has the authority to designate the most likely descendant of the deceased. The act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are determined to be those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC.

Public Resources Code Section 5097
PRC Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed if human remains are unexpectedly discovered on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of NAHC. Section 5097.5 of the code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The Historic and Cultural Resource Element (Chapter 8) of the City of Fresno’s General Plan (City of Fresno 2014) contains the following objectives and policies regarding historic and cultural resources, including archaeological sites and places of significance to local Native American tribes:

X Policy HCR-1-c: Historic Preservation Ordinance. Maintain the provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.

X Policy HCR-2-c: Project Development. Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy.

X Policy HCR-2-d: Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educate developers and the community-atlarge about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.

X Policy HCR-2-f: Archaeological Resources. Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
City of Fresno Municipal Code
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City of Fresno has also established a Historic Preservation Commission and a Local Register of Historic Resources per Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Article 16. The Ordinance is used to provide local levels of control over the historical aesthetics of cultural resources within the city, and to ensure that the potential impact to locally significant historical resources that may be the subject of redevelopment are given reasonable consideration. The purpose of the Ordinance is to:
[…] continue to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the City of Fresno for educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public; to continue to protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this city, state and nation; to continue to safeguard the heritage of this city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which reflect elements of the city’s historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; to continue to preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; to continue to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development. (Article 16 Section 12-1602(a).)

3.4.2 Environmental Setting

REGIONAL PREHISTORY
The project site is located in the city of Fresno in California’s Central Valley. The Central Valley region of California was one of the most densely populated areas in North America during prehistoric times. Early work conducted by Sacramento Junior College and the University of California, Berkeley in the first 40 years of the 20th Century within the region resulted in the development of the Central California Taxonomic System and a tripartite classification scheme (Early, Middle, and Late Periods). In 2007, this classification system was updated based the findings of studies since the 1940s and results based on new technologies such as Carbon 14 dating and obsidian hydration (NIC 2021:8). The resulting new classification system is briefly described below.

Paleo-Indian and Lower Archaic Period (11,500–5550 cal B.C.E.) sites are not well represented in the Central Valley.

This is likely due to the fact that large segments of the Late Pleistocene landscape throughout the valley have been buried or removed by periodic episodes of deposition and erosion, in particular the formation of the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta about 6,000 years ago. The archaeological evidence that is available for this early period is primarily defined by basally thinned, fluted projectile points found in sites located in and around Fresno and in Kern County on the ancient shoreline of Buena Vista Lake. These points are morphologically similar to well-dated Clovis points found elsewhere in North America.

Middle Archaic Period/Windmiller Pattern (5550–550 cal B.C.E.) sites are characterized by extended burials orientated to the west, specialized grave goods, baked clay balls, charmstones, and exotic lithic materials. Year-round settlements with seasonal forays into the foothills resulted in the acquisition of a varied subsistence resource base that was dominated by fish and acorn acquisition. However, archaeological evidence shows heavy exploitation of elk, deer, antelope, rabbits, waterfowl, and numerous additional floral and faunal species.

Upper Archaic Period/Berkeley Pattern (550 cal B.C.E. – 1100 cal. C.E.) artifact assemblages show a dramatic increase in the use of mortar and pestle groundstone technology, possibly related to an expanded reliance on acorns as a staple food resource. Flexed burials with various orientations are common, as well as specialized bone tools, numerous distinctive shell beads and ornaments, and stone tools unique to the period frequently occur on sites dated to this time.

Emergent Period/Augustine Pattern (1100 cal. C.E. – Historic Contact) cultural manifestations are distinguished by the presence of shaped mortars and pestles, the use of bow and arrow technology and the introduction of the harpoon, particularly during early phases of this period. Bone awls are common. There is an increased usage of shell for decorative items and as money for exchange. Ground stone technologies included mundane items such as handstones and pestles as well as more exotic times such as tubular pipes and charmstones. Mortuary practices can be highly variable; pre-interment pit burning, cremations, and flex burials are all associated with this period.

Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-7

ETHNOGRAPHY
The project site is within the ethnographic territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts. The Northern Valley Yokuts primarily occupied the lands along the San Joaquin River, starting in the north at the Calaveras River and extending southward to the upper San Joaquin River, and from the crest of the Coast (Diablo) Range in the east to the Sierra Nevada foothills in the west.

The Northern Valley Yokuts diet was comprised of seasonally available resources obtained by hunting, fishing, and gathering. A wide variety of tools and implements were used by the Northern Valley Yokuts to collect, process, and cook their food. Fishing and hunting tools included harpoons, hooks, nets, bows and arrows, traps, and blinds, as well as tule rafts for navigating waterways. Sharpened digging sticks and woven tools such as seed beaters, burden baskets, and carrying nets were used to collect plant resources. Stone mortars and pestles, bedrock and portable mortars, possibly wooden mortars, stone knives, and scrapers. Various bone tools were used to process resources, including hides for clothing, bedding, and other related household items. Clay was used for cooking, waterproofing basketry, and net weights. Additional items, such as marine shell beads, basketry materials, chalk, and obsidian were obtained through trade. Northern Valley Yokuts constructed many types of shelters and storage facilities, including conical huts, shade structures, sweat house pits, and acorn granaries. The primary building materials used were willow and tule.

Today, the descendants of these first peoples live throughout the Fresno area, including on the Tule River Reservation near Porterville, Picayune Rancheria at Coarsegold in Madera County, Santa Rosa Rancheria in Kings County, and Table Mountain Rancheria near Friant in Fresno County (NIC 2021:12).

HISTORIC SETTING
Regional History
The Yokuts were the first residents of the area that would become the city of Fresno, followed by the Mexicans and the Americans. There were no missions in the San Joaquin Valley but there were small Mexican era settlements such as Pueblo de las Junta, located at the confluence of the San Joaquin River and the Fresno Slough. The Spanish and Mexican influence is indicated through place names such as “Fresno,” which means “ash tree” and which was first applied to the Fresno River (City of Fresno 2014:8-4). Following the Gold Rush of 1849, miners were drawn to the southern gold fields, and cattle ranchers and dryland farmers moved into the area.

In 1870, the Central Pacific Railroad began its diagonal push down the San Joaquin Valley, reaching what is now Fresno in late April 1872. In that same year, the Contract and Finance Company, a subsidiary of the railroad, laid out the town of Fresno in a rigid “gridiron” plan. Fresno continued to grow slowly until extensive irrigation efforts, such as the 28-mile Enterprise Canal and Miller and Lux’s 67-mile San Joaquin and Kings River Canal were established. Soon after, people from around the United States and from Europe came by rail to settle in the region, establishing agricultural colonies and livestock operations, as well as numerous individual family farms serviced by a lacework of canals, laterals, and irrigation ditches. As a result of this population boom, Fresno was incorporated as a city in 1885, and by 1890, had a population of over 10,000. By 1900, Fresno was the market center of what is now the richest farming region in the United States (City of Fresno 2014:8-5).

Fresno continued to grow following World War I, and in 1930, the city had a population of 52,513. While the Great Depression brought hardship to the city, it also resulted in the construction of a series of major civic buildings in the city, such as the complex of buildings at Fresno’s Chandler Airfield/Fresno Municipal Airport built by the Works Progress Administration between 1936 and 1937 (City of Fresno 2014:8-5).

During and after World War II, a surge of returning servicemen and homeless transients arrived in the city, looking for agricultural work, creating a severe housing shortage. This led to the development of a series of suburban housing tracts and associated infrastructure outside of the city, including the Herndon–Kearney 230 kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line between 1943 and 1964 which brought power to agricultural, commercial, and residential to developments in the northwestern portion of the city (NIC 2021:18-19). 7KHILUVWPDMRUSRVWŠZDU subdivision completed was Mayfair, which included the first suburban shopping center. Manchester Center followed in 1955, with Fig Garden Village in 1956. Six Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
blocks of the Downtown were converted to a pedestrian mall in 1964, with a design by landscape architect Garrett Eckbo (City of Fresno 2014:8-6). However, like so many other cities across the country, the suburban flight of the 1960s eventually lead to the decline of the downtown area.

Today, Fresno is home to a diverse population, which includes descendants from the city’s earliest pioneers and recently arrived immigrants. Although farming and ranching remain at the economic forefront, its place in the center of California has allowed it to also become a hub for industrial complexes and distribution centers, continuing the city’s legacy as a major center of commerce in California.

Project Site and West Spruce Avenue History
The project site is located on the northwestern outskirts of Fresno, approximately 11 miles from downtown and one and a half miles south of the San Joaquin River just east of the former community of Herndon. Herndon started as a ferry crossing on the San Joaquin River called Sycamore Point, then became a steamship stop, and a railroad stop called Sycamore Station in 1872. Growth of the community slowed after that and today, Herndon is considered to be an unincorporated community of Fresno County (Hoover et al. 2002).

Located in in proximity to the San Joaquin River, the project site was subject to little development other than agricultural use and river access over the last 150 years. No development of the site is shown until 1946, when USGS 7.5-minute Herndon topographic map shows that the project site is under cultivation. By 1964, the topographic maps show that the Herndon–Kearney 230-kV Transmission Line bisects the northern portion of the project site and that the property is still in use agriculturally. No further development of the project site is shown on later topographic maps.

Aerial photographs do not start until 1962, but they indicate that the entire project site was in use as an orchard from at least 1962. The electrical transmission line is in place by that time as well. The orchard remained in place until sometime between 1998 and 2002, when it appears to have been removed (NIC 2021:12). Since 2002, the project site has continued to be regularly plowed for vegetation maintenance. No other development of the site is seen on later aerial photographs.

West Spruce Avenue was constructed between 1942 and 1947 to provide access onto and around the Fresno Municipal Golf Course, which is in place to its north. The road appears to be unpaved at that time. The golf course was established by three members of the Sunnyside Country Club in 1925 as the semi-private nine-hole Riverside Golf Club along the San Joaquin River. In 1938, the City of Fresno purchased the course, club house, and 40 additional acres for roughly $12,000. The City expanded the course to 18 holes. The improved course opened in 1939 as the Fresno Municipal Golf Course, and in 1963, its original Riverside name was returned (NIC 2022:14).

Project Site Geoarchaeology
Recent geoarchaeological research for California Department of Transportation District 6, which includes Fresno County, finds that the project area has low sensitivity for the presence of buried archaeological remains (NIC 2021:5).

The project site is underlain by Middle-to-Late Pleistocene-aged (450 to 130 thousand years ago) alluvium of the Riverbank Formation (Qr²) with soils of the Exeter Series found at the surface. Because this material formed long before the first human occupation of the area, it is very unlikely to contain or to have buried archaeological resources. The overlying soils of the Exeter Series are younger, dating to the Late Holocene (2,000 to 150 years ago) and so are generally more sensitive for buried cultural remains.

Site-specific variables, including age of the underlying landform, lack of archaeological sites within the general vicinity, minimal historical development, extent of past disturbance from agricultural activities, and negative survey results indicate low potential for the discovery of intact archaeological deposits, including buried archaeological deposits, materials, or features (NIC 2021:19).

Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-9

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Paleontological resources are the remains or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life, exclusive of human remains or artifacts, and the geologic units that house them. Paleontological resources are useful in education in that they promote the understanding of the history of life and the diversity of the Earth’s biota. Paleontological resources occur in geologic units (e.g., formations or members). The probability of finding significant fossils at a given location can be estimated based on previous records of fossils recovered from the geologic units present in and/or adjacent to it. The geological setting and the number of known fossil localities help to estimate a location’s paleontological sensitivity as defined by CEQA.

The Riverbank Formation is well represented by important paleontological remains elsewhere in California, though only one fossil locality is on record for the formation in Fresno County. The locality is near the Laguna Seca Ranch approximately 50 miles west of the project area, and produced a single tibia from an extinct Rancholabrean-aged horse (Equus sp.). However, it should also be kept in mind that unlike archaeological sites, which are narrowly defined, paleontological sites are defined by the entire areal and stratigraphic extent of their respective geologic unit or formation. This means that once a significant fossil locality is identified, no matter how small, the entire geologic unit containing it is treated as a paleontological site, even if that unit extends over multiple counties or states. The paleontological sensitivity of a geologic unit is thus described and analyzed in the broadest possible terms. A more reliable estimation of the actual paleontological resource potential of any given location is often gained from records of significant fossil discoveries made in close proximity to it and from direct field inspection of the location concerned.

None of the fossil localities on record for Fresno County, including the Laguna Seca Ranch locality, have been mapped within the project area. As no unique geologic features, fossil-bearing strata, or paleontological sites have been recorded within or near the project area, the paleontological resource sensitivity of the project area is estimated to be low (NIC 2021).

RECORDS SEARCHES, SURVEYS, AND CONSULTATION
Two record searches by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System were conducted to determine whether historic built environment resources or archaeological sites have been previously recorded within project site. The record searches also provided information concerning the extent to which each location has been previously surveyed, and the number and type of cultural resources within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. The results of the SSJVIC search were returned on September 13, 2021, and December 20, 2021, respectively. The portion of West Spruce Avenue to be extended was covered in the September 13, 2021, results. The SSJVIC searches included a search of available archaeological and historical records as well as the following sources:

X National Register of Historic Places: listed properties, X CRHR: listed resources,
X Historic Property Data File for Fresno County,
X Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility,
X Built Environment Resources Directory,
X California Inventory of Historical Resources,
X California Historical Landmarks,
X California Points of Historical Interest,
X Historical GLO land plat maps, and
X Historical USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery.

The SSJVIC records search results for the project site, which includes the location of the extension for West Spruce Avenue, indicated that no prior cultural resource studies have been completed at these locations, though eight Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
studies have been completed within the 0.25-mile records search radius. The results also indicated that no built environment features or archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the project site, and that three built environment features have been recorded within the 0.25-mile search radius. The previously recorded built environment features within the 0.25-mile records search radius included two transmission lines and a ditch. No archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius.

An intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project site was conducted on September 24, 2021, and of the location for the extension of West Spruce Avenue on June 20, 2022. All portions of each property were surveyed intensively using transects spaced no greater than 15 meters apart. Ground visibility within the project site was excellent at 75-100 percent due to recent plowing and vegetation maintenance. The slope was nearly level. Ground disturbances (e.g., animal burrows, drainages, dirt roads) and geologic outcrops were visually inspected. An unrecorded segment of a previously recorded linear resource, electrical transmission line P-10-006130, was identified and recorded during the field survey in September of 2021. In June 2022, a segment of West Spruce Avenue (NIC-2022-Costco 01) was identified, recorded, and evaluated. No additional historic resources 50 years or older were identified within the project site, and no archaeological sites were identified. No paleontological resources or unique geologic units were noted.

Historic Features
P-10-006130
P-10-006130 is the Herndon-Kearney 230-kV Transmission Line. It carries electricity between the Herndon and Kearney Substations, providing power to agricultural, commercial, and residential developments in northwestern Fresno. The transmission line was constructed between 1943 and 1969. A previously unrecorded 907-foot-long segment of this approximately 11-mile-long line was recorded within the project site as a result of the cultural resources investigation for the project. P-10-006130 as a whole was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by the State Historic Preservation Officer in 2011. Research conducted for the project also finds that P-10-006130 also does not represent a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

While the transmission line is potentially under Criterion 1 for its association with the development of electrical infrastructure in Fresno, it does not retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance. The resource has lost its integrity of design, workmanship, and materials following extensive past upgrades and alterations, as well as its integrity of setting and feeling due to the dramatic transformation of the surrounding area from a mostly agricultural to a residential and commercial environment (NIC 2021:18-19). P-10-006130 also does not have any direct associations with any individuals significant to history (Criterion 2); has been significantly altered as noted above and is without noteworthy architectural qualities (Criterion 3); and is not likely to yield any additional important information about our history (Criterion 4).

NIC-2022-Costco-01, West Spruce Avenue Segment
This resource is a 1,580-foot segment of West Spruce Avenue between North Riverside Drive and North Sandrini Avenue. Historical sources indicate that the portion of the road extending eastward from its intersection with North Riverside Drive to its intersection with Strother Avenue was first constructed between 1942 and 1947. It provided access onto and around the Riverside Golf Course (then the Fresno Municipal Golf Course), though the alignment appears to have been slightly different. By 1964 it follows its current path. The portion between Strother Avenue and North Sandrini Avenue was completed between 2007 and 2009. West of Strother Avenue the road is roughly 10 feet wide, and to its east is 70 feet wide. Asphalt is severely decayed along the western portion.

The segment of West Spruce Avenue within the project area is part historic and part modern. It does not appear to be directly associated with any events (Criterion 1) or people (Criterion 2) significant in local, regional, or national history. While the western portion was constructed in the mid-20th century to facilitate travel around the Riverside Golf Course, it was one of dozens of roads in place in the area by that time and has since been largely abandoned.

The eastern portion was constructed in the 21st century and so is not historic. The road segment does not appear to have had primary importance in either historic or modern times. In addition, the road is of a type that is ubiquitous in construction, materials, and engineering throughout the region, and so does not appear to be eligible for CRHR listing under Criterion 3. Its information value is captured in existing documentation, including historical aerial Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-11
photographs, maps, and plans, as well as in the formal recordation of the resource completed as part of this assessment for the project. For these reasons, the resource does not appear to be significant under any CRHR criteria and is recommended as not eligible for listing in the CRHR. As such, NIC-2022-Costco-01 neither constitutes an historical resource as defined under CEQA Section 15064.5, nor a unique archaeological resource as defined under CEQA Section 21083.2(g).

Tribal Cultural Resources
NAHC Search
A search of the NAHC Scared Lands File was conducted on October 7, 2021. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources in the proposed project site or its immediate vicinity, including the portion of West Spruce Avenue to be expanded.

Native American Consultation
Pursuant to AB 52, the following tribes have requested project notification by the City:

X Roger Ledger, Chairperson, Dumna Wo Wah Tribal Government; X John Ledger, Dumna Wo Wah Tribal Government;
X Eric S. Smith, Dumna Wo Wah Tribal Government; and
X Bob Pennell, Cultural Resources Director, Table Mountain Rancheria of California.

The City mailed notification letters concerning development of the project site to these tribal representatives on October 11, 2021. A response from Robert Pennell of the Table Mountain Rancheria of California was received on October 19, 2021, indicating that the project site lies within an area of tribal interest. Mr. Pennell then requested copies of the result of any cultural records and technical studies prepared for the project, which were provided.

No other tribes have formally responded to either notification, and none have requested consultation under AB 52.

3.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The impact analysis for archaeological and historical resources is based on the findings and recommendations of the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Costco Commercial Center Development Project in the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (NIC 2021 and 2022). The analysis is also informed by the provisions and requirements of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that apply to cultural resources.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a “unique archaeological resource” as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following CRHR-related criteria: (1) that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; (2) that it as a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) that it is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. An impact on a resource that is not unique is not a significant environmental impact under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). If an archaeological resource qualifies as a resource under CRHR criteria, then the resource is treated as a unique archaeological resource for the purposes of CEQA.

PRC Section 21074 defines “tribal cultural resources” as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” that are listed or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, listed in a local register of historical resources, or otherwise determined by the lead agency to be a tribal cultural resource.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
For the purposes of the impact discussion, “historical resource” is used to describe built-environment historic-period resources. Archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic-period sites), which may qualify as “historical resources” pursuant to CEQA, are analyzed separately as unique archaeological resources as defined by PRC 21083.2(g).

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on cultural resources would be significant if implementation of the project would:

X cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
X cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
X cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is also:
ƒ listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in the local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
ƒ a resource determined by the lead agency in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in PRC 5024.1(c), the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to ta Native American tribe; X disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; or X directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Significance of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines As described above, two historic features were identified on the project site. This feature, P-10-006310 was previously determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the results of the study for the project find that it is also not eligible for listing in the CRHR (NIC 2021:18-19). Investigation conducted for the project determined that NIC-2022-Costco-1 was not eligible for listing in the CRHR. As a result, neither are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, project construction and operation would have no impact on historical resources per Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines and no further analysis is required by CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.4-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Archaeological Resources Although no known archaeological resources have been identified on the project site, project-related grounddisturbing activities may result in the discovery of or damage to yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would minimize impacts by requiring that a worker environmental awareness program be prepared and provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who would have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources. These measures would also require construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.

Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-13
As indicated through the results of the SSJVIC records search and pedestrian survey, no known prehistoric or historicera archaeological sites are present on the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius.

Geological analysis finds that the project site is underlain by Middle-to-Late Pleistocene-aged (450 to 130 thousand years ago) alluvium of the Riverbank Formation (Qr²) with soils of the Exeter Series found at the surface. Given several site-specific variables—including age of the underlying landform, lack of archaeological sites within the general vicinity, minimal historical development, extent of past disturbance from agricultural activities, and negative survey results—the potential for the discovery of intact archaeological deposits, including buried archaeological deposits, materials, or features at the project site, is estimated to be low (NIC 2021:19).

Regardless, implementation of the project as described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” would involve preconstruction (such as utility discovery ‘potholing’ and vegetation clearing)- and construction-related grounddisturbing activities, including grading, that may result in the discovery of and/or damage or destruction of unrecorded archaeological sites and materials at the project site. Such actions would result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of the resource. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologists to prepare a worker environmental awareness program. The program shall be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources. A copy of the worker environmental awareness program shall be provided to the City’s Planning Division before construction activities begin. The topics to be addressed in the worker environmental awareness program will include, at a minimum:

X types of cultural resources expected on the project site; X types of evidence that indicates cultural resources might be present (e.g., glass shards, lithic scatters); X what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; X what to do if a worker encounters animal bones or possible human bones; and X repercussions for removing or intentionally disturbing archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Retain an Archaeological Monitor and Native American Monitor, and Halt GroundDisturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features or Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that any historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., glass, metal, and/or ceramic refuse scatters), or prehistoric subsurface archaeological features or deposits (e.g., locally darkened soil (“midden”), stone tool chipping debris, bones, shell beads, or concentrated charcoal layers), are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified. The applicant will then retain the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to assess the significance of the find.

Specifically, the archaeologist shall determine whether the find qualifies as an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or tribal artifacts. If the find does fall within one of these three categories, the qualified archaeologist shall then make recommendations to the City regarding appropriate procedures that should be used to protect the integrity of the resource and to ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, and/or data recovery, with preservation in place being the preferred option if feasible. If the find is a tribal artifact, the City shall provide a reasonable opportunity for input from a Native American tribal representative affiliated with the location of the discovery; affiliation shall be determined by the City, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, based on the City’s AB 52 list or the contact list provided by the NAHC. If responsive, the tribal representative will then determine whether the artifact is considered a tribal cultural resource, as defined by PRC Section 21074. The applicant, in consultation with the City and Tribe, shall implement the recommended preservation options (which may include preservation in place, data Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation of significant artifacts, if it determines that the measures are feasible in light of project design, logistics, and cost considerations.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would reduce this impact to a level that would beless than significant with implementation of mitigation measures 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. The mitigation would also require construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered. This mitigation would also be consistent with Objective HCR-1, Policy HCR-1-c, Objective HCR-2, Policy HCR-2-b, Policy HCR-2-c, and HCR-2-d of the City of Fresno General Plan and the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Impact 3.4-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource Tribal consultation has not resulted in the identification of tribal cultural resources on the project site. Despite this, excavation activities associated with project construction may disturb or destroy previously undiscovered significant subsurface tribal cultural resources. Impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures by requiring that a worker environmental awareness program be prepared and provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter cultural resources; and requiring construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.

Implementation of the project would involve construction and excavation activities associated with relocation of the Costco facility. As discussed above in Section 3.4.2, “Environmental Setting,” tribal consultation did not result in the identification of tribal cultural resources on the project site. Tribal consultation was initiated on October 11, 2021. Only one response was received from Robert Pennell of the Table Mountain Rancheria of California. Mr. Pennell only requested additional information; he did not identify the presence of any Tribal Cultural Resources. No further responses have been received to date and no tribal cultural resources have been identified on the project site as a result of the tribal consultation. Despite this, excavation activities associated with project construction may disturb or destroy previously undiscovered significant subsurface tribal cultural resources. This impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b.

Significance after Mitigation
Impacts related to unknown tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures 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; The mitigation would also require construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with Native American groups (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.

Impact 3.4-3: Disturb Human Remains
Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic-period marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, ground-disturbing preconstruction and construction activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would make this impact less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-15
Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic-period marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, the grave sites and Native American remains can occur outside of identified cemeteries or burial sites. Therefore, there is a possibility that unmarked, previously unknown Native American or other graves could be present within the project site and could be uncovered by project-related construction activities.

California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.

These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities in the area of the remains and a 50-foot radius shall be halted immediately, and the appropriate County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Following the coroner’s findings, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant, and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments, if present, are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.

Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.4-4: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature
Although no known paleontological resources have been identified on the project site, project-related grounddisturbing activities may result in the discovery of or damage to yet undiscovered resources. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, Mitigation Measure

3.4-4 would minimize impacts by requiring the project applicant to immediately halt operations if paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities.

Recent geologic maps indicate that the project area is underlain by Middle-to-Late Pleistocene (450 to 130 thousand years ago) alluvium of the Riverbank Formation (Qr²). The Riverbank Formation is well represented by important paleontological remains elsewhere in California, though only one fossil locality is on record for the formation in Fresno County. The locality is near the Laguna Seca Ranch approximately 50 miles west of the project area and produced a single tibia from an extinct Rancholabrean-aged horse (NIC 2021).

None of the fossil localities on record for Fresno County, including the Laguna Seca Ranch locality, have been mapped within the project area. As no unique geologic features, fossil-bearing strata, or paleontological sites have been recorded within or near the project area, the paleontological resource sensitivity of the project area is estimated to be low. Nevertheless, given the general sensitivity of the Riverbank Formation for vertebrate fossils, a field survey was completed that included inspection for geologic outcrops that may contain paleontological resources (NIC 2021).

As no unique geologic features, fossil-bearing strata, or paleontological sites have been recorded within or near the project area, and no paleontological resources of any kind were observed within the project area during the field survey undertaken as part of this assessment, the paleontological resource sensitivity of the project area is estimated to be low (NIC 2021). Nonetheless, there is a low potential that ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery of paleontological resources, which could lead to destruction of the resource. This impact would be potentially significant.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.4-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Halt Ground-Disturbing Activity upon Discovery of Subsurface Paleontological Resources If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the project applicant shall immediately halt operations within 30 feet of the find and notify the City. If the find is determined to be significant, it shall be salvaged by a qualified paleontologist retained by the project applicant following the standards of the SVP (2010) and curated at a certified repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Significance after Mitigation
The potential for the project to result in the direct or indirect destruction of unique paleontological resources is low; however, the potential cannot be dismissed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, which sets forth standard treatment measures to limit destruction of unique paleontological resources, the effect of the project on yet undiscovered paleontological resources would be effectively reduced. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-1

3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section addresses biological resources known or with potential to occur on or near the project site and describes potential effects of implementation of the project on those resources.

In response to the notice of preparation for the project EIR, comment letters were received from several members of the public; however, no comments pertaining to biological resources were received. Refer to Appendix A.

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulates the taking of species listed in the ESA as threatened or endangered. In general, persons subject to ESA (including private parties) are prohibited from “taking” endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species on private property, and from “taking” endangered or threatened plants in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in take.

Section 10 of the ESA applies if a non-federal agency is the lead agency for an action that results in take and no other federal agencies are involved in permitting the action. Section 7 of the ESA applies if a federal discretionary action is required (e.g., a federal agency must issue a permit), in which case the involved federal agency consults with USFWS.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it will be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.

Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities.” A take does not include habitat destruction or alteration if there is not a direct taking of birds, nests, eggs, or parts thereof. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13 (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States.

STATE
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a permit from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the state as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species. Authorization for take of state-listed species can be obtained through a California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 incidental take permit.

Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.) allows the California Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Sixty-four species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The act prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants but includes exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; for emergencies; and, after proper notification of CDFW, for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other building sites, changes in land use, and other situations.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5—Protection of Bird Nests and Raptors Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests as a result of tree removal or disturbance caused by project construction or other activities that cause the adults to abandon the nest, resulting in loss of eggs and/or young.

Fully Protected Species under the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of fully protected birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and fish. Species listed under these statutes may not be taken or possessed at any time and no incidental take permits can be issued for these species except for scientific research purposes, for relocation to protect livestock, or as part of a natural community conservation plan (NCCP).

LOCAL
City of Fresno Municipal Code – Tree Preservation
The City of Fresno Municipal Code includes an ordinance regarding tree preservation (Section 13-305) that requires property owners to obtain a permit to remove or maintain street trees (i.e., any tree planted, or caused to be planted, by the City within the street right-of-way, parkway, or any landscape or public tree easement). Removed trees will be replaced by the applicant through replanting, or by the City through collection of permit fees. Section 15-2308 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code states that removal of eucalyptus trees does not require approval of a tree removal permit.

3.5.2 Environmental Setting
The project site consists of an undeveloped parcel in the northwestern portion of the city of Fresno, approximately

0.35 mile south of the San Joaquin River. The site is surrounded by the Riverside Golf Course to the north; residential development to the west; industrial and residential development to the east; and West Herndon Avenue, commercial development, some undeveloped parcels, and the Rio Vista Middle School to the south. There is a large transmission tower in the northwest corner of the project site. No raptor nests were observed on this tower; however, several owl pellets (likely attributed to a barn owl [Tyto alba] or great horned owl [Bubo virginianus]) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) bones were observed under the tower during the reconnaissance-level survey on November 1, 2021, indicating that owls and likely other raptors use the tower as a roost site. California ground squirrel burrows are present throughout the project site and several squirrels were observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys on November 1, 2021, and June 20, 2022. There is a mound of soil directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site with many California ground squirrel burrows.

VEGETATION
Habitat within the project site is comprised entirely of regularly disced field with sparse cover of ruderal grassland vegetation. Most of the site does not contain vegetation. Where it occurs, vegetation consists of predominately nonnative grasses as well as native forbs, including Jimsonweed (Datura wrightii) and narrow leaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis). Several large blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) trees are present adjacent to the project site to the north and northeast, including a windrow along the southern boundary of the Riverside Golf Course. These trees are located adjacent to the project site where Spruce Avenue would be extended east of the site. The project site and adjacent rights-of-way do not contain any aquatic habitat (e.g., streams, wetlands), riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or other sensitive habitats.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-3

SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as species that are legally protected or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource agencies. Special-status species are species, subspecies, or varieties that fall into one or more of the following categories, regardless of their legal or protection status:
f officially listed by California under CESA or the federal government under ESA as endangered, threatened, or rare; f a candidate for state or federal listing as endangered or threatened under CESA or ESA; f taxa (i.e., taxonomic category or group) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines; f species identified by CDFW as species of special concern; f species listed as fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code; f species afforded protection under local planning documents; and f plant taxa considered by the CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, or 2. The CDFW system includes rarity and endangerment ranks for categorizing plant species of concern, and ranks 1 and 2 are summarized as follows:
ƒ CRPR 1A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California; ƒ CRPR 1B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; ƒ CRPR 2A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California but common elsewhere; ƒ CRPR 2B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

All plants with a CRPR are considered “special plants” by CDFW. The term “special plants” is a broad term used by CDFW to refer to all of the plant taxa inventoried in CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), regardless of their legal or protection status. Plants ranked as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B typically qualify as endangered, rare, or threatened species within the definition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. CDFW recommends that potential impacts on CRPR 1 and 2 species be evaluated in CEQA documents. CRPR 3 (review list) and 4 (watch list) species may meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 and/or Section 15125(c). These species should be evaluated by the lead agency on a case-by-case basis to determine their local rarity.

The term “California species of special concern” is applied by CDFW to animals not listed under ESA or CESA, but that are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or that historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. CDFW’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA; however, some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing under CESA. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no take permits can be issued for these species except for scientific research purposes, for relocation to protect livestock, or as part of an NCCP.

Of the 21 special-status plant species that are known to occur within the nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles including and surrounding the project site, none were determined to have potential to occur on the site and adjacent rights-of-way due to the lack of habitat potentially suitable for the species (CNDDB 2021; CNPS 2021; Table 3.5-1). Of the 28 special-status wildlife species that could occur within the nine USGS quadrangles, three species were determined to have potential to occur on the project site and adjacent rights-of-way based on the presence of habitat potentially suitable for these species (CNDDB 2021, Table 3.5-2). Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 describe the species’ regulatory status, habitat, and potential for occurrence on the project site and adjacent rights-of-way.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.5-1 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site and Their Potential for Occurrence on the Site
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
– – 1B.2 Alkaline flats and scalds in the Central
Valley. Sandy soils. 10–900 feet in
elevation. Blooms April–October.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain alkaline flats or scalds.

Lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
– – 1B.1 In alkali sink, shadscale scrub, and
grassland in sandy, alkaline soils. 0–740
feet in elevation. Blooms May–October.

Not expected occur. While the project
site contains grassland and moderately
alkaline soil, this species is typically
associated with alkali sink habitat that is
seasonally flooded, which is not
present on the project site.

Hoover's calycadenia
Calycadenia hooveri
– – 1B.3 On exposed, rocky, barren soil. 230–855
feet in elevation. Blooms July–September.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain rocky soil.

Succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris
var. succulenta
FT SE 1B.2 Vernal pools, often in acidic soils. 65–
2,315 feet in elevation. Blooms April–May.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

California jewelflower
Caulanthus
californicus
FE SE 1B.1 Sandy soils. 210–6,100 feet in elevation.

Blooms February–May.

Not expected to occur. The project site
is outside of the current known range
of this species.

Palmate-bracted salty
bird's-beak
Chloropyron
palmatum
FE SE 1B.1 Saline-alkaline soils in seasonally flooded
lowland plains and basins. Usually on
Pescadero silty clay which is alkaline. Less
than 500 feet in elevation. Blooms May–
October.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain seasonally flooded
alkaline-saline soils or Pescadero silty
clay soil.

Recurved larkspur
Delphinium
recurvatum
– – 1B.2 On alkaline soils; often in valley saltbush
or valley chenopod scrub. 10–2,595 feet in
elevation. Blooms March–June.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain saltbush or chenopod
scrub habitat.

Dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
– – 2B.2 Vernal lake and pool margins with a
variety of associates. In several types of
vernal pools. 3–1610 feet in elevation.

Blooms March–May.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery
Eryngium
spinosepalum
– – 1B.2 Some sites on clay soil of granitic origin;
vernal pools, within grassland. 260–840
feet in elevation. Blooms April–June.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
– – 2B.1 Mesic sites, alkali seeps, riparian areas. 10– 4,905 feet in elevation. Blooms
September–May.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain mesic sites, seeps, or
riparian habitat.

Alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
– – 1B.1 Vernal pools. Alkaline soils. 0–655 feet in
elevation. Blooms February–June.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

Munz's tidy-tips
Layia munzii
– – 1B.2 Hillsides, in white-gray alkaline clay soils,
w/grasses and chenopod scrub
associates. 490–2,300 feet in elevation.

Blooms March–April.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain hillsides or chenopod
scrub habitat.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-5
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
– – 1B.2 Dry slopes; often on decomposed granite
in woodland. 985–4,265 feet in elevation.

Blooms April–May.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain woodland habitat or
decomposed granite soils.

Pincushion navarretia
Navarretia myersii ssp.
myersii
– – 1B.1 Vernal pools and wetlands. Clay soils
within non-native grassland. 150–330 feet
in elevation. Blooms April–May.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
FT SE 1B.1 Vernal pools, wetland. 30–2,480 feet in
elevation. Blooms April–September.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

Hairy Orcutt grass
Orcuttia pilosa
FE SE 1B.1 Vernal pools, wetland. 145–660 feet in
elevation. Blooms May–September.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

Hartweg's golden
sunburst
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
FE SE 1B.1 Clay soils, often acidic. Predominantly on
the northern slopes of knolls, but also
along shady creeks or near vernal pools.
195–560 feet in elevation. Blooms March–
April.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain acidic soils, or knolls,
vernal pool, wetland, or creek habitat.

California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
– – 1B.2 Alkaline, vernally mesic. Sinks, flats, and
lake margins. 3–3,005 feet in elevation.

Blooms March–May.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernally mesic habitat.

Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
– – 1B.2 In standing or slow-moving freshwater
ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0–2,135 feet
in elevation. Blooms May–October.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain pond, marsh, or ditch
habitat.

Caper-fruited
tropidocarpum
Tropidocarpum
capparideum
– – 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline clay.
0–1,180 feet in elevation. Blooms March–
April.

Not expected to occur. The project site
is outside of the current known range
of this species.

Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
FE SR 1B.1 Vernal pools in open grasslands. 80–4,350
feet in elevation. Blooms May–July.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat.

Notes: CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; ESA = Endangered Species Act; NPPA = Native Plant Protection Act
1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FE Federally Listed as Endangered (legally protected by ESA) FT Federally Listed as Threatened (legally protected by ESA) State:

SE State Listed as Endangered (legally protected by CESA) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR):
1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA). 2B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA).

CRPR Threat Ranks:

0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened; high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Sources: CNDDB 2021; CNPS 2021.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.5-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site and Their Potential for Occurrence on the Site
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Amphibians and Reptiles
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
Gambelia sila
FE SE
FP
Resident of sparsely vegetated
alkali and desert scrub habitats, in
areas of low topographic relief.

Seeks cover in mammal burrows,
under shrubs or structures such as
fence posts; they do not excavate
their own burrows.

Not expected to occur. The project site is located
near the easternmost extent of the current known
range of blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The site is
disturbed, routinely disked, and does not contain
any shrub cover. The project site is also surrounded
by extensive residential and commercial
development and is not connected to surrounding
habitat suitable for blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
– SSC Patchily distributed from the eastern
portion of San Francisco Bay,
southern San Joaquin Valley, and the
Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular
ranges south to Baja California.

Generalist reported from a range of
scrub and grassland habitats, often
with loose or sandy soils.

Not expected to occur. The project site is outside
of the documented range of this species.

California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20
weeks of permanent water for
larval development. Must have
access to estivation habitat.

Not expected to occur. The project site is outside
of the current known range of this species and
does not contain aquatic or upland habitat
suitable for California red-legged frog.

California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
FT ST Need underground refuges, especially
ground squirrel burrows, within 1.3
mile of vernal pools or other seasonal
water sources for breeding.

Not expected to occur. The project site and
surrounding areas do not contain vernal pool or
wetland habitat suitable for California tiger
salamander.

Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
– SSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats,
most common in lowlands along
sandy washes with scattered low
bushes. Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of loose
soil for burial, and abundant supply
of ants and other insects.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain scattered shrub habitat suitable for coast
horned lizard.

Giant gartersnake
Thamnophis gigas
FT ST Prefers freshwater marsh and low
gradient streams. Has adapted to
drainage canals and irrigation
ditches. This is the most aquatic of
the garter snakes in California.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain aquatic habitat suitable for giant garter
snake and is located a sufficient distance from
nearby aquatic habitat (i.e., San Joaquin River)
such that the project site would not be used as
upland habitat for the species.

Northern California legless
lizard
Anniella pulchra
– SSC Sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is
essential. They prefer soils with a
high moisture content.

Not expected to occur. While the project site
contains loamy soils and sparse vegetation, it is
disturbed and routinely disked, which would likely
exclude northern California legless lizard from the
project site.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-7
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Western pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
– SSC An aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams and
irrigation ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation, below 6,000
feet elevation. Need basking sites
and suitable (sandy banks or grassy
open fields) upland habitat up to

0.5 km from water for egg-laying.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain aquatic habitat suitable for western pond
turtle and is located a sufficient distance from
nearby aquatic habitat (i.e., San Joaquin River)
such that the project site would not be used as
upland habitat for the species.

Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
– SSC Occurs primarily in vernal pool
grassland habitats but can be
found in valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands with vernal pools.

Vernal pools are essential for
breeding and egg-laying.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool or seasonal wetland habitat
suitable for western spadefoot.

Birds
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
– SSC Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts and scrublands
characterized by low-growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the
California ground squirrel.

May occur. The project site contains open ruderal
grassland habitat, a healthy population of
California ground squirrels, and many ground
squirrel burrows. There is a large pile of soil on
the northern boundary of the project site with
many ground squirrel burrows that may provide
additional habitat suitable for burrowing owls.

While no evidence of burrowing owl use (e.g.,
scat, pellets) was observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys on November 1,
2021, or June 20, 2022, burrowing owls could
establish on the project site at any time.

Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
– ST Breeds in grasslands with scattered
trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas, savannahs, and agricultural
or ranch lands with groves or lines
of trees. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands,
or alfalfa or grain fields supporting
rodent populations.

May occur. The project site contains nesting habitat
(i.e., large trees) potentially suitable for Swainson’s hawks within blue gum trees located adjacent to
the future extension of Spruce Avenue.

Additionally, there are many large, mature trees on
the Riverside Golf Course property north of the
project site, including several large eucalyptus trees
directly adjacent to the northern edge of the
project site that may provide nesting habitat
suitable for the species. The project site also may
provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks,
albeit low-quality foraging habitat due to
disturbance and surrounding development.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
– ST
SSC
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water,
protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within
a few kilometers of the colony.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain nesting habitat suitable for tricolored
blackbirds (e.g., riparian habitat, marsh habitat,
blackberry brambles).

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT SE Riparian forest nester, along the
broad, lower flood-bottoms of
larger river systems. Nests in
riparian jungles of willow, often
mixed with cottonwoods, with
lower story of blackberry, nettles,
or wild grape.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain riparian forest habitat suitable for western
yellow-billed cuckoo.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
– FP Rolling foothills and valley margins
with scattered oaks and river
bottomlands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open
grasslands, meadows, or marshes
for foraging close to isolated,
dense-topped trees for nesting and
perching.

May occur. The project site contains nesting
habitat (i.e., large trees) potentially suitable for
white-tailed kites within blue gum trees located
adjacent to the future extension of Spruce
Avenue. Additionally, there are many large,
mature trees on the Riverside Golf Course
property north of the project site, including
several large eucalyptus trees directly adjacent to
the northern edge of the site, that may provide
nesting habitat suitable for the species. The
project site also may provide foraging habitat for
white-tailed kites, albeit low-quality foraging
habitat due to disturbance and surrounding
development.

Yellow-headed blackbird
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
– SSC Nests in freshwater emergent
wetlands with dense vegetation
and deep water. Often along
borders of lakes or ponds. Nests
only where large insects such as
Odonata are abundant, nesting
timed with maximum emergence of
aquatic insects.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain nesting habitat suitable for yellowheaded blackbird (e.g., vegetation associated with wetlands, lakes, or ponds).

Fish
Delta smelt
Hypomesus transpacificus
FT SE Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez
Strait and San Pablo Bay. Seldom
found at salinities > 10 ppt. Most
often at salinities < 2ppt.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain aquatic habitat suitable for Delta smelt.

Hardhead
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
– SSC Low to mid-elevation streams in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin
drainage. Also present in the
Russian River. Clear, deep pools
with sand-gravel-boulder bottoms
and slow water velocity. Not found
where exotic centrarchids
predominate.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain aquatic habitat suitable for hardhead.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-9
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Invertebrates
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
– – Coastal California east to the
Sierra-Cascade crest and south into
Mexico. Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum. Bumble bees have
three basic habitat requirements:
suitable nesting sites for the
colonies, availability of nectar and
pollen from floral resources
throughout the duration of the
colony period (spring, summer, and
fall), and suitable overwintering
sites for the queens.

Not expected to occur. There is one historic (1899)
documented occurrence of crotch bumble bee
within the nine USGS quadrangles including and
surrounding the project site (CNDDB 2021). The
project site is within the historic range of this
species; however, crotch bumble bee has recently
undergone a dramatic decline in abundance and
distribution and is no longer present across much
of its historic range (Xerces Society 2018). While
efforts are underway to encourage recovery of
crotch bumble bee populations, it is unlikely that
the range of this species would expand into the
Fresno County region during the life of the project.

Monarch - California
overwintering population
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
FC – Winter roost sites extend along the
coast from northern Mendocino to
Baja California, Mexico. Roosts
located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby. Milkweed species
are the larval host plants.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain coastal habitat suitable for overwintering
monarch butterflies, so removal of trees would not
affect overwintering habitat for this species. Several
narrow leaf milkweed plants were observed during
the reconnaissance-level survey on November 1,
2021. Milkweed species provide foraging and host
plant opportunities for monarch butterflies.

However, because the project site is regularly
disked, this habitat is not high quality, and the site
does not contain adequate nectar sources. Loss of
these narrow leaf milkweed plants would not be
considered a substantial reduction of monarch
larval habitat in the region.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
FT – Occurs only in the Central Valley of
California, in association with blue
elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp.
caerulea). Prefers to lay eggs in
elderberry stems 2-8 inches in
diameter; some preference shown
for "stressed" elderberry shrubs.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain blue elderberry shrub habitat suitable for
valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT – Endemic to the grasslands of the
Central Valley, Central Coast
mountains, and South Coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled
pools. Inhabit small, clear-water
sandstone-depression pools and
grassed swale, earth slump, or
basalt-flow depression pools.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool or seasonal wetland habitat
suitable for vernal pool fairy shrimp.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
– SSC Most abundant in drier open
stages of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with friable
soils. Needs sufficient food, friable
soils and open, uncultivated
ground. Preys on burrowing
rodents. Digs burrows.

Not expected to occur. The project site contains
friable soils and a healthy California ground
squirrel population. However, the site is regularly
disked, which may deter badgers from
establishing dens, and is surrounded by dense
suburban and commercial development and
disconnected from nearby undeveloped habitat
suitable for this species.

Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
FE SE The known historical geographic
range of the Fresno kangaroo rat
encompassed an area of grassland
and alkali desert scrub communities
on the San Joaquin Valley floor in
Merced, Kings, Fresno, and Madera
counties. Recently they have been
found only in alkali sink communities
from 200 to 300 feet in elevation.

Known habitat for these animals has
been reduced and fragmented
primarily by agricultural
developments, urbanization, and
transportation infrastructures.

Not expected to occur. While the project site is
within the historic range of Fresno kangaroo rat,
currently, there are no known populations of the
species within its historical geographic range in
Merced, Madera, and Fresno counties.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
– SSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands and forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting. Roosts
must protect bats from high
temperatures. Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting sites.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain roosting habitat (e.g., tree cavities, cliffs,
crevices, human-made structures) suitable for
pallid bats. Human-made structures on the
project site (e.g., transmission towers) do not
provide roosting habitat suitable for this species.

San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
FE ST Annual grasslands or grassy open
stages with scattered shrubby
vegetation. Need loose-textured
sandy soils for burrowing, and
suitable prey base.

Not expected occur. San Joaquin kit foxes are
unlikely to den within the project site because it is
regularly disturbed, surrounded by dense
suburban and commercial development, and
disconnected from nearby undeveloped habitat
suitable for this species. Further, a recent
assessment report for the species does not
identify any areas east of SR 99 near Fresno as
within the current range of San Joaquin kit fox
(USFWS 2020).

San Joaquin Pocket Mouse
Perognathus inornatus
– – Occurs in dry, open grasslands or
scrub areas on fine-textured soils in
the Central and Salinas valleys.

Not expected to occur. The project site is
regularly disturbed and does not contain open
grassland or scrub habitat or fine-textured soils
suitable for San Joaquin pocket mouse.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-11
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Spotted bat
Euderma maculatum
– SSC Occupies a wide variety of habitats
from arid deserts and grasslands
through mixed conifer forests.

Feeds over water and along
washes. Feeds almost entirely on
moths. Needs rock crevices in cliffs
or caves for roosting.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain roosting habitat (e.g., rock crevices, cliffs,
caves, human-made structures) suitable for
spotted bats. Human-made structures on the
project site (e.g., transmission towers) do not
provide roosting habitat suitable for this species.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
– SSC Many open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and chaparral.

Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high
buildings, trees, and tunnels.

Not expected to occur. The project site does not
contain roosting habitat (e.g., trees cavities, cliffs, crevices, human-made structures) suitable for
western mastiff bats. Human-made structures on
the project site (e.g., transmission towers) do not
provide roosting habitat suitable for this species.

Notes: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act 1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FE Federally Listed as Endangered (legally protected)
FT Federally Listed as Threatened (legally protected)
State:

FP Fully protected (legally protected)
SSC Species of special concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration) SE State Listed as Endangered (legally protected)
ST State Listed as Threatened (legally protected)
Sources: City of Fresno 2014; CNDDB 2021; USFWS 2021.

3.5.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
This impact evaluation is based on data collected during reconnaissance-level field surveys conducted on November 1, 2021, and June 20, 2022, review of aerial photographs, and review of existing databases and environmental reports that address biological resources in the project vicinity.

Data reviewed in preparation of this analysis include:
f results of CNDDB record search of the Madera, Gregg, Lanes Bridge, Biola, Herndon, Fresno North, Fresno South, Kerman, and Kearney Park USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (CNDDB 2021); f results of California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare Plants search of the Madera, Gregg, Lanes Bridge, Biola, Herndon, Fresno North, Fresno South, Kerman, and Kearney Park USGS 7.5-minue quadrangles (CNPS 2021); f a list of species and other resources, obtained from USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation, that are known from or expected to be on or near the project location or could be affected by projects in this location (USFWS 2021);
f Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno 2014); and
f aerial photographs of the project site and region.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on biological resources would be significant if implementation of the project would:
f have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
f have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS; f have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; f interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; f conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or
f conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Effect, Either Directly or Through Habitat Modifications, Special-Status Plants Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations or by CDFW or USFWS No special-status plants have potential to occur on the project site. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Effect Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations or by CDFW or USFWS The project site does not contain riparian habitat or any sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Effect State or Federally Protected Wetlands through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption, or Other Means
The project site does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands or other waters. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Fish Species
The project site does not contain aquatic habitat suitable for native resident or migratory fish species. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Species, Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Site According to the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, the project site is not located within a Natural Landscape Block or Essential Habitat Connectivity area (Spencer et al. 2010). Project development would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species because the project site does not currently provide an important connection between any areas of natural habitat that would otherwise be isolated.

While wildlife may use the project site for nesting and roosting or may pass through the site occasionally, it is unlikely that the project site functions as a significant wildlife movement corridor or wildlife nursery site due to the lack of high-quality natural habitat and extensive residential and commercial development surrounding the site. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-13
Consistency with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources City of Fresno Municipal Code includes a tree preservation policy, and the City of Fresno General Plan includes policies designed to protect and preserve natural habitats within the city. Project implementation would result in removal of several blue gum trees; however, the City of Fresno Municipal Code exempts Eucalyptus trees (including blue gum) from the tree removal permit requirement. Additionally, the project site does not contain natural habitat, nor does any land surrounding the project site. These policies would, therefore, not apply to the project. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community Conservation Plans; or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plans The project site is not within the plan area of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.5-1: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Project activities would include ground disturbance, tree removal, and other vegetation removal, which could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special-status wildlife species if present, reduced breeding productivity of these species, and loss of species habitat. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b would minimize impacts by requiring preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other common raptors, and other native birds, and implementation of protective measures for active nests.

The following three wildlife species may occur on the project site: burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, and white-tailed kite, as discussed in Table 3.5-2. Common native nesting birds protected under California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA may also be present on the project site.

Burrowing Owl
The project site contains ruderal grassland habitat with friable soils and many California ground squirrel burrows.

Although no evidence of burrowing owl use (e.g., scat, pellets) was observed during the reconnaissance-level survey on November 1, 2021, burrowing owls could occupy the project site in the future.

Project implementation would include ground disturbance and vegetation clearing, which would require the use of vehicles and heavy machinery. These activities could result in inadvertent disturbance, injury, or mortality of burrowing owl. If present, burrowing owls could be disturbed due to the presence of equipment and personnel and could be inadvertently injured or killed by heavy machinery or vehicles or could abandon active nests resulting mortality of chicks or eggs. Active burrows could be inadvertently crushed and destroyed, if present, potentially resulting in the loss of eggs or chicks. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a: Conduct Take Avoidance Survey for Burrowing Owl, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Compensate for Loss of Occupied Burrows
f A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey for burrowing owls in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the project site no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities using survey methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report (CDFW 2012). Much of the area within this 1,640-foot survey area does not contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., residential areas, commercial development, roads) and would not require surveys. Inaccessible areas that contain habitat suitable for burrowing owl (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course property) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
f If no occupied burrows are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. f If an active burrow is found within 1,640 feet of pending construction activities during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), the applicant shall establish and maintain a minimum protection buffer of 164 feet (50 meters) around the occupied burrow throughout construction. If an active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The actual buffer size shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the time of year and level of disturbance in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer shall not disturb burrowing owl use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no-disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be developed, as described in Appendix E of the CDFW Staff Report.

Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW. The exclusion plan shall include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below). f If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. If an active burrow is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad-scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan developed in accordance with Appendix E of CDFW 2012 Staff Report. f If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) shall be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to develop a burrowing owl mitigation and management plan that incorporates the following goals and standards:
ƒ Mitigation lands shall be selected based on comparison of the habitat lost to the compensatory habitat, including type and structure of habitat, disturbance levels, potential for conflicts with humans, pets, and other wildlife, density of burrowing owls, and relative importance of the habitat to the species throughout its range. ƒ If feasible, mitigation lands shall be provided adjacent or proximate to the project site so that displaced owls can relocate with reduced risk of injury or mortality. Feasibility of providing mitigation adjacent or proximate to the project site depends on availability of sufficient habitat to support displaced owls that may be preserved in perpetuity.
ƒ If habitat suitable for burrowing owl is not available for conservation adjacent or proximate to the project site, mitigation lands can be secured off-site and shall aim to consolidate and enlarge conservation areas outside of planned development areas and within foraging distance of other conservation lands. Mitigation may be also accomplished through purchase of mitigation credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank, if available. Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultation with CDFW. ƒ If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permittee-responsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan shall include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-15
responsibilities, vegetation management goals, financial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures.

Success shall be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the site and if the numbers are maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, shall include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distribution, and trends in stressors.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a would reduce potential impacts on burrowing owl to a less-thansignificant level by requiring a take avoidance survey for burrowing owl, implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of burrowing owls and destruction of active burrows if detected, and compensation if burrows cannot be avoided such that the habitat acreage and the number of burrows destroyed are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat.

Swainson’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, Common Raptors, and Other Common Native Birds Two additional special-status birds have potential to occur on the project site: Swainson's hawk and white-tailed kite.

Nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite is present within blue gum trees located adjacent to the future extension of Spruce Avenue and large mature trees on the Riverside Golf Course property north of the project site. Other common raptor species could also nest in trees on the project site or on the Riverside Golf Course, as well as on the large transmission tower on the project site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), great horned owl, and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi). Common native ground-nesting birds, including killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) may nest on the project site, and both species were observed on the site during the November 1, 2021, reconnaissance-level survey. While not special-status species, common raptors and other common native birds and their nests are protected under California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA.

Project implementation would include ground disturbance, tree removal, and other vegetation clearing which would require the use of equipment, vehicles, and heavy machinery. These activities could result in direct loss of nests or inadvertent disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status and common native birds. If present, special-status and common native birds could be disturbed due to the presence of equipment and personnel potentially leading to nest abandonment. Active ground nests could be inadvertently removed and destroyed during ground disturbance activities, if present, potentially resulting in the loss of eggs or chicks. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b: Conduct Focused Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, Other Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Buffers f To minimize the potential for loss of Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other raptors, and other native birds, project construction activities (e.g., tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1-January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), if feasible. If project construction activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation shall be required.
f Within 14 days before the onset of project construction activities during the breeding season (approximately February 1 through August 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys shall conduct focused surveys for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other nesting raptors, and other native birds. Surveys shall be conducted in accessible areas (i.e., not including private property) within 0.5 mile of the project site for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite; within 500 feet of the site for other raptors; and within 50 feet of the site for non-raptor common native bird nests. Inaccessible areas that contain habitat suitable for nesting birds (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course property) shall be surveyed using binoculars or a spotting scope.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.5-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
f If no nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. f Impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity, including tree removal, shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. An avoidance buffer shall be implemented for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite in consultation with CDFW. CDFW guidelines recommend implementation of 0.25- or 0.5-mile-wide buffers for Swainson’s hawk nests, but the size of the buffer may be decreased if a qualified biologist and the City of Fresno, in consultation with CDFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. For other species, a qualified biologist shall determine the size of the buffer for nests of non-special-status species after a site- and nest-specific analysis. Buffers typically shall be 500 feet for common raptors. Buffer size for non-raptor common bird species generally shall be at least 20 feet. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size shall include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and proposed project construction activities. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for a listed or fully protected species (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite) shall require consultation with CDFW. If an active nest is found on property outside of the project site (e.g., the Riverside Golf Course), then the protection buffer shall be established on a map, and only the portion of the buffer within the project site shall be marked with fencing, flagging, or other means. Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project construction activities shall be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project construction activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b would reduce potential impacts on Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other raptors, and other common native nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for nesting birds and implementation of measures to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of the species if nests are detected.

Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.6-1

3.6 ENERGY
This section was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 and Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines, which require that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of projects. The analysis considers whether the project would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. No comments regarding energy use were received in response to the notice of preparation for this EIR.

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting
Energy conservation is embodied in many federal, state, and local statutes and policies. At the federal level, energy standards apply to numerous products (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA] EnergyStar™ program) and transportation (e.g., fuel efficiency standards). At the state level, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth energy standards for buildings. Further, the State provides rebates/tax credits for installation of renewable energy systems, and offers the Flex Your Power program that promotes conservation in multiple areas. At the local level, individual cities and counties establish policies in their general plans and climate action plans (CAPs) related to the energy efficiency of new development and land use planning and to the use of renewable energy sources.

FEDERAL
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and CAFE Standards
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established nationwide fuel economy standards to conserve oil. Pursuant to this act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle economy standards.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Compliance with the CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the country. EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on the city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the EPA city and highway fuel economy test results. Based on information generated under the CAFE program, DOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (described below), the CAFE standards were revised for the first time in 30 years.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light-duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.6-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U.S. dependence on oil. It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. The Energy Independence and Security Act increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels; and reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020—an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent.

By addressing renewable fuels and the CAFE standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 builds upon progress made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in setting out a comprehensive national energy strategy for the 21st century.

STATE
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The act established state policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately-owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.

State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 2003 California Energy Action Plan (2008 update). The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs; and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.

Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), CEC and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared and adopted a joint agency report in 2003, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT (CEC and CARB 2003). Further, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, Governor Davis directed CEC to take the lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.

A performance-based goal of AB 2076 was to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand by 2030.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required CEC to “conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety” (PRC Section 25301[a]). This work culminated in preparation of the first Integrate Energy Policy Report (IEPR).

CEC adopts an IEPR every 2 years and an update every other year. The multivolume 2021 IEPR, which is the most recent IEPR, was adopted in February 2022. Volume I of the 2021 IEPR addresses actions needed to reduce the greenhouse gases (GHGs) related to the buildings in which Californians live and work, with an emphasis on energy efficiency. It also addresses reducing GHG emissions from the industrial and agricultural sectors. Volume II examines actions needed to increase the reliability and resiliency of California’s energy system. Volume III looks at the evolving role of gas in Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.6-3
California’s energy system. Volume IV reports on California’s energy demand outlook, including a forecast to 2035 and long-term energy demand scenarios to 2050. The analysis addresses the electricity, gas, and transportation sectors. The appendix volume assesses the benefits of California’s Clean Transportation Program (CEC 2022a).

Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The State has passed multiple pieces of legislation requiring the increasing use of renewable energy to produce electricity for consumers. California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program was established in 2002 (SB 1078) with the initial requirement for electric utility providers to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable by 2017, 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011), 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018), 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018), and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018). More detail about these regulations is provided in Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.” Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other state, federal, and local agencies. The plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation to public health and environmental quality.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the California Energy Code. The code was established by CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years, typically including more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.

The 2019 California Energy Code was adopted by CEC on May 9, 2018, and applies to projects constructed after January 1, 2020. CEC estimates that the combination of required energy-efficiency features and mandatory solar panels in the 2019 California Energy Code will result in new residential buildings that use 53 percent less energy than those designed to meet the 2016 California Energy Code. CEC also estimates that the 2019 California Energy Code will result in new commercial buildings that use 30 percent less energy than those designed to meet the 2016 standards, primarily through the transition to high-efficacy lighting (CEC 2018).

California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) The California Green Building Standards, also known as CALGreen, is a reach code (i.e., optional standards that exceed the requirements of mandatory codes) developed by CEC that provides green building standards for statewide residential and nonresidential construction. The current version is the 2019 CALGreen Code, which took effect on January 1, 2020. As compared to the 2016 CALGreen Code, the 2019 CALGreen Code strengthened sections pertaining to EV and bicycle parking, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency, among other sections of the CALGreen Code. The CALGreen Code sets design requirements equivalent to or more stringent than those of the California Energy Code for energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste diversion, and indoor air quality. These codes are adopted by local agencies that enforce building codes and used as guidelines by state agencies for meeting the requirements of Executive Order B-18-12.

Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.6-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Legislation Associated with Greenhouse Gas Reduction
The State has passed legislation that aims to reduce GHG emissions. The legislation often has an added benefit of reducing energy consumption. SB 32 requires a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. Executive Order S-3-05 sets a long-term target of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. The Advanced Clean Cars program, approved by CARB, combines the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants and the increase in the number of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. The program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025.

Implementation of the state’s legislation associated with GHG reduction will have the co-benefit of reducing California’s dependency on fossil fuel and making land use development and transportation systems more energy efficient.

More details about legislation associated with GHG reduction are provided in the regulatory setting of Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.”
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan establishes the following policy related energy that is relevant to the project:

X Policy RC-5-c: GHG Reduction through Design and Operations. Increase efforts to incorporate requirements for GHG emission reductions in land use entitlement decisions, facility design, and operational measures subject to City regulation through the following measures and strategies:
ƒ Promote the expansion of incentive-based programs that involve certification of projects for energy and water efficiency and resiliency. These certification programs and scoring systems may include public agency “Green” and conservation criteria, Energy Star™ certification, CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED™) certification, etc.
ƒ Promote appropriate energy and water conservation standards and facilitate mixed-use projects, new incentives for infill development, and the incorporation of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities into public and private projects.
ƒ Require energy and water audits and upgrades for water conservation, energy efficiency, and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities at the time of renovation, change in use, change in occupancy, and change in ownership for major projects meeting review thresholds specified in an implementing ordinance. ƒ Incorporate the City’s “Guidelines for Ponding Basin/Pond Construction and Management to Control Mosquito Breeding” as conditions of approval for any project using an on-site stormwater basin to prevent possible increases in vector-borne illnesses associated with global climate change. ƒ Periodically evaluate the City’s facility maintenance practices to determine whether there are additional opportunities to reduce GHGs through facility cleaning and painting, parks maintenance, road maintenance, and utility system maintenance.
ƒ Periodically evaluate standards and mitigation strategies for highly vehicle-dependent land uses and facilities, such as drive-through facilities and auto-oriented development.

City of Fresno Climate Action Plan
The City of Fresno first adopted its GHGRP in 2014. The City updated its GHGRP in 2021 to extend its GHG reduction targets beyond 2020 to align with state reduction targets for 2030 (as mandated by SB 32) and 2035 (to align with the horizon year of the general plan). The GHGRP estimates forecasted emissions in the city using a business-as-usual (BAU) model that does not account for various statewide regulations that will reduce emissions in the city.

Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.6-5

3.6.2 Environmental Setting

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS USE
Electric services and natural gas are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for the project. In 2020, PG&E provided its customers enrolled in PG&E’s base plan with an energy portfolio composed of 31 percent eligible renewable energy, 10 percent large hydroelectric power, 16 percent natural gas, and 42 percent nuclear power (CEC 2021). PG&E also offers its customers the option to enroll in a 50 or 100 percent renewable energy plan through its Solar Choice Program.

ENERGY USE FOR TRANSPORTATION
In 2020, the transportation sector comprised the largest end-use sector of energy in the state totaling 40.3 percent, followed by the industrial sector totaling 23.1 percent, the commercial sectors at 18.7 percent, and the residential sector of 18.0 percent (EIA 2022). On-road vehicles use about 90 percent of the petroleum consumed in California.

The CEC reported retail sales of 156 million gallons of gasoline and diesel in Fresno County in 2020 (the most recent data available) (CEC 2022b). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) projects that 522 and 168 million gallons of gasoline and diesel, respectively, will be consumed in Fresno County in 2025 (Caltrans 2008).

ENERGY USE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists and climatologists have produced substantial evidence that the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, residences, and commercial facilities has led to an increase of the earth’s temperature (IPCC 2014 and OPR et al. 2018). For an analysis of GHG production and the project’s contribution to climate change, see Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.”

3.6.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Construction of the project requires the use of transportation fuel, including gasoline and diesel use in construction equipment, material transport via hauling trucks, delivery via vendor trucks, and construction worker vehicles. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction, while VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in fuel consumption. Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction; this analysis assumes that construction workers would primarily use gasoline-powered passenger vehicles.

Fuel Use for Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment
Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of construction. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities would use diesel fuel. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0. was used to estimate construction equipment usage, and results are included in Appendix E. Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of diesel. The estimated diesel fuel usage from off-road construction sources over the course of the project construction period is 55,154 gallons.

Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.6-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Fuel Use for Worker, Vendor, and Hauling Trips during Construction Fuel consumption from worker, vendor, and hauling trips are estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to include light-duty automobiles and trucks, vendor vehicles are assumed to include an equal mix of medium heavy-duty trucks and heavy heavy-duty trucks, and hauling vehicles are assumed to include heavy heavyduty trucks. Estimated fuel usage totals 17,539 gallons of gasoline and 29,805 gallons of diesel over the course of the project construction period. Construction of the project is not anticipated to require natural gas fuel. Therefore, natural gas related to construction of the project is not discussed further.

Electricity Use during Project Operation
Operation of the project would result in electricity demand for the car wash, warehouse, gas station, and parking lot.

The total electricity use for the project assumes compliance with the 2022 Title 24 standards. The project would require natural gas, mainly for building heating, food preparation, and hot water. Natural gas is estimated using CalEEMod defaults based on averages for the climate zone for the car wash, warehouse, and gas station. Estimates for the project are conservative because they assume the project would be built to existing 2022 Title 24, Part 6 standards, even though it is assumed (based on the 2023 construction year) that a subsequent, more energy efficient iteration of the code will apply.

Fuel Use for Commute Trips during Project Operation
Operational gasoline fuel usage occurs due to customer trips and employee trips when commuting to work at the warehouse, car wash, and gas station and is calculated based on gasoline vehicle net VMT. The development of the member and employee VMT is described in detail in Appendix D. Gasoline fuel consumption for the project is calculated by dividing total net member and employee VMT by average fuel efficiency of gasoline vehicles in Fresno County from the EMFAC2021 database for calendar year 2023.

Fuel Use for Truck Trips during Project Operation
Warehouse truck, fuel delivery truck, and Market Delivery Operations delivery truck fuel consumption is based on total net VMT, which is described in detail in Appendix D. Diesel fuel consumption for the project is calculated by dividing total net diesel truck VMT by the average fuel efficiency of diesel vehicles in Fresno County from the EMFAC2021 database for calendar year 2023.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on energy would be significant if implementation of the project would:

X result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation; and/or X conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All of the topics identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines are examined in this analysis.

Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.6-7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.6-1: Result in a Potentially Significant Environmental Impact Due to the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources, During Project Construction or Operation
The project would not use energy for construction that would be considered wasteful or unnecessary, as that energy expenditure would facilitate operation of the project and achievement of project goals. The project does not include any construction activity beyond what is needed to provide a functional facility. Construction of the project would adhere to best management practices (BMPs) for construction (e.g., restrict idling time to 5 minutes or less).

Moreover, the project would utilize Tier 3 construction equipment or construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). The project would introduce new electricity and natural gas consumption relative to baseline conditions; however, the project would be enrolled in the PG&E’s Solar Choice Program to procure 100 percent of its electricity from solar resources. The project would also be served by existing infrastructure capable of meeting the project’s operational energy needs. During operation, energy would not be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner.

This impact would be less than significant.

Most of the project’s construction-related energy consumption would be associated with the use of off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and materials using on-road haul trucks. An estimated 17,539 gallons of gasoline and 84,959 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (see Appendix E for a summary of construction calculations). The energy needs for project construction would occur over a 7-month construction period and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Gasoline and diesel would also be consumed during worker commute trips. Energy would be required to transport demolition waste and excavated materials. The project would also utilize Tier 3 engines for all construction equipment exceeding 50 hp and would comply with the statewide standard of restricting idling time to no more than 5 minutes. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the project (spread over the buildout period) would be nonrecoverable. However, there is no atypical construction-related energy demand associated with the project. Nonrenewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region. Additionally, as shown in Appendix E, on-road gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with construction activity would go down every year as the vehicle fleet becomes more fuel-efficient over time.

Table 3.6-1 summarizes total construction gasoline and diesel fuel consumption.

Table 3.6-1 Operational Energy Consumption
Construction Activity Energy Consumption Units
Diesel Fuel
Off-Road Heavy Duty Equipment 55,154 gallons
On-Road Mobile Activity 29,805 gallons
Gasoline
On-Road Mobile Activity 17,539 gallons
Source: Calculations by Ramboll Environ in 2023.

Energy would be consumed from operation of the various land use types proposed for the project site. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the electricity and natural gas consumption from each portion of the project as expressed in kilowatt hours per year (kWh/year) and kilo British Thermal Unit per year (kBtu/year). In total, the project would consume 2,116,460 kWh/year of electricity and 2,753,494 kBtu/year of natural gas. Additionally, vehicle trips related to project implementation would consume 1,088,273 and 59,908 gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel, respectively, in 2023.

Notably, the project would obtain its electricity through PG&E Solar Choice Program, which provides 100 percent renewable energy to customers enrolled in the program.

Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.6-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Table 3.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption
Land Use/Energy Type1 Energy Consumption Units
Automobile Care Center
Electricity 41,328 kWh/year
Natural Gas 99,360 kBtu/year
Discount Club
Electricity 1,911,410 kWh/year
Natural Gas 2,560,620 kBtu/year
Gasoline/Service Station
Electricity 38,897 kWh/year
Natural Gas 93,514 kBtu/year
Parking Lot
Electricity 124,460 kWh/year
Natural Gas 0 kBtu/year
All Land Uses
Electricity 2,297,337 kWh/year
Natural Gas 2,753,494 kBtu/year
Notes: kWh/year = kilowatt-hours per year; kBtu/year = kilo British thermal units per year. 1 these designation titles align with the titles used in CALEEMOD.

Source: Calculations by Ramboll Environ in 2023.

For context, the increase in operational electrical demand from the project would represent 0.026 percent of the total electrical demand countywide and 0.001 percent of the total electricity demand statewide. In 2020, total in-state electricity consumption was 279,510 GWh. CEC estimates that state-wide energy demand will increase to 354,209 GWh in 2030. The project’s anticipated electricity usage of 2,297,337 kWh/year is approximately 0.0008 percent of the statewide demand in 2020. Given that the state is growing annually, the anticipated state-wide energy demand for the anticipated build-out year for the project of 2023 will likely be greater than that in 2020, and thus the project’s relative percentage contribution to the state-wide energy demand would be even less.

With respect to natural gas, the project’s incremental contribution of new demand would equate to 0.008 percent of the total natural gas consumed countywide and 0.0002 percent of the total natural gas demand statewide. Similarly, the gasoline and diesel fuel consumption from the project would represent 0.284 and 0.028 percent, respectively, of the county’s total consumption. This fuel consumption would equate to 0.007 percent and 0.001 percent, respectively, of the total gasoline and diesel fuel consumed statewide.

Reducing energy consumption by incorporating sustainable design features and systems with enhanced energy efficiencies meeting State and federal requirements is a stated objective of the project. 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. Through the permitting process, all development would comply with the State’s Title 24 California Building Code.

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.

Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.6-9
Although the project would result in the generation of VMT associated with shopper trips to the warehouse, purchase of goods in bulk can reduce the overall energy used for the packaging and transport of consumer goods. Further, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, identified in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” would establish a mandatory commute reduction program for employees to reduce the energy demand associated with work commutes. 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.

Therefore, energy would not be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner during operation. As discussed in Section

3.14, “Utilities,” the project would be served by existing power and natural gas lines and would not require any new infrastructure to meet the project’s energy needs. The project would introduce 2,297,337 kWh/year and 2,753,494 Btu/year of operational energy usage which could be met through existing infrastructure.

The project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. 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 of Fresno. The project would serve the community as a retail land use.

Locating shopping options near existing residences, where consumers can fulfill multiple shopping needs in one trip, would support efficient use of energy. In addition, the project would procure its electricity from PG&E’s Solar Choice Program. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.6-2: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Energy Measures of a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency
The project would be consistent with the relevant energy measures from the City of Fresno’s GHGRP that pertain to nonresidential development. Because the project would incorporate relevant measures as project design features, such as a commitment to PG&E’s Solar Choice Program, and would incorporate energy-reducing measures from the GHGRP, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City of Fresno’s GHGRP. This impact would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 3.6.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the City of Fresno adopted its most recent update to its GHGRP in 2020. The GHGRP includes GHG emission reduction targets, strategies, and implementation measures developed to help the City reach these targets. Reduction strategies address GHG emissions associated with transportation and land use, water, waste management and recycling, agriculture, open space, and energy. Consistency with State and local plans is demonstrated in the Energy Technical Report provided as Appendix E (Tables B-1 and B-2). The analysis in Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” which is incorporated by reference, also demonstrates the project’s consistency with the targets in the City’s GHGRP and establishes a chain of consistency between the GHGRP and the State’s targets for GHG reduction. Because the GHGRP is designed to comply with statewide plans, projects consistent with the local plans are inherently consistent with the State’s plans for energy efficiency.

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project is committed to enrolling in PG&E Solar Choice Program, which provides options for customers to acquire 50 or 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. The project has committed to enrolling in the 100 percent renewable option of PG&E’s Solar Choice Program which would align the project with the energy reduction measures of the GHGRP.

Due to the inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures as part of the project and compliance with state regulations related to energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as the GHGRP, project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.6-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.7-1

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This section presents a summary of regulations applicable to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; a summary of climate change science and GHG sources in California; quantification of project-generated GHGs and discussion about their contribution to global climate change; and analysis of the project’s resiliency to climate change-related risks. No comments were received in response to the notice of preparation that specifically address GHG emissions or climate change. Effects related to pollution and air quality concerns are addressed in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.”

3.7.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
In Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant as defined under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and that the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. In 2010, EPA started to address GHG emissions from stationary sources through its New Source Review permitting program, including operating permits for “major sources” issued under Title V of the CAA.

In October 2012, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Transportation, issued final rules to further reduce GHG emissions and improve corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond (77 Federal Register 62624). These rules would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon, limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025 (77 Federal Register 62630).

On April 2, 2018, the EPA administrator announced a final determination that the current standards should be revised.

On August 2, 2018, the U.S. Department of Transportation and EPA proposed the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule (SAFE Rule), which would amend existing CAFE standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks by increasing the stringency of the standards by 1.5 percent per year from models 2021 through 2026.

The CAA grants California the ability to enact and enforce more strict fuel economy standards through the acquisition of an EPA-issued waiver. Each time California adopts a new vehicle emission standard, the state applies to EPA for a preemption waiver for those standards. However, Part One of the SAFE Rule, which became effective on November 26, 2019, revoked California’s existing waiver to implement its own vehicle emission standard. Part Two of the SAFE Rule established a standard to be adopted and enforced nationwide (84 Federal Register [FR] 51310). Pending several legal challenges to Part One of the SAFE Rule and administrative turnover, on December 21, 2021, the NHSTA published its CAFE Preemption Rule, which finalizes the repeal of the SAFE Rule Part 1 allowing California to continue procuring its waiver from EPA through the CAA to enforce more stringent emissions standards. Also, on April 1, 2022, the Secretary of Transportation unveiled new CAFE standards for 2024–2026 model year passenger cars and light-duty trucks. These new standards require new vehicles sold in the US to average at least 40 miles per gallon and apply to all states except those that enforce stricter standards.

STATE
Statewide GHG Emission Targets and Climate Change Scoping Plan Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the State government for approximately two decades.

GHG emission targets established by the State legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Senate Bill [SB] 32 of 2016). Executive Order S-3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target was superseded by AB 1279, which codifies a goal for carbon neutrality and reduce emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These targets are in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.7-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and rising sea levels, are projected; these targets also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius (United Nations 2015).

CARB adopted the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 16, 2022, which traces the State’s the pathway to achieve its carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction in 1990 emissions goal by 2045 using a combined top-down, bottom-up approach under various scenarios. It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation [including off-road mobile source emissions], industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste) to achieve these goals.

The state has also passed more detailed legislation addressing GHG emissions associated with transportation, electricity generation, and energy consumption, as summarized below.

Transportation-Related Standards and Regulations
CARB certified the Advanced Clean Cars II Program (ACC II Program) on August 25, 2022. The ACC II Program builds upon the existing ACC program and established more stringent zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales requirements for future benchmark years. The ACC II Program is designed to ensure that 100 percent of all vehicle sales in the State will be ZEVs by 2035.

CARB has also adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (ACT Regulation) which sets requirements for the transition of diesel trucks and vans to zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. CARB estimates that the ACT Regulation will lower related premature deaths.

Executive Order B-48-18, signed into law in January 2018, requires all state entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, as well as 200 hydrogen-fueling stations and 250,000 EV-charging stations installed by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of these charging stations must be direct-current fast chargers.

CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in 2007 to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of California’s transportation fuels. Low-CI fuels emit less CO2 than other fossil fuel–based fuels such as gasoline and fossil diesel.

The LCFS applies to fuels used by on-road motor vehicles and off-road vehicles, including construction equipment (Wade, pers. comm., 2017).

In addition to regulations that address tailpipe emissions and transportation fuels, the state legislature has passed regulations to address the amount of driving by on-road vehicles. Since passage of SB 375 in 2008, CARB requires metropolitan planning organizations to develop and adopt sustainable communities strategies as a component of the federally prepared regional transportation plans to show reductions in GHG emissions from passenger cars and lightduty trucks in their respective regions for 2020 and 2035. These plans link land use and housing allocation to transportation planning and related mobile-source emissions. The Fresno Council of Governments (COG) serves as the metropolitan planning organization for Fresno County. The Fresno COG was tasked by CARB to achieve a 5- percent per capita reduction compared to 2012 emissions by 2020 and a 10-percent per capita reduction by 2035, both of which CARB confirmed the region would achieve by implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (CARB 2019). In March 2018, CARB promulgated revised targets tasking the Fresno COG to achieve a 6-percent and a 13-percent per capita reduction by 2020 and 2035, respectively (CARB 2018). The Fresno COG has not yet prepared a Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy to demonstrate that it will meet these targets.

SB 743 of 2013 required that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) propose changes to the State CEQA Guidelines to address transportation impacts in transit priority areas and other areas of the state. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to CEQA in December 2018, requiring that transportation impacts no longer consider congestion but instead focus on the impacts of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In support of these changes, OPR published its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which recommends that the transportation impact of a project be based on whether the project would generate a level of VMT per capita (or VMT per employee or some equivalent metric) that is 15 percent lower than that of existing development in the region, or that a different threshold is used based on substantial evidence (OPR 2017). OPR’s technical advisory Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.7-3
explains that this criterion is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21099, which states that the criteria for determining significance must “promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions” (OPR 2017). This metric is intended to replace the use of delay and level of service to measure transportation-related impacts. More detail about SB 743 is provided in the “Regulatory Setting” section of Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation.” Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The state has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewables to produce electricity for consumers.

California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program was established in 2002 (SB 1078) with the initial requirement to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable by 2017, 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011), 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018), 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018), and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018).

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). The California Energy Commission (CEC) updates the California Energy Code every 3 years with more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions. The current California Energy code will require builders to use more energy-efficient building technologies for compliance with increased restrictions on allowable energy use. CEC estimates that the combination of mandatory on-site renewable energy and prescriptively required energy efficiency features will result in new residential construction that uses 53 percent less energy than the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings are anticipated to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent compared to the 2016 standards primarily through prescriptive requirements for high-efficiency lighting (CEC 2018).

The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary in response to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards are demonstrated to be cost effective and exceed the energy performance required by Title 24 Part 6.

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. Through other statutes and regulations, this 50 percent diversion rate also applies to State agencies. In order of priority, waste reduction efforts 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 and directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. The resulting Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation (2012) 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 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 341 also established a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent; the 50 percent disposal reduction mandate still applies for cities and counties under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act.

Safeguarding California Plan: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy Safeguarding California is California’s overall plan for climate adaptation, originally released in 2014 and most recently updated in 2018, as directed by AB 1482 which requires the plan be updated every 3 years. The plan provides policy guidance for state decision makers and is part of continuing efforts to reduce impacts and prepare for climate risks.

This plan establishes California’s comprehensive climate strategy, discusses progress to date on the State’s various climate adaptation efforts, highlights state agency adaptation initiatives and makes realistic sector-specific recommendations. Policy recommendations in the plan are presented in three main chapters: Social Systems and the Built Environment; Natural and Managed Resource Systems; and Parks, Recreation, and California Culture. The plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.7-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
also includes a chapter focused specifically on Climate Justice and provides policy recommendations to ensure that the states adaptation strategies are implemented in and just and equitable manner that benefit California’s most disadvantaged communities (CNRA 2018).

LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the primary agency responsible for addressing air quality concerns in Fresno County. Its role is discussed further in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.” SJVAPCD also recommends methods for analyzing project-generated GHGs in CEQA analyses and offers multiple potential GHG reduction measures for land use development projects. SJVAPCD developed thresholds of significance to provide a uniform scale to measure the significance of GHG emissions from land use and stationary source projects in compliance with CEQA and AB 32. SJVAPCD’s goals in developing GHG thresholds include ease of implementation, use of standard analysis tools, and emissions mitigation consistent with AB 32. However, SJVAPCD has not developed new thresholds since the passage of SB 32, which mandates a statewide emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan establishes the following policies related to GHG and climate change that are relevant to the project:

X Policy RC-5-c: GHG Reduction through Design and Operations. Increase efforts to incorporate requirements for GHG emission reductions in land use entitlement decisions, facility design, and operational measures subject to City regulation through the following measures and strategies:
ƒ Promote the expansion of incentive-based programs that involve certification of projects for energy and water efficiency and resiliency. These certification programs and scoring systems may include public agency “Green” and conservation criteria, Energy Star™ certification, CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED™) certification, etc.
ƒ Promote appropriate energy and water conservation standards and facilitate mixed-use projects, new incentives for infill development, and the incorporation of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities into public and private projects.
ƒ Require energy and water audits and upgrades for water conservation, energy efficiency, and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities at the time of renovation, change in use, change in occupancy, and change in ownership for major projects meeting review thresholds specified in an implementing ordinance. ƒ Incorporate the City’s “Guidelines for Ponding Basin/Pond Construction and Management to Control Mosquito Breeding” as conditions of approval for any project using an on-site stormwater basin to prevent possible increases in vector-borne illnesses associated with global climate change. ƒ Periodically evaluate the City’s facility maintenance practices to determine whether there are additional opportunities to reduce GHGs through facility cleaning and painting, parks maintenance, road maintenance, and utility system maintenance.
ƒ Periodically evaluate standards and mitigation strategies for highly vehicle-dependent land uses and facilities, such as drive-through facilities and auto-oriented development.

City of Fresno Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its first greenhouse gas reduction plan (GHGRP) in 2014. The City also updated its GHGRP in 2021 to extend its GHG reduction targets beyond 2020 to align with state reduction targets for 2030 as mandated by SB 32 and 2035 to align with the horizon year of the general plan. The GHGRP estimates forecasted emissions in the city using a business-as-usual (BAU) model that does not account for various statewide regulations that will reduce emissions in the city. To establish GHG reduction targets, an adjusted BAU (ABAU) that accounts for such regulations Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.7-5
was also estimated. Following this exercise, an emissions reduction targets of reducing emissions by an additional 29,316 and 209,463 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) for 2030 and 2035, respectively, through local GHG reduction measures was established. These reductions represent a 1.5 and 11.6 percent reduction in all GHG emissions for 2030 and 2035, respectively, and will be used in this analysis to demonstrate that the project’s projected emissions align with the GHGRP.

3.7.2 Environmental Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. The absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. The Sixth Assessment Report contains IPCC’s strongest warnings to date on the causes and impacts of climate change.

Importantly, the report notes that, in terms of solutions, “We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviors at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions, and governments. We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. 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 CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent are estimated to be sequestered through ocean and land uptake every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remain stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013).

The quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere responsible for climate change is not precisely known, but it is considered to be enormous. No single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature or to global or local climates or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts relative to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The global average temperature is expected to increase by 3 to 7°F by the end of the century, depending on future GHG emission scenarios (IPCC 2007). According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, depending on future GHG emissions scenarios, average annual maximum daily temperatures in California are projected to increase between 3.6 and 5.8°F by 2050 and by 5.6 to 8.8°F by 2100 (OPR et al. 2018a).

Other environmental resources could be indirectly affected by the accumulation of GHG emissions and resulting rise in global average temperature. In recent years, California has been marked by extreme weather and its effects.

Climate model projections for California demonstrate that impacts will vary throughout the state and show a tendency for the northern part of the state to become wetter while the southern portion of California to become drier (Pierce et al., 2018). According to California Natural Resources Agency’s (CNRA’s) report, Safeguarding California Plan:
2018 Update (CNRA 2018), California experienced the driest 4-year statewide precipitation on record from 2012 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.7-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
through 2015; the warmest years on average in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and the smallest and second smallest Sierra snowpack on record in 2015 and 2014 (CNRA 2018). Climate model projections included in California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment demonstrate that seasonal summer dryness in California may be prolonged due to earlier spring soil drying and would last longer into the fall and winter rainy season. Increases in temperature are also predicted to result in changes to California’s snowpack. Based on climate model projections, the mean snow water equivalent , a common measurement which indicates the amount of water contained within snowpack, in California is anticipated to decline to two-thirds of its historic average by 2050 and between less than half and less than one-third of historic average by 2100, depending on future emissions scenarios (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018a).

Climate model projections demonstrate that California will experience variation in precipitation patterns as well. The Northern Sierra Nevada range experienced its wettest year on record in 2016 (CNRA 2018). As temperatures increase, the increase in precipitation falling as rain rather than snow also could lead to increased potential for floods because water that would normally be held in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains until spring will flow into the Central Valley concurrently with winter rainstorm events. This scenario will place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system (CNRA 2018). As the climate continues to warm, extreme precipitation events in California will increase and could, subsequently, increase the probability of “mega-flood” events (Polade et al. 2017).

Climate change is also projected to result in tertiary impacts on energy infrastructure throughout California. Changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, extreme weather events, and sea-level rise have the potential to affect and decrease the efficiency of thermal power plants and substations, decrease the capacity of transmission lines, disrupt electrical demand, and threaten energy infrastructure with the increased risk of flooding (CNRA 2018).

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, climate change will create impacts on the State’s transportation network that will have ‘ripple effects’ including direct and indirect impacts on inter-dependent infrastructure networks as well as negative impacts on the economy. Without appropriate adaptations strategies for roadway materials (i.e., asphalt and pavement), researchers estimate that the median total cost to California for 2040- 2070 will be between $1 billion and $1.25 billion (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018a). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) owns and operates more than 51,000 miles along 265 highways, as well as three of the busiest passenger rail lines in the nation. Sea level rise, storm surge, and coastal erosion are imminent threats to highways, roads, bridge supports, airports, transit systems and rail lines near sea level and seaports. Shifting precipitation patterns, increased temperatures, wildfires, and increased frequency in extreme weather events also threaten transportation systems across the state. Temperature extremes and increased precipitation can increase the risk of road and railroad track failure, decrease transportation safety, and increase maintenance costs (CNRA 2018).

Modeling for flood events in California demonstrates that approximately 370 miles of highways are susceptible to flooding in a 100-year storm event by the year 2100 (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018a).

Water availability and changing temperatures affect the prevalence of pests, disease, and species, which will directly impact crop development, forest health, and livestock production. Other environmental concerns include decline in water quality, groundwater security, and soil health (CNRA 2018). Vulnerabilities of water resources also include risks to degradation of watersheds, alteration of ecosystems and loss of habitat, (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018a).

California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment also identifies the impacts climate change will have on public health and social systems. Average temperature increases in California are estimated to have impacts on human mortality, with 6,700 to 11,300 additional annual deaths in 2050, depending on higher or lower emissions scenarios (Ostro et al. 2011). Studies have also shown that impacts from climate change can also have indirect impacts on public health, such as increased vector-borne diseases, and stress and mental trauma due to extreme events, economic disruptions, and residential displacement (Gould & Dervin 2012; McMichael & Lindgren 2011; United States Global Change Research Program 2016).

Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.7-7

STATEWIDE GHG EMISSIONS
As discussed previously, GHG emissions are attributable in large part to human activities. The total GHG inventory for California in 2020 was 369 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) (CARB 2022). This is less than the 2020 target of 431 MMTCO2e. Table 3.7-1 summarizes the statewide GHG inventory for California by percentage.

As shown in Table 3.7-1, transportation, industry, and in-state electricity generation are the largest GHG emission sectors.

Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from offgassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices, landfills, and forest fires. Nitrous oxide is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water) and are two of the most common processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Table 3.7-1 Statewide GHG Emissions by Economic Sector
Sector MMTCO2e Percent
Transportation 141 38%
Industrial 85 23%
Electricity (in state) 41 11%
Residential 33 9%
Agriculture and Forestry 30 8%
Commercial 22 6%
Electricity (Imports) 19 5%
Total 3691 100%
Note: MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 1 Numbers do not sum to total because of rounding of whole numbers.

Source: CARB 2022.

A GHG inventory and emissions forecast for the city of Fresno is provided in the City’s GHGRP and summarized in Table 3.7-2. These emissions inventories demonstrate the business-as-usual projections for the city without consideration of statewide regulatory measures to reduce GHG emissions. Similar to statewide emissions trends, the transportation sector comprises the greatest GHG emission sector in the city.

Table 3.7-2 City of Fresno 2016 Inventory Update and Business-as-Usual Projections (in MTCO2e) Emissions Sector 2016 2020 2030 2035
Transportation 1,520,052 1,594,888 1,798,498 1,909,852
Commercial Energy 524,838 557,142 627,373 657,379
Residential Energy 479,371 514,053 579,546 603,951
Fugitive Emissions 270,130 288,573 335,316 357,008
Solid Waste 119,167 127,303 147,923 156,493
Industrial Energy 10,055 10,506 11,528 12,035
Agriculture Energy 20 20 20 20
Total 2,923,633 3,092,486 3,500,204 3,697,738
Notes: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers because of independent rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: City of Fresno 2020.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.7-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

3.7.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The following resources were used for this analysis:

X the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2020.4.0 Computer Program (CAPCOA 2021), X SJVAPCD’s Guide to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015), and X the 2022 Greenhouse Gas Technical Report (Ramboll 2022) (included as Appendix F to this EIR).

Regional and local GHG emissions and associated impacts were estimated in accordance with SJVAPCDrecommended methodologies.

CalEEMod modeling was based on project-specific information (e.g., land use type, construction and operational equipment to be used, trip projections) where available, reasonable assumptions based on typical construction activities, and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the project’s location and land use type. Construction emissions were estimated using an equipment inventory and usage assumptions and on-road vehicle activity provided by the applicant and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the project’s location. Construction activities associated with the project would likely require the use of equipment such as excavators, loaders, backhoes, generators, welders, dump trucks, pavers, cranes, pumps, tunnel boring equipment, and solids control machinery. For the purpose of this evaluation, it is assumed that construction of the project would begin in May 2023 and end in November 2023.

To assess the climate change impacts that would result from operations of the project, information pertaining to operational emissions provided by the applicant were used in CalEEMod to produce an estimation of GHGs that would result from both off-site and on-site operational trips. The most recent available emissions inventory for Fresno County was derived from EMFAC2021v1.0.2 and applied to CalEEMod to provide the most current vehicle emissions rates for on-road vehicles. These trips include worker commute and customer trips to the project site as estimated in the project’s traffic study (Kittleson 2023).

Emissions from energy consumption (electricity and natural gas combustion) were estimated using Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) emissions factors applied to the intensities provided for the land use types proposed for the project scaled to PG&E’s requirements to comply with the RPS. Area-, wastewater-, and solid waste-source emissions were estimated using CalEEMod default values for the proposed land use types (i.e., car wash, commercial center, gas station, and parking lot).

The City’s GHGRP contains a consistency checklist designed to streamline CEQA review for development projects within the city of Fresno. The strategies are organized into the following categories: land use and transportation; transportation facilities strategies; transportation demand strategies; energy conservation strategies for new and existing buildings; water conservation strategies; waste diversion and recycling and energy recovery; strategies for existing development; and municipal strategies.

Proposed development projects that are consistent with the GHGRP as determined through the GHGRP CEQA Consistency Checklist may rely on the GHGRP for the cumulative impacts analysis of GHG emissions. For CEQA purposes, GHG impacts are inherently cumulative as no one project is responsible for the global impact of climate change; rather, the emissions of all past, present, and future projects determine the degree of climate change severity. Projects that are not consistent with the GHGRP must prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions, and apply appropriate GHG reduction mitigation measures. The GHGRP identifies a range of GHG reduction strategies from which project applicants and lead agencies can select the strategies best suited to reduce the GHG emissions that would be generated by their individual projects.

The first step in the GHGRP checklist is determining whether the proposed project is consistent with the general plan’s land use and zoning designations. Projects that require a zoning change must determine whether emissions associated with this change would produce more GHG emissions than the previous zoning designation, which are the Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.7-9
basis for the emissions accounted for in the GHGRP. The project requires an amendment to alter the existing designation from Community Commercial to General Commercial. Based on the allowable floor-to-area ratio anticipated under these two designations, the General Commercial designation has the potential to allow development that would generate greater emissions than the Community Commercial zoning designation. Based on the guidance in the GHGRP checklist, the checklist cannot be used to determine the project’s significance.

Thus, a project-level evaluation of GHG emissions has been prepared to demonstrate consistency with the GHGRP.

The project is quantitatively evaluated using the same methodology contained in the GHGRP. The project will incorporate various measures contained in the GHGRP, which have been quantified for the project first year of operation (i.e., 2023), as well as 2030 and 2035, to evaluate whether the project would achieve its fair share of reductions and or conflict with the City achieving its reduction targets for those years.

The GHGRP provides an inventory for 2016, as well as an adjusted BAU forecast for 2030 and 2035. The adjusted BAU forecast is used to identify the “gap” between the city’s projected emissions and the emissions target the City will need to meet through local GHG-reducing measures. Based on these projections, the City’s GHGRP measures would need to reduce the city’s communitywide emissions by an additional 1.5 percent and 11.6 percent in 2030 and 2035, respectively. Scaling this percentage to the project level, the project would also need to reduce its emissions by these percentages when compared to an adjusted BAU scenario.

Projected emissions from the project were calculated under an adjusted BAU scenario. This scenario reflects emission reductions that would occur as a result of state policies already in place when the GHGRP was prepared. This approach was taken to frame the project’s emissions at the time the GHGRP was prepared in consideration of the regulations that were in place at that time.

Under this scenario, the project’s emissions would be 25,191 and 23,308 MTCO2e in 2030 and 2035, respectively.

Applying the 1.5 percent and 11.6 percent reduction identified in the GHGRP for 2030 and 2035, the project would not result in a significant climate change effect if it would:

X reduce emissions that meet or exceed a 381 MTCO2e target, or 1.5 percent of the project’s adjusted BAU emissions, in 2030, or
X reduce emissions that meet or exceed a 2,711 MTCO2e target, or 11.6 percent of the project’s adjusted BAU emissions, in 2035.

See Appendix F for a detailed description of modeling assumptions, CalEEMod outputs, and calculations.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 and relevant portions of Appendix G recommend that a lead agency consider a project’s consistency with relevant, adopted plans and discuss any inconsistencies with applicable regional plans, including plans to reduce GHG emissions. An impact on climate change would be significant if implementation of the project would:

X generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or X conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or performance-based standards” (Section 15064.4[a]). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change” (Section 15064.4[c]). The CEQA Guidelines provide that the lead Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.7-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment (Section 15064.4[b]):

X The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

X Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.

X The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix G is a sample Initial Study checklist that includes a number of factual inquiries related to the subject of climate change, as it does on a whole series of additional environmental topics. Notably, lead agencies are under no obligation to use these inquiries in fashioning thresholds of significance on these subjects, or indeed on any subject addressed in the checklist. (Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Rather, with few exceptions, “CEQA grants agencies discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance.” (Ibid.) Even so, it is a common practice for lead agencies to take the language from the inquiries set forth in Appendix G and to use that language in fashioning thresholds. The City has done so here.

The City has an adopted GHGRP with a checklist available for use in CEQA analyses; however, the project is amending the general plan such that the project would, by a comparative worst-case scenario analysis, have greater emissions than the land use type included in the general plan. Nevertheless, the city has applied the GHGRP’s BAU approach to substantiate the significance determination of the project. The use of the GHGRP in determining the project’s significance answers both the Appendix G questions of whether the project would directly or indirectly generate substantial GHG emissions as well as conflict with a local or statewide plan to reduce GHG emissions (in this case, the city’s GHGRP). Although the GHGRP is not used for CEQA streamlining, the reduction targets of the GHGRP are applicable standards for use to determine a project’s cumulative contribution to climate change.

A comparative analysis was prepared to determine if the project’s emissions would align with the long-term GHG reduction goals of the City’s GHGRP using a BAU approach compared to the project’s emissions in light of the most recent GHG regulations, plans, and programs in place at this time. Thus, to determine the potential significance of the project, GHG emissions are disclosed and compared to the GHG reduction goals of the GHGRP. For the purposes of determining the significance of the project, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change if it would:

X fail to reduce GHG emissions by at least the 381 MTCO2e reduction target, or 1.5 percent of the project’s adjusted BAU emissions, in 2030; or
X fail to reduce GHG emissions by at least the 2,711 MTCO2e reduction target, or 11.6 percent of the project’s adjusted BAU emissions, in 2035.

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All issues pertaining to climate change are evaluated in this analysis.

Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.7-11

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.7-1: Generate GHG Emissions That Would Conflict with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The project would incorporate various measures that align with similar GHG reduction measures included in the GHGRP as project design features. The project’s emissions would also be reduced by new regulatory mechanisms that are in place at the time of writing this Draft EIR that were not in effect at the time the GHGRP was prepared such as the Advanced Clean Cars II Program and the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation. Through the incorporation of onsite reduction measures derived from the GHGRP and reductions realized from these aforementioned programs, the project would reduce its emissions by 3,140 and 6,719 MTCO2e in 2030 and 2035, respectively, as compared to BAU levels of emissions. To demonstrate compliance with the GHGRP, the project would be require to reduce its emissions by 1.5 percent or 381 MTCO2e and 11.6 percent or 2,711 MTCO2e below BAU emissions by 2030 and 2035, respectively, and this level of reduction exceeds these standards. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the GHGRP. This impact would be less than significant.

The project would generate GHG emissions from project construction and operation. Construction-related activities would generate GHG emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment, materials transport, and worker commutes. Based on modeling conducted for the project, construction is estimated to generate a total of 1,050 MTCO2e. These emissions are amortized over a 30-year period and included in the total emissions evaluated below.

Operation of the project would also generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips accessing the project site, electricity consumption, on-site natural gas combustion, and solid waste and wastewater generation. For the first year of operation (2023), the project’s emissions total 22,428 MTCO2e/year.

As summarized in the “Methodology” section, the project’s adjusted BAU emissions were estimated for 2030 and 2035.

These emissions account for a project scenario wherein no on-site GHG reduction measures are in place using the regulatory setting in place when the GHGRP was adopted. Table 3.7-3 summarizes the project’s adjusted BAU emissions for 2030 and 2035 and identifies the reductions needed for the project to align with the reduction targets of the GHGRP.

Table 3.7-3 Adjusted Business-as-Usual Emissions from the Project in 2030 and 2035 Emissions Category 2030 (MTCO2e) 2035 (MTCO2e)
Area Sources <1 <1
Energy Usage 275 233
Mobile Source 24,342 22,504
Wastewater Generation 34 31
Solid Waste Disposal 540 540
Operational Total 25,191 23,308
Percent Reduction Needed from Adjusted BAU 1.5% 11.6%
Emissions Reduction Needs 381 2,711
Note: MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Emissions estimated by Ramboll Environ in 2023.

The project has made several commitments to on-site GHG reduction measures that align with those contained in the GHGRP. As indicated in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project would participate in PG&E’s Solar Choice program, which provides 100 percent renewable energy to customers enrolled in the program. The project would also implement a solid waste diversion program that is consistent with the measures of the GHGRP. Additionally, the project would construct and maintain EV chargers in line with Part 11 of the 2022 Title 24 California Building Code (CalGreen Code) (i.e., 5 percent of all parking stations shall be a Level 2 charging station, at a minimum).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.7-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Notably, CARB has developed and adopted new regulations that serve to reduce statewide GHG emissions from the on-road mobile source sector. As discussed in greater detail in Section 3.7.1, the ACC II Program and the ACT regulation are regulatory measures designed to electrify on-road gasoline and diesel fuel passenger vehicles, and light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks. These regulations would amend the adjusted BAU scenario in 2030 and 2035 contained in the GHGRP and would be represented in future updates to the GHGRP.

Table 3.7-4 summarizes the project’s anticipated emissions in 2030 and 2035 following the application of on-site GHG reduction measures that the project has committed to. Table 3.7-4 also shows the reductions that would be achieved through the implementation of the ACC II Program and ACT regulation. Table 3.7-2 also reflects the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, identified in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” which would establish a mandatory commute reduction program for employees.

Table 3.7-4 Project Emissions in 2030 and 2035 including Project Design Features Emissions Category 2030 (MTCO2e) 2035 (MTCO2e)
Area Sources <1 <1
Energy Usage 148 148
Mobile Source1 21,782 16,943
Wastewater Generation 34 31
Solid Waste Disposal 365 365
Operational Total 22,338 17,479
Reduction Achieved 3,140 6,719
Emissions Reduction Needs 381 2,711
Meets Reduction? Yes Yes
Note: MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 1 Estimated mobile source emissions from the project account for the reductions that would be achieved by the Advanced Clean Cars II Program and the Advanced Clean Trucks Program
Source: Emissions estimated by Ramboll Environ in 2023.

As shown above in Table 3.7-4, the project would achieve a 3,140 and 6,719 MTCO2e reduction in GHG emissions in 2030 and 2035, respectively. This level of reduction would exceed the necessary reductions of 381 and 2,711 MTCO2e in 2030 and 2035, respectively, as identified in the GHGRP.

Notably, the GHGRP was prepared in consideration of the state’s long-term reduction targets established in SB 32 (i.e., reducing statewide emissions by 40 percent below a 1990 inventory). SB 32 was considered an interim target to meeting the goal of reducing GHGs by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and directed by Executive Order S-3-05. Since the GHGRP was adopted, the state has passed more stringent targets, which are codified in AB 1279. These targets include reducing emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieving carbon neutrality by no later than 2045.

The 2022 Scoping Plan provides the framework for achieving these aggressive targets, and includes language that can be interpreted as revising the goal for 2030 to 48 percent reduction from 1990 levels as compared to the 40 percent reduction legislated in SB 32 (CARB 2022: 71). The goals established in the GHGRP were designed to adhere to the, then, most current GHG reduction target mandated by SB 32 (i.e., 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2030). It is therefore foreseeable that the GHGRP’s existing targets could be interpreted as inconsistent with the state’s current long-term GHG reduction goals for 2030 (i.e., 48 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and 2045 (i.e., 85 percent reduction from 1990 levels and carbon neutrality).

Nevertheless, the project would be fully operational before 2030 and includes several design elements that mirror the GHG reduction measures within the GHGRP. Moreover, the GHGRP is structured to be monitored and updated on an annual basis to evaluate the effectiveness of its strategies and to track progress throughout the General Plan’s horizon year of 2035. To be a qualified GHGRP for CEQA purposes, the GHGRP updates would allow for the City to adjust its GHG reduction targets to account for the state’s most recently adopted statewide targets legislated by AB Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.7-13
1279. Additionally, the use of CAP consistency for CEQA determinations is still supported by CARB in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022: 7-10). The 2022 Scoping Plan does not explicitly state that the new reduction goals of AB 1279 disqualify existing CAPs that align with the state’s previous target of reducing emissions by 40 percent from the 1990 inventory.

Therefore, because the GHGRP is designed to be updated periodically, and it is assumed that such updates would account for the state’s most recent long-term GHG reduction goals of AB 1279, consistency with the GHGRP’s reduction goals are still considered an appropriate threshold for determining the significance of the project’s cumulative contribution to global climate change. Because the project would exceed the GHGRP’s target reduction goals, the project’s emissions would align with the GHGRP. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

3.7-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.8-1

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes the potential impacts of the project related to hazardous materials and public health. The evaluation provided in this section is based on information in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site (Kleinfelder 2021) which is attached as Appendix G, and public databases containing lists of known hazardous waste/hazardous material sites, such as records from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database and California Department of Toxic Substances’ (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database. Potential hazardous air emissions associated with operation of the project are addressed in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.” Water quality concerns and potential for contamination or impairment are evaluated in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Public comments on the notice of preparation related to hazards and hazardous materials included concern over fumes generated from the gas station and their potential effect on sensitive receptors of River Bluff Elementary School and Rio Vista Middle School along with residents in the vicinity. Evaluation of the potential hazards associated with the gas station are presented below and in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.”

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Management of Hazardous Materials
Various federal laws address the proper handling, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and require measures to prevent or address accidental release. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are primarily contained in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the Code, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101.

Management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws. f The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S. Code [USC] Section 2601 et seq.) regulates the manufacturing, inventory, and disposition of industrial chemicals, including hazardous materials. Section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act establishes standards for lead-based paint hazards in paint, dust, and soil. f The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 USC 6901 et seq.) is the law under which EPA regulates hazardous waste from the time the waste is generated until its final disposal (“cradle to grave”). f The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act or CERCLA) (42 USC 9601 et seq.) gives EPA authority to seek out parties responsible for releases of hazardous substances and ensure their cooperation in site remediation. f The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499; USC Title 42, Chapter 116), also known as SARA Title III or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), imposes hazardous materials planning requirements to help protect local communities in the event of accidental release. f The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities to prepare, amend, and implement SPCC Plans. The SPCC rule is part of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, which also includes the Facility Response Plan rule.

Transport of Hazardous Materials
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety regulates transport of hazardous materials between states and is responsible for protecting the public from dangers associated with such transport. The federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 USC 5101 et seq. (formerly the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 49 USC 1801 et seq.) is the basic statute regulating transport of hazardous materials in the United Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.8-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
States. Hazardous materials transport regulations are enforced by the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Worker Safety
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the agency responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals identified in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596, 9 USC 651 et seq.). OSHA has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to worker safety, contained in CFR Title 29. These regulations set standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to the handling of hazardous materials and those required for excavation and trenching.

STATE
Management of Hazardous Materials
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 defines a hazardous material as follows:
“Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that:
… because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness [or] pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

For purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes.

Under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory), qualifying businesses are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency/Contingency Plan (HMBEP), which must include hazardous materials and hazardous waste management procedures and emergency response procedures, including emergency spill cleanup supplies and equipment. A HMBEP must be submitted by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in quantities equal to, or greater than:
f a total weight of 500 pounds or a total volume of 55 gallons; f 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas at standard temperature and pressure; and/or f a radioactive material handled in quantities for which an emergency plan is required pursuant to Parts 30, 40, or 70 of Chapter 10, Title 10, CFR, or equal to or greater than the amounts specified above, whichever amount is less.

Hazardous Waste Control Law and Universal Waste Rule
Under CCR Title 22 and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. California’s Universal Waste Rule allows individuals and businesses to transport, handle, and recycle certain common hazardous wastes, termed universal wastes, in a manner that differs from the requirements for most hazardous wastes. Universal wastes include televisions, computers, and other electronic devices, as well as batteries, fluorescent lamps, mercury thermostats, and other mercury-containing equipment. The hazardous waste regulations (CCR Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11) identify seven categories of hazardous wastes that Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.8-3
can be managed as universal wastes. Any unwanted item that falls within one of these waste streams can be handled, transported, and recycled following the simple requirements set forth in the universal waste regulations.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The goal of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5) is to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences of any releases of extremely hazardous materials. Any business that handles regulated substances (chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive, including ammonia, chlorine gas, hydrogen, nitric acid, and propane) must prepare a risk management plan. The risk management plan is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The plan must provide safety information, hazard data, operating procedures, and training and maintenance requirements. The list of regulated substances is found in Article 8, Section 2770.5 of the program regulations.

Transport of Hazardous Materials
The State of California has adopted U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for the movement of hazardous materials originating within the state and passing through the state; state regulations are contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation. Together, these agencies determine appropriate container types and license hazardous waste haulers to transport hazardous waste on public roads.

Management of Construction Activities
Through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, RWQCBs have the authority to require proper management of hazardous materials during project construction. For a detailed description of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the NPDES program, and the role of the Central Valley RWQCB, see Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the statewide NPDES Construction 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 Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce nonstormwater 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 plans (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.

Worker Safety
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 typically more stringent than federal OSHA regulations and are presented in Title 8 of the CCR. Cal/OSHA conducts on-site evaluations and issues notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code is contained in Title 24 of the CCR, Part 9, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The California Fire Code incorporates the International Fire Code and necessary California amendments. It prescribes regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard life and property from the hazards of fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials, as well as provisions to assist emergency response personnel. Chapter 23, Motor FuelDispensing Facilities and Repair Garages, sets forth regulations for gas stations and repair garages such as location of dispensing devices, emergency disconnect switches and shutoff valves, and spill control.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.8-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4201-4204, and Government Code Sections 51175–51189, require identification of fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs) within the state of California. Fire prevention areas considered to be under state jurisdiction are referred to as “state responsibility areas.” In state responsibility areas, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is required to delineate three hazard ranges: moderate, high, and very high; whereas “local responsibility areas,” which are under the jurisdiction of local entities (e.g., cities, counties), are only required to identify very high FHSZs. The hazard ranges are measured quantitatively, based on: vegetation, topography, weather, crown fire potential (a fire’s tendency to burn upwards into trees and tall brush), and ember production and movement.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan includes the following policies that pertain to hazards and hazardous materials and are relevant to this analysis:
f Policy NS-4-a: Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City. f Policy NS-4-c: Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development.
f Policy NS-4-e: Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable. f Policy NS-4-f: Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations.
f Policy NS-6-f: Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.

Fresno County Department of Public Health
A Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is a local agency that has been certified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to implement the local Unified Program. The CUPA can be a county, city, or joint powers authority. The Fresno County Department of Public Health is the certified CUPA for the city of Fresno and vicinity. As such, Fresno County provides oversight of businesses that (CERS 2015):
f Require HMBEPs;
f Require California accidental release prevention plans; f Operate underground storage tanks (USTs);
f Operate aboveground storage tanks;
f Generate aboveground storage tanks;
f Generate hazardous waste(s); and
f Have on-site treatment of hazardous waste/tiered permits.

Compliance is achieved through routine inspections of regulated facilities, and investigation of citizen-based complaints and inquiries regarding improper handling and/or disposal of hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste.

Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.8-5
Emergency Response
Fresno County prepared the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan in coordination with the City of Fresno and other participating jurisdictions to reduce the vulnerability of the County and its residents to future hazard events. The plan assesses hazard risks and identifies goals and objectives to reduce the County’s vulnerability to hazards. To meet the identified goals and objectives of the plan, mitigation actions are described specific to each participating jurisdiction, including the actions listed below which are pertinent to implementation of the proposed project (Fresno County 2018).

Fresno County Mitigation Actions
f County 1: Develop and Conduct a Multi-Hazard Seasonal Public Awareness Program f County 2: Identify Critical Facilities and Inspect for Vulnerability to Major Hazards f County 3: Upgrade or Replace Critical County Facilities Found to be Vulnerable to Major Hazards City of Fresno Mitigation Actions
f Fresno 1: Establish Post-Disaster Action Plan for City Continuity of Operations Plan

3.8.2 Environmental Setting

PAST AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE PROJECT SITE
The project site was used as an orchard from approximately 1937 through 1998. The orchard was removed between 1998 and 2002, and the site has been vacant since then. Chemicals formerly used in orchards included organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), as well as heavy metals and compounds, such as arsenic and lead, which may persist in soil for decades.

Ten composite soil samples (including one duplicate) and ten discrete soil samples (including one duplicate) were collected from the project site in 2021 and analyzed for presence of OCPs, arsenic, and lead. The reported concentrations of OCPs, arsenic, and lead present in the soil samples were below their respective human health screening criteria for commercial/industrial soils, and below thresholds for classification as a California-regulated or RCRA hazardous waste (Kleinfelder 2021).

DOCUMENTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Riverside Golf Course
A leaking UST released petroleum at the Riverside Golf Course, which is located immediately north of the project site, in 1989 (SWRCB 2021a). The storage tanks and 1,820 cubic yards of impacted soil were removed in 1989. Cleanup is complete and the case was closed by the SWRCB in 1999 (SWRCB 2021b). Fresno County issued a Certification of Response Actions indicating that the remaining levels of contamination present did not pose a threat to groundwater, public health, or safety, and further assessment and cleanup were not required (Fresno County 1999).

AIRPORTS AND AIR HAZARDS
Airport influence areas are used in land use planning to identify areas commonly overflown by aircraft as they approach and depart an airport, or as they fly within established airport traffic patterns. The closest airport, Sierra Sky Airport, is a small, privately owned airport approximately 2 miles east of the project site. Sierra Sky Airport was created to serve residents in the adjacent subdivision, Sierra Sky Park, and contains one runway (Paquette 2007). The closest publicly owned airport, Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport, is approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site. Fresno Yosemite International Airport is approximately 11 miles southeast of the site. The airport influence areas include six safety zones which limit land use based on the zone type. The project site is not located within the airport planning area or safety zones for the Sierra Sky Airport, Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport, or Fresno Yosemite International Airport (Fresno County ALUC 2018, n.d.).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.8-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR

SCHOOLS
The schools closest 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 (see Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, “Project Description”). Other schools in the vicinity include William Saroyan Elementary School, located approximately 1 mile to the southeast; Forkner Elementary School and Figarden Elementary School located approximately 2.8 miles to the east; and Teague Elementary School approximately 2.6 miles to the southeast.

WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD
The project site is not located within a designated urban-wildland interface area nor is it near designated State Responsibility Areas. According to maps published by CAL FIRE, the city of Fresno does not contain any land classified as a Very High FHSZ. The project site is classified as “Unzoned” (CAL FIRE 2007).

3.8.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The following reports and data sources related to potentially hazardous conditions were reviewed for this analysis:
f available literature, including documents published by federal, State, County, and City agencies; f applicable City of Fresno General Plan policies; and
f Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the project (Appendix G), prepared by Kleinfelder (2021).

Project construction and operation were evaluated against the hazardous materials information gathered from these sources to determine whether any risks to public health and safety or other conflicts would occur.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact related to hazards and hazardous materials would be significant if implementation of the project would:
f create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
f create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; f emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
f be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; f for a project located within 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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;
f impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
f expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.8-7

TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Result in a Safety Hazard or Excessive Noise for People Residing or Working in the Project Area The project site is not located within the airport planning area or safety zones for the Sierra Sky Airport, Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport, or Fresno Yosemite International Airport (Fresno County ALUC 2018, n.d.). No other airport land use plans are applicable to the project site. Additionally, construction of the project would last for approximately 170 days, and the construction equipment used (e.g., forklift, excavators, and graders) would not be large enough to impede the use of aircraft in the area. The new facility would be approximately 32 feet high and would not be tall enough to interfere with existing airport operations at the Sierra Sky Airport, Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport, or Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The project site is not within an airport influence area established to identify locations where there is potential for a project to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.8-1: Create a Significant Hazard through Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Project construction and operation would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Given compliance with applicable regulations which would reduce impacts associated with the use, transport, storage, and sale of hazardous materials, including measures taken to address the safety of USTs and the handling of hazardous materials in accordance with the HMBEP and the local CUPA, impacts associated the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction would involve the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and petroleum products that are commonly used at construction sites. These hazardous materials could include diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals. Hazardous waste generated during construction may consist of fuel and lubricant containers, paint and solvent containers, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals. Although the transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental spills or other hazards, the USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in 49 USC 5101. These standard accident and hazardous materials recovery training and procedures are enforced by the state and followed by private state-licensed, certified, and bonded transportation companies and contractors.

Given that the project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, Costco would be required to file a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB and apply for a Construction General Permit. Project construction activities would be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit, which would regulate clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation during construction. A SWPPP would be developed for the project as part of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would 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, as described in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Short-term construction impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant with implementation of the project-specific SWPPP, and compliance with the CUPA and safety regulations prescribed by the USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety for transportation of hazardous materials.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Operation would include the routine transport of fuel to the fuel facility, and approximately two to three trucks per day would be used to deliver fuel. While delivering the fuel, the truck would be parked over the USTs. The trucks would not block access to any of the fueling positions or occupy any queuing space or parking spaces in a way that Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.8-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
could cause an accident leading to the release of gasoline during fueling. The project would be subject to standard regulations related to the routine transport, storage, and dispensing of gasoline.

The project’s gas station would be designed to minimize potential hazards related to the fuel. Specifically, the fuel pump dispensers would be equipped with automatic shutoffs and other safety device and signage, as required by fire, building, and health codes. All USTs would be double walled. In accordance with Title 23, Section 2635(b) of the CCR, USTs would have spill containment and overfill prevention systems. Fuel tank storage areas would include appropriate safety design, equipment, and signage to protect public health and safety from leaks, fires, or spills involving vehicle fuel if any were to occur on the project site. In addition, a SWPPP would be prepared and would include BMPs designed to prevent project-generated pollutants from entering stormwater and moving off-site into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project. Refer to Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for more detailed information related to the SWPPP that would be prepared for the project.

The project would also include the regular operation of a 4,800 square-foot car wash. The potentially hazardous materials associated with the car wash include the solvents and detergents used to wash the car along with potential oils and lubricants associated with ongoing operation of the machinery used to power the car wash. The water from the car wash would be collected and recycled, and all washing would occur within the covered structure. In addition, all potential spills would be handled in accordance with the HMBEP, as described below.

Potentially hazardous materials may also be used, stored, and sold at the Costco warehouse. Appropriate documentation for all hazardous materials, fuel, and other hazardous waste transported, sold, and stored in connection with operation of the project would be provided as required for compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations. As previously stated, the State of California requires all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials to submit an HMBEP to the appropriate CUPA. Given the amount of fuel that would be routinely transported to the project site for the gas station, a HMBEP would be developed for the project and submitted to the Fresno County Department of Public Health, the certified CUPA for the city of Fresno and surrounding vicinity. The HMBEP would include an inventory of the hazardous materials used at the project site and emergency response plans and procedures to be implemented in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. The HMBEP would also include the Material Safety Data Sheet for each hazardous and potentially hazardous substance used, including fuel for the gas station, which would summarize the physical and chemical properties of the hazardous materials and their health impacts. In the event of an accidental release of fuel or other hazardous materials during project operation, the HMBEP would require the immediate notification to all appropriate agencies and personnel of a release. The HMBEP would identify local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information of all company emergency coordinators of the business, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel.

Given the design measures that would be implemented to improve the safety of the gas station and USTs; compliance with applicable regulations which would reduce impacts associated with the use, transport, storage, and sale of hazardous materials; and the handling of hazardous materials in accordance with the HMBEP, long-term operational impacts associated the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.8-9
Impact 3.8-2: Create a Significant Hazard through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment or be Located on a Site which is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment
Implementation of the project could result in release of hazardous materials due to release of chemicals associated with past agricultural use of the site, location on a site that is on a list of known hazardous materials sites, or due to operation of the project, which would involve the use, storage, and sale of potentially hazardous materials. The potential for past use of the project site to result in substantial hazard has been evaluated in, including soil sampling as part of a Phase II ESA. Operation of the project would be subject to regulations designed to reduce the potential for the project to create hazardous conditions through a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition. There is no evidence of a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. This impact would be less than significant.

Past Agricultural Use
As described above in Section 3.8.2, “Environmental Setting,” the project site was used as an orchard from approximately 1937 through 1998, and pesticides (OCPs, arsenic, and lead) may be present. However, the Phase II ESA soil sample analyses indicate that the reported concentrations of OCP, arsenic, and lead are below the human health screening criteria for commercial/industrial soils, and below thresholds for classification as a California-regulated or Federal RCRA hazardous waste (Kleinfelder 2021). The soil does not contain concentrations of hazardous materials that are a concern to human health and safety and construction would not create a hazard to the public or the environment due to potential to release hazardous materials.

Known Hazardous Materials Sites
A former hazardous materials site identified in the SWRCB GeoTracker database is situated along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to Spruce Avenue. In 1989, Riverside Golf Course removed a UST that had leaked and released petroleum hydrocarbons to the area beneath the tank. Fresno County, along with SWRCB, deemed cleanup of the site complete in 1999 (Fresno County 1999; SWRCB 2021b). Fresno County determined that the levels of contamination remaining at the site did not pose a significant threat to public health and safety following cleanup of the leaking UST, and that the remaining hydrocarbon contamination from the unauthorized petroleum spill would continue to degrade over time (Fresno County 1999). Although buildout of Spruce Avenue and the work at the golf course (e.g., modification to the sprinkler system, fence installation) could occur in the vicinity of this site, there is not a potential for a substantial hazard because the site was fully remediated 23 years ago. No other hazardous materials sites were identified on the state Cortese list via the DTSC EnviroStor database or the EPA Envirofacts/Enviromapper website within 2,000 feet of the project site (DTSC 2021; EPA 2021).

Facility Operations
As described above in Impact 3.8-1 and below in Impact 3.8-3, during operation of the project, potentially hazardous materials may be: used, stored, and sold at the Costco warehouse; used in association with the car wash; and stored and dispensed at the gas station. Appropriate documentation for all hazardous materials, fuel, and other hazardous waste transported, sold, and stored in connection with operation of the project would be provided as required for compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations. The project’s gas station would be designed to minimize potential hazards related to the fuel. Specifically, the fuel pump dispensers would be equipped with automatic shutoffs and other safety device and signage, as required by fire, building, and health codes. A HMBEP would be developed for the project and submitted to the Fresno County Department of Public Health, the certified CUPA for the city of Fresno and surrounding vicinity. The HMBEP would include an inventory of the hazardous materials used at the project site and emergency response plans and procedures to be implemented in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. The HMBEP would also include the Material Safety Data Sheet for each hazardous and potentially hazardous substance used, including fuel for the gas station, which would summarize the physical and chemical properties of the hazardous materials and their health impacts. In the event of an accidental release of fuel or other hazardous materials during project operation, the HMBEP would require the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.8-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
immediate notification to all appropriate agencies and personnel of a release. The HMBEP would identify local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information of all company emergency coordinators of the business, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel.

The project’s potential to result in a reasonably foreseeable upset involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.8-3: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within 0.25 Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Compliance with all relevant regulations for the handling and transport of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for the generation of hazardous waste typical of construction activities. Additionally, the potential for operation of the project to result in hazardous effects on either school would be limited because the gas station would be designed to minimize potential for accidental releases of fuel into the environment. For these reasons, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on schools within 0.25 mile of the project site.

The project site is in proximity to Rio Vista Middle School and River Bluff Elementary School. There are no other schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. Project construction would involve the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste typical of construction activities including fuel and lubricant containers, paint and solvent containers, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals. The construction contractor would be required to comply with all relevant regulations, including the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 which regulates the disposal of hazardous materials, the federal hazardous materials transportation law which regulates the transportation of hazardous materials that is overseen by the USDOT, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code which requires the preparation of a HMBEP, as described below in more detail. Compliance with these regulations would minimize potential hazardous material effects to Rio Vista Middle School and River Bluff Middle School during construction of the project.

Operation of the project would involve the ongoing use of a gas station. As described above in Impact 3.8-1, the gas station would be designed to minimize potential for accidental releases of fuel into the environment. The fuel pump dispensers would be equipped with automatic shutoffs and the USTs would be double walled. USTs would also have spill containment and overfill prevention systems. Fuel tank storage areas would include appropriate safety design, equipment, and signage to protect public health and safety from leaks, fires, or spills involving vehicle fuel if any were to occur on the project site. Potentially hazardous air emissions associated with operation of the gas station are addressed in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.” Additionally, the automated car wash would be enclosed within a structure, limiting the potential for wastewater to be released into the environment.

A HMBEP would also be developed for project construction and operation and submitted to the Fresno County Department of Public Health, the certified CUPA for the city of Fresno and surrounding vicinity. The HMBEP would include an inventory of the hazardous materials used at the project site and emergency response plans and procedures to be implemented in the event of a release of a hazardous material. Preparing an emergency response plan through the HMBEP would help prevent potential impacts to the surrounding schools if hazardous emissions or materials were released during construction or operation of the project. The HMBEP would also include the Material Safety Data Sheet for each hazardous and potentially hazardous substance used, including fuel for the gas station, which would summarize the physical and chemical properties of the hazardous materials and their health impacts. In the event of an accidental release of fuel or other hazardous materials during project operation, the HMBEP would require the immediate notification to all appropriate agencies and personnel of a release. The HMBEP would identify local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information of all company emergency coordinators of the business, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. Coordination with outside agencies and Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR 3.8-11
implementation of the emergency response plans in the HMBEP would aid in reducing the potential impact on surrounding schools in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials. Given that the gas station would be designed to minimize potential for accidental releases of fuel into the environment and both construction and operation activities would comply with the HMBEP developed for the project, the potential for the project to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.8-4: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with the Implementation of an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify formal evacuation routes. Compliance with the conditions of the Street Work and Traffic Control Permit during any potential road closures, applicable general plan policies, and review of the site plan by the City Fire Department would result in a less-than-significant impact on implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The project is within the jurisdiction of the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, as described above in Section

3.8.2, “Environmental Setting.” The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify formal evacuation routes. If roadways must be closed temporarily during construction, the project applicant would be required to obtain a Street Work and Traffic Control Permit from the City of Fresno Director of Public Works. In obtaining the permit, the applicant would be required to coordinate and get approval of the proposed dates of the road closures from the City’s engineer. Depending on the type of roadway requiring closure, certain additional measures would be implemented to maintain traffic safety including the posting of the road closure up to 5 days prior to the closure and the creation of a detour route during the closure (City of Fresno 2019).

As discussed further in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” the project’s site plan would be reviewed by the City Fire Department and the final site plan would be required to meet all Fire Department and General Plan Policy NS-6-f requirements for emergency vehicle access, turnaround, and vertical clearance, as well as secure evacuation routes. Additionally, review of the site plan by the City Fire Department would ensure that the appropriately sized evacuation routes are built into the project design. Accordingly, the roadway traffic generated by the project would not obstruct emergency vehicle response, an adopted emergency response plan, or evacuation plan, and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.8-5: Expose People or Structures, Either Directly or Indirectly, to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires
The project site is not located within a designated urban-wildland interface area nor is it near designated State Responsibility Areas. Existing development and irrigated agricultural land surround the project site, and the likelihood for wildland fire in the area is low. The project design would comply with existing regulations and would ensure the Costco facility and associated tire center, gas station, and drive-through car wash meet the standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent damage to structures or people by reducing wildfire hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Project implementation would result in the construction and operation of a Costco facility with an attached tire center and a detached gas station and drive-through car wash on a parcel of land that is currently undeveloped. As discussed above in Section 3.8.2, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is not located within a designated urbanwildland interface area nor is it near designated State Responsibility Areas. According to maps published by CAL FIRE, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.8-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
the city of Fresno does not contain any land classified as a Very High FHSZ. The project site is classified as “Unzoned” (CAL FIRE 2007). The project site is surrounded by existing development and irrigated agricultural land, and the likelihood for wildland fire in the area is low.

The project would also be designed to meet the building standards of the California Fire Code and California Building Standards Code, which include measures such as ignition-resistant construction, automatic interior fire sprinklers, a robust water delivery system, and adequate emergency and fire apparatus access. Given that the project site is not located in a high fire risk area and the Costco facility and associated tire center, gas station, and drive-through car wash would be designed to meet current fire safety design standards, the impacts from wildfire risk 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 3.9-1

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section identifies the regulatory context and policies related to hydrology and water quality, describes the existing hydrologic conditions at the project site, and evaluates the project’s potential hydrology and water-quality impacts. Water supply is addressed in Section 3.14, “Utilities.” No comments received in response to circulation of the notice of preparation that address hydrology and water quality.

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by EPA as well as the states. Various elements of the CWA address water quality. These are discussed below.

CWA Water Quality Criteria/Standards
Pursuant to federal law, EPA has published water quality regulations under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the act, water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and criteria that protect the designated uses. Section 304(a) requires EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. As described in the discussion of state regulations below, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine-regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) have designated authority in California to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.

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 of the United States. NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges including point source waste discharges and nonpoint source stormwater runoff. Each NPDES permit identifies limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. “Nonpoint source” pollution originates over a wide area rather than from a definable point. Nonpoint source pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff and is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. Two types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program: discharges caused by general construction activities and the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. The goal of the NPDES nonpoint source regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable. The RWQCBs in California are responsible for implementing the NPDES permit system (see the discussion below).

National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.

Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

3.9-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Draft EIR
FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that delineate the regulatory floodplain to assist local governments with the land use planning and floodplain management decisions needed to meet the requirements of NFIP. Floodplains are divided into flood hazard areas, which are areas designated per their potential for flooding, as delineated on FIRMs. Special Flood Hazard Areas are the areas identified as having a 1 percent chance of flooding in each year (otherwise known as the 100-year flood). In general, the NFIP mandates that development is not to proceed within the regulatory 100-year floodplain if the development is expected to increase flood elevation by 1 foot or more.

STATE
California Porter-Cologne Act
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and each of the nine RWQCBs power to protect water quality and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed project is the Central Valley RWQCB. The SWRCB and the Central Valley RWQCB have the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants.

Under the Porter-Cologne Act, each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (known as a “Basin Plan”) for its region. The Basin Plan for the Central Valley Region includes a comprehensive list of waterbodies within the region and detailed language about the components of applicable Water Quality Objectives (WQOs).

Through the Basin Plan, the Central Valley RWQCB executes its regulatory authority to enforce the implementation of total maximum daily loads, and to ensure compliance with surface WQOs. The Basin Plan includes both narrative and numerical WQOs designed to provide protection for all designated and potential beneficial uses in all its principal streams and tributaries. Applicable beneficial uses include municipal and domestic water supply, irrigation, noncontact and contact water recreation, groundwater recharge, fresh water replenishment, hydroelectric power generation, and preservation and enhancement of wildlife, fish, and other aquatic resources.

← All documents from this meeting