Exhibit D-5
Errata to the Final EIR
City Council:
Costco Commercial Center Project
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 1
ERRATA TO THE FINAL EIR
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) has prepared this Errata sheet to clarify and correct information in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021100443). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. This Errata sheet includes minor text edits to the Final EIR for the project.
Revisions herein do not contain significant new information that alter the conclusions of the Final EIR, result in any new significant environmental impacts, or deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project.
STAFF INITIATED TEXT CHANGES
The Final EIR is revised as follows to provide greater clarity. Text additions are identified with double underline and text deletions are provided in double strikethrough.
Chapter 2: Responses to Comments
In Table 2-1 (Final EIR page 2-1), the footnote on the row for Comment O1 in Table 2-1 (Final EIR page 2-1) has been removed, as shown below. This change has no effect on the treatment of the comment in the responses contained in the Final EIR.
Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date
AGENCIES
A1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife August 14, 2023 A2 California Department of Transportation August 15, 2023 A3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District August 23, 2023
ORGANIZATIONS
O1 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, on behalf of Costco Wholesale August 28, 20231
INDIVIDUALS
I1 Matthew Schellenberg July 21, 2023
I2 Teresa Sanchez July 21, 2023
I3 Dolores Davidian July 19, 2023
I4 Vernon Valmonte July 18, 2023
I5 Denise King July 17, 2023
I6 Sharon Ross July 17, 2023
I7 Susan Hansen July 17, 2023
I8 Claudia Readwright July 17, 2023
I9 Shahzaib Zaman July 17, 2023
I10 Tj Atwal July 17, 2023
I11 Rey Alvarez July 17, 2023
I12 Agnes Habellion July 16, 2023
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 2
Letter No. Commenter Date
I13 Linnea and David Faeth July 16, 2023
I14 Alana L. Lewis July 16, 2023
I15 Sharon Henson July 16, 2023
I16 Jeannette Correa July 16, 2023
I17 Dantenello Velasquez July 15, 2023
I18 Randy Ames July 15, 2023
I19 Kiersten Winrow July 14, 2023
I20 Joseph Pulido July 14, 2023
I21 Jeremy Bruno July 14, 2023
I22 Bob Eurich July 14, 2023
I23 Sukhi Dhillon July 14, 2023
I24 Sakit Bibra July 14, 2023
I25 Anya Ellis July 14, 2023
I26 Michael and Joan Paine July 14, 2023
I27 Bekah Bryant July 14, 2023
I28 Randy Mills July 13, 2023
I29 William and Melody Hardaway July 13, 2023
I30 Geoff J. July 13, 2023
I31 Birdevinder July 13, 2023
I32 Bryan Miller July 13, 2023
I33 Colton Metzler July 13, 2023
I34 Ty Murphy July 13, 2023
I35 Jax Ward July 13, 2023
I36 Elizabeth Mendoza July 13, 2023
I37 J. Chmielewski July 13, 2023
I38 Kent Yamaguchi July 13, 2023
I39 Nick Quisenberry July 13, 2023
I40 Don Marshall July 13, 2023
I41 Jerry Montejano July 13, 2023
I42 William Duane Peverill July 21, 2023
I43 Lorraine Arrington July 21, 2023
I44 Dr. Danielle Biggs July 21, 2023
I45 Holden Markwith July 21, 2023
I46 David Scott July 22, 2023
I47 Amy Siliznoff July 22, 2023
I48 Betty Williams July 22, 2023
I49 Jensen Vang July 22, 2023
I50 Melody Wolverton July 22, 2023
I51 Joseph Pulido July 22, 2023
I52 John Olszowka July 23, 2023
I53 Justin Latham July 23, 2023
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 3
Letter No. Commenter Date
I54 Charles Ognibene July 23, 2023
I55 Jamey Schmidt July 24, 203
I56 William Duane Peverill July 24, 2023
I57 Lorraine Arrington July 24, 2023
I58 Pat Yaralian July 25, 2023
I59 Michael Van July 25, 2023
I60 Sabrina Hernandez July 26, 2023
I61 Javier Morales July 27, 2023
I62 James and Louisa Weyant July 27, 2023
I63 Shirley Hutchison July 27, 2023
I64 Maria Leon July 27, 2023
I65 Norman S. Stahl July 27, 2023
I66 Jesus Diaz July 27, 2023
I67 Anthony Scheideman July 27, 2023
I68 Rick and Kathy Haskill July 28, 2023
I69 Kevin Cartwright July 28, 2023
I70 Adalino July 28, 2023
I71 Juan Duran July 28, 2023
I72 Miguel Duran July 28, 2023
I73 Fabrizio Robalino July 31, 2023
I74 Celso “Sal” Romero, Jr. July 31, 2023
I75 Cindy Diaz August 1, 2023
I76 Joy Hinrichsen August 2, 2023
I77 Garrett Schaefer August 3, 2023
I78 Lynda Allison Doty August 8, 2023
I79 Tom Basset August 8, 2023
I80 Beth Durbin August 9, 2023
I81 Sandra J. Iley August 9, 2023
I82 Stephanie S. August 10, 2023
I83 Thomas Coppin August 10, 2023
I84 Dawn Mathews August 10, 2023
I85 Larry Rodriguez August 11, 2023
I86 Sylvia Fernandez August 11, 2023
I87 Jens Andersen August 13, 2023
I88 Richee Xavonglianekham August 14, 2023
I89 Janet Bergman August 15, 2023
I90 Robin Snowden August 17, 2023
I91 Shauna Sandin August 18, 2023
I92 Charles Yuvienco August 19, 2023
I93 Darius Assemi August 21, 2023
I94 Noel Delgado August 21, 2023
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 4
Letter No. Commenter Date
I95 Ray Gonzales August 24, 2023
I96 Jennifer Airheart August 24, 2023
I97 Amy Zehring August 25, 2023
I98 Brian and Sherryl Kellogg August 24, 2023
I99 Rodger B. Jensen August 25, 2023
I100 James Fleck August 28, 2023
I101 Gabriel Ledesma August 28, 2023
I102 Lauryn Medina September 1, 20231
I103 Daniel Brannick August 31, 20231
1 The comment was received after the close of the public comment period.
The text introducing Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 was clarified in the Final EIR in response Comment O1-3 (Final EIR page 2-33). This same change is also identified in “Revisions to Section 3.13, ‘Transportation and Circulation’” (beginning on Final EIR page 3-4). One change made to that table was not underlined to indicate new text and included an insignificant typographical error. The “Notes” column in Table 3.13-5 for Measure T-11 has been updated as follows to reflect the addition of text that was made in the Final EIR but not properly identified with underline text:
Table 3.13-5 Transportation Sector Measures to Reduce VMT Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
VMT Reduction1
Feasible/Applicabl
e to the project? Notes
T-1 Increase Residential
Density
30% from project VMT N/A The proposed project does not include residential uses.
T-2 Increase Job Density 30% from project VMT N/A This is a plan/communitywide strategy and is not applicable.
T-3 Provide Transit-Oriented
Development
31% from project VMT N/A This is a plan/communitywide strategy and is not applicable.
T-4 Integrate Affordable and
Below Market Rate
Housing
28.6% from project/site
multifamily residential
VMT
N/A The proposed project does not include
residential uses.
T-5 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Program
(Voluntary)
4% project/site
employee commute
VMT
Yes No See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.
Measures T-7 through T-11 must be
implemented as part of T-5 to achieve the
maximum employee commute VMT
reduction. Because T-11 would not be
feasible, the commute trip reduction
program would not meet the full list of
CAPCOA parameters.
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 5
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
VMT Reduction1
Feasible/Applicabl
e to the project? Notes
T-6 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Program
(Mandatory
Implementation and
Monitoring)
26% from project/site
employee commute
VMT
Yes No See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.
Measures T-7 through T-11 must be
implemented as part of T-6 to achieve the
maximum employee commute VMT
reduction. Because T-11 would not be
feasible, the commute trip reduction
program would not meet the full list of
CAPCOA parameters.
T-7 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Marketing
4% project/site
employee commute
VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-8 Provide Ridesharing
Program
8% project/site
employee commute
VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-9 Implement Subsidized or
Discounted Transit
Program
5.5% from
employee/resident
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-10 Provide End-of-Trip
Bicycle Facilities
4.4% project/site
employee commute
VMT
Yes See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-11 Provide Employer-
Sponsored Vanpool
20.4% project/site
employee commute
VMT
Yes No See Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below. A
private vanpool program would involve
the capital cost of purchasing vans plus
the operating cost of insurances, would
raise liability concerns, and would pose
logistical challenges such as equal
treatment of employees and rules
regarding private use of the vans. This
measure cannot be feasibly implemented
to reduce VMT.
T-12 Price Workplace Parking 20% project/site
employee commute
VMT
N/A Measure ineffective due to readily
available, uncontrolled and free parking in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project.
T-13 Implement Employee
Parking Cash-Out
12% project/site
employee commute
VMT
N/A Measure ineffective due to readily
available, uncontrolled and free parking in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project.
T-14 Provide Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure
-- N/A See Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a. This
measure does not affect VMT.
T-15 Limit Residential Parking
Supply
13.7% from residences’
VMT
N/A The proposed project does not include
residential uses.
T-16 Unbundle Residential
Parking Costs from
Property Cost
15.7% from project VMT N/A The proposed project does not include residential uses.
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 6
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
VMT Reduction1
Feasible/Applicabl
e to the project? Notes
T-17 Improve Street
Connectivity
30% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Yes The proposed project would construct
West Spruce Avenue along the northern
project site boundary improving street
connectivity. Additionally, the project
would construct North Arthur Avenue
along the eastern project site boundary,
connecting West Spruce Avenue and West
Spruce Herndon Avenue. See Chapter 2,
“Project Description.,” and Mitigation
Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-18 Provide Pedestrian
Network Improvement
6.4% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Yes Pedestrian facility improvements provided
as part of the proposed project. See
Chapter 2, “Project Description.,” and
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-19-
A
Construct or Improve
Bike Facility
0.8% from vehicles
parallel roadways
Yes Bicycle facility improvements provided as
part of the proposed project. See Chapter
2, “Project Description.,” and Mitigation
Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-19-B Construct or Improve
Bike Boulevard
0.2% from vehicles on
roadway
Yes Bicycle facility improvements provided as
part of the proposed project. See Chapter
2, “Project Description.,” and Mitigation
Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-20 Expand Bikeway Network 0.5% from vehicles on
roadway
Yes Bicycle facility improvements provided as
part of the proposed project. See Chapter
2, “Project Description.,” and Mitigation
Measure 3.13-2 below.
T-21-
A
Implement Conventional
Carshare Program
0.15% from vehicle
travel in the
plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy and
is not feasible.
T-21-B Implement Electric
Carshare Program
VMT reduction not
quantified—see
CAPCOA handbook
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy and
is not feasible.
T-22-
A
Implement Pedal (Non-
Electric) Bikeshare
Program
0.2% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy and
is not feasible.
T-22-
B
Implement Electric
Bikeshare Program
0.06% from vehicle
travel in the
plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy and
is not feasible.
T-22-
C
Implement Scootershare
Program
0.07% from vehicle
travel in the
plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy and
is not feasible.
T-23 Provide Community-
Based Travel Planning
2.3% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
N/A The proposed project does not include
residential uses. This measure applies to
residences.
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 7
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
VMT Reduction1
Feasible/Applicabl
e to the project? Notes
T-24 Implement Market Price
Public Parking (On-
Street)
30% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over public on-street parking
facilities and operation.
T-25 Extend Transit Network
Coverage or Hours
4.6% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over the operation of transit
service.
T-26 Increase Transit Service
Frequency
11.3% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over the operation of transit
service.
T-27 Implement Transit-
Supportive Roadway
Treatments
0.6% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy and
is not feasible.
T-28 Provide Bus Rapid Transit 13.8% from vehicle
travel in the
plan/community
No The applicant, Costco, does not have
jurisdiction over the operation of transit
service.
T-29 Reduce Transit Fares 1.2% from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy and
is not feasible.
T-30 Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles -- N/A This measure does not affect VMT.
Notes:
1: The CAPCOA Handbook identifies the maximum potential GHG reduction associated with identified measures; however, the CAPCOA Handbook concludes that for the particular measures selected, the percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions. For clarity, this table reports reductions in relation to VMT.
Chapter 3: Revisions to the Dra� EIR
The Final EIR acknowledges revisions to the site plan that occurred after publication of the Draft EIR. As explained in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” of the Final EIR these proposed design refinements include reduced warehouse size, changes to the design of the warehouse entry, a shorter car wash tunnel, and parking lot design changes. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the proposed changes to the project design do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR and the potential environmental effects of the project are unaffected.
Although the Final EIR provides edits to the Draft EIR language to reflect the design refinements, the City has determined that these revisions are not necessary based on the fact that that the changes do not affect analysis or conclusions. As a result, these revised text have been omitted, as reflected below.
Revisions to “Executive Summary”
The first sentence in Section ES.2.4, “Characteristics of the Project,“ on page ES- 2 is revised as follows to reflect the revised site plan:
The proposed Costco building would occupy 241,342 219,126 square feet, of which approximately 24,000 square feet would be reserved for storage and receiving.
Revisions to Chapter 2, “Project Description”
Table 2-1 on page 2-10 is revised as follows to reflect the revised site plan:
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 8
Table 2-1 Project Elements
Structure Area (square feet)
Warehouse Retail Building Footprint 241,342 219,216
Warehouse/Retail 162,264 163,539
Loading/Back of house/Storage/Receiving 23,881 4,422
Market delivery operation 46,834
Open canopy space 5,126 3,233
Building envelope 2,9555 1,188
Fuel canopy 12,885
Car wash 4,800
Source: Data provided by Urban Planning Partners in 2022 and 2023.
The first sentence on page 2-13 under the heading “Costco Warehouse Building” is revised as follows to reflect the revised site plan:
The proposed warehouse would occupy 241,342 219,126 square feet of which approximately 24,000 square feet would be reserved for storage and receiving.
The description under the heading “Parking” on page 2-14 is revised as follows to reflect the revised site plan:
The project includes 889 873 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 25 accessible spaces and 53 92 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.
The text of the second paragraph on page 3-2 of the Final EIR is removed:
The first bullet on page 2-22, which describes the en�tlements requested from the City is revised to read:
Approve a Conditional Use Permit to construct a ±241,342 219,126 square-foot, warehouse retail building with a ±4,800 square-foot car wash; and an ±13,000 square- foot, 32-station fuel canopy.
The heading “Revisions to Sec�on 3.1, ‘Aesthe�cs’” (Final EIR page 3-2) and all text that follows is removed, as shown below:
Revisions to Section 3.1, “Aesthetics”
The first sentence under Impact 3.1-1 on page 3.1-6 is revised as follows to reflect the revised site plan:
The project would construct an approximately 241,342 219,126-square-foot single story, contemporary-style retail building in the southeast corner of the project site, and a car wash and fueling sta�ons along the northern por�ons of the site.
Under the heading “Revisions to Sec�on 3.11, ‘Noise and Vibra�on’” beginning on page 3-2 of the Final EIR, the following text is removed:
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 9
The first sentence under the subheading “Parking and Gas Sta�on” on page 3.11-23 is revised as following to reflect the revised site plan:
Based on the current conceptual plan the proposed project would include 829 873 parking spaces to accommodate Costco members and employees.
In addition, the following change to the Draft EIR is added to page 3-3 of the Final EIR. The City has identified revisions necessary to noise Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 to clarify implementation of the measure and ensure consistency with the analyses in the Draft EIR. Specifically, the City identified a typographical error in the mitigation that incorrectly reports the required noise reduction compared to the analysis in the Draft EIR. The City is correcting that error to increase the noise reduction required by the mitigation. As part of those revisions, the City has also struck restrictive language related to the location of potential noise attenuating features that could be used to achieve the reductions to allow flexibility in identification of appropriate design changes that would provide noise reductions.
Mi�ga�on Measure 3.11-3 on page 3.11-25 has been modified as follows to further clarify implementa�on:
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: Reduce Exposure of Existing Sensitive Receptors to Noise Generated by Loading Dock Activity
The project applicant shall construct a sound wall west of the loading docks or other noise attenuating feature west of the loading docks with a demonstrated ability to result in a 4 9 dB noise decrease at the eastern property line of the existing residences along North Riverside Drive.
The City has also identified revisions necessary to noise Mitigation Measure 3.11-5, which is related to single- event noise levels, to clarify implementation of the measure and ensure consistency with the analysi s in the Draft EIR. Page 3.11-14 of the Draft EIR notes, under the subheading “Selection of Noise Metrics for Thresholds of Significance,” that because the City does not have “SENL standards for analyzing heavy vehicle activity that expose receptors for a relatively short period, this noise impact analysis applies SENL standards recommended by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise.” The analysis under Impact 3.11- 5 (Draft EIR page 3.11-28) applies these metrics, concluding that “SENL’s at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors would exceed 65 SENL” (Draft EIR page 3.11-28). However, the text of the mitigation measure refers to the City’s Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standards, which are standards weighted over a 24- hour period and are not the basis of the analysis provided.
This change modifies the mitigation to better align with the analysis in the EIR related to noise measurements, clarifying that that the standard is for interior noise as measured by SENL. The revision also cleans up text that was clarified in the Final EIR through addition of text to the introduction language within the measure. Specifically, text was added in the Final EIR in response to comments to clarify that “if one option is not implemented, the other would be required.” As part of this cleanup, text at the end of the measure indicating the same has been removed. This change does not affect the effectiveness of the measure or the applicant’s obligations. Note that there are legal requirements that must be met to modify the existing sound wall on private property, which is the reason for the options presented in the mitigation.
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 interior noise levels at residential land uses near the west side of North Riverside Drive do not exceed the Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 10
City’s current noise standard of 65 SENL dB Ldn/CNEL under existing-plus-project conditions. This measure is consistent with General Plan Policy NS-1-I, which recommends the use of design alterations to reduce noise impacts. This performance standard can be achieved using either of the following measures. Therefore, if one option is not implemented, the other would be required.:
• Pave the roadway segment with rubberized hot-mix asphalt or equivalent surface treatment with known noise-reducing properties on top of the roadway surface. The rubberized hot - mix asphalt overlay shall be designed with appropriate thickness and rubber component quantity (typically 15 percent by weight of the total blend), such that traffic noise levels are reduced by an average of 4 to 6 dB (noise levels vary depending on travel speeds, meteorological conditions, and pavement quality) as compared to noise levels generated by vehicle traffic traveling on standard asphalt. Rubberized hot-mix asphalt has been found to achieve this level of noise reduction in other parts of California (Sacramento County 1999).
Pavement will require more frequent than normal maintenance and repair to maintain its noise attenuation effectiveness. The applicant shall fund the incremental cost for maintaining the roadway segment with the surface treatment. • Construct a sound barrier taller than the 6-foot cinderblock wall that is currently present from West Spruce Avenue to West Herndon Avenue. The sound barrier shall be constructed of solid material (e.g., wood, brick, adobe, an earthen berm, boulders, or combination thereof). The reflectivity of each sound barrier shall be minimized to ensure that traffic noise reflected off the barrier does not contribute to an exceedance of applicable L eq standards at
other receptors. The level of sound reflection from a barrier can be minimized with a textured or absorptive surface or with vegetation on or next to the barrier. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction (Caltrans 2013: 2-41; FTA 2018: 42). Barriers higher than the line of sight provide increased noise reduction (FTA 2018: 16). Scenic quality factors shall be taken into account during design, such as using more natural materials (e.g., berms and boulders) to reduce the visible mass of a wall. All barriers shall be designed to blend into the landscape along the roadway, to the extent feasible. Ensuring a character consistent with the surrounding area may 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.
As described above, the City has determined that revisions to the Draft EIR to change the precise square footage noted throughout the Draft EIR are not necessary based on the fact that that the changes do not affect analysis or conclusions. As a result, the heading “Revisions to Section 3.14, ‘Utilities’” (Final EIR page 3- 8) and all text that follows is removed, as shown below:
Revisions to Section 3.14, “Utilities”
The text under “Water Demand and Wastewater Output” on page 3.14-9 is revised as follows to reflect the revised site plan:
Errata to the Final EIR
Fresno Costco Commercial Center Project 11
CEQA Guidelines Section 15155 requires preparation of a water supply assessment (WSA) when a project is of sufficient size to be defined as a “water-demand project.” Several characteristics can deem a project a “water-demand project” including:
A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space (CEQA Guidelines Section 15155(a)(1)(B).
The project is estimated to employ approximately 300 individuals, and the warehouse and gas station would encompass approximately 241,342 232,101 square feet. It does not meet the definition of a “water demand project” pursuant to Section 15155 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Preparation of a WSA is not required for the project.