Exhibit I-1 – City Council EIR Certification Resolution with Final EIR — Fresno City Council, April 18, 2024 (part 6 of 7)

Table 4-2. Construction Equipment
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type1
Number of
Equipment1
Usage Hours2
(hours/day)
Equipment
Horsepower2
(hp)
Equipment Load
Factor2
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Excavators 3 8 158 0.38
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 247 0.4
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37
Graders 3 8 187 0.41
Other Construction Equipment 2 8 401 0.42
Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.36
Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8 247 0.4
Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48
Surfacing Equipment 1 8 263 0.3
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37
Excavators 3 8 158 0.38
Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8 100 0.4
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 247 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37
Excavators 3 8 158 0.38
Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8 100 0.4
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 247 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37
Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 8 100 0.4
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 247 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Notes:

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model
hp - horsepower
2 Equipment usage hours, horsepower, and load factor are based on CalEEMod® defaults, with the exception of the horsepower value for "Other Construction Equipment" during the Grading phase. The "Other Construction Equipment" represents soil compactors and is based is based on project-specific data.

Demolition
Grading
Grading/BC Overlap
Building Construction
Paving
1 Number and type of offroad equipment for the Grading, Grading/BC Overlap, Building Construction, and Paving phases based on Projectspecific data. Equipment used in the Demolition and Architectural Coating phases are based on CalEEMod® default values.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 4-3. Construction Material Movement
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Phase Name
Material Imported1
(yd3)
Material Exported1
(yd3)
Grading 60,000 0
Grading/BC Overlap 0 3,000
Notes:
1 Soil import and export quantities based on project-specific data.

Abbreviations:
yd3 - cubic yard

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 4-4. Construction Demolition Assumptions
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Phase Name Size Metric Unit Amount1
Demolition/Site Prep Tons of Debris 10
Notes:
1 Square-footage quantity based on project-specific data.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 4-5. Utility GHG Emission Factor Associated with Renewable Portfolio Standard Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
2017 2018 Average Units
CO2 Intensity Factor per Total Energy
Delivered1 210 206 208 lbs CO2/MWh delivered
% of Total Energy From Renewables2 33.0% 38.9% 36.0%
CO2 Intensity Factor per Total NonRenewable Energy3 314 338 325 lbs CO2/MWh delivered 2020 RPS (33%) 210.4 226.2 218.0 lbs CO2/MWh delivered
2030 RPS (60%) 125.6 135.1 130.1 lbs CO2/MWh delivered
2023 RPS5 185.0 198.9 191.6 lbs CO2/MWh delivered
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2018 208.4 0.033 0.004 210.4
2023 191.61 0.033 0.004 193.6
Notes:

Abbreviations:

CO2 - carbon dioxide CH4 N2O
GHG - greenhouse gases 25 298
lbs - pounds
MT - metric tonnes
MWh - megawatt-hour
PG&E - Pacific Gas and Electric
PUP - Power/Utility Protocol
RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standards
3 The emissions metric presented here is calculated based on the total CO2 emissions divided by the energy delivered from non-renewable sources.
4 The intensity factors for default RPS assumption are calculated by multiplying the percentage of energy delivered from non-renewable energy by the CO2 emissions per total non-renewable energy metric calculated above. The emission factors presented here are 33% RPS for 2020 and 60% RPS for 2030. The estimate provided here and the PUP reports issued by PG&E assume that renewable energy sources do not result in any CO2 emissions. 5 The RPS percentage for the 2023 future year is interpolated from the goals of 33% RPS in 2020 and 60% RPS in 2030.

GWP
6 The most recent emission factor available is for 2017 and 2018, which is why these values are being used to interpolate 2023 emission factors even though more recent sustainability reports by PG&E are available. 2 Percent of total energy from RPS-eligible renewables are from the PG&E 2018 and 2019 Corporate Responsibility Reports. Available at: http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2018/assets/PGE_CRSR_2018.pdf and http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2019/assets/PGE_CRSR_2019.pdf. Accessed: September 2021.

Energy Delivered
[MWh]
Calculated Intensity Factors for Total Energy Delivered4 Year
Emission Factors
(lb/MWh)
1 2017 and 2018 intensity factors per total energy delivered available at: https://www.theclimateregistry.org/ourmembers/cris-public-reports/. Accessed: September 2021.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 4-6. TRU Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Herndon/Riverside Herndon/Riverside
410 712 57.5
Notes:

Abbreviations:
bhp-hr - brake horsepower hour SJVAPCD - San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District CARB - California Air Resources Board TRU - Transportation Refrigeration unit CO2 - Carbon Dioxide equivalents
g - gram
Constants:

Horsepower 3 50 bhp
Load Factor 4 0.38
TRU Cycle Duration 5 622 minutes
Density of Diesel 3,221 g/gal
Conversion Factors:
453.592 g/lb
1000000 g/MT
60 min/hr
365 day/year
2000 lb/ton
MT - metric tonnes
2 Approximately 15% of warehouse delivery trucks are equipped with TRUs.

Number of Round
Trips with TRUs2
Annual Average CO2
Emissions (MT/year)
5 TRU Cycle Duration is based on 2 hours of off-site loading time plus the duration of the on-site and off-site transit. It is assumed that loading/unloading will occur while the TRU is plugged in, so no emissions are estimated for this time period. Assumptions based on Table II.G.1 of CARB Proposed Amendments to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/tru2021/appi.pdf. Accessed: May 2022.

CO2 Emission
Factor1
(g/bhp-hr)
1 Emission factors obtained from OFFROAD2021 emissions output for Calendar Year 2023, Transportation Refrigeration Unit - Instate Trailer and Transportation Refrigeration Unit - Out-Of-State Trailer in Fresno County.
3 Horsepower is based on SJVAPCD Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling, section 2.3.1 Transportation Refrigeration unit (TRU), Modeling Parameters.
4 Load factor obtained from CARB Draft 2019 Update to Emissions Inventory for Transport Refrigeration Units, for TRUs Over 25 hp, 2013 and newer. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/coldstorage/documents/hra_emissioninventory2019.pdf. Accessed: January 2022.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 4-7. Summary of GHG Emissions
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California

0.02 334
21,482
38 540
22,393
35 22,428
Notes:

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - CALifornia Emissions Estimator MODel
CH4 - methane
CO2 - carbon dioxide
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalents
EMFAC - EMission FACtors model
MT - metric tonnes
TRU - Transportation Refrigeration unit
6 Sum of annualized one-time emissions and operational emissions. 1 One-time emissions (i.e., construction) and operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod®. See Appendix A for details
2 Emissions are presented as CO2e, which include CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, weighted by their respective global warming potentials. 3 Emissions shown as zero may be non-zero values, however, they are below a meaningful reporting level for this analysis.
4 Total mobile emissions include emissions from on-road vehicles and TRUs. On-road mobile emissions were estimated using CalEEMod® default trip lengths, EMFAC2021 emission factors, and Project-specific vehicle trip rates provided by Kittelson & Associates, See Appendix B for details. TRU emissions were estimated using OFFROAD2021 emission factors.
5 One-time emissions from construction were amortized over a 30-year period.

GHG Emissions2,3
(MT CO2e/yr)
Operational Sub-Total
Construction Amortized5
Total6
Waste Disposed
Area Sources
Energy Usage
Mobile4
Water
Emissions Category1

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 5-1. Summary of ABAU and Project GHG Emissions in 2030 and 2035 Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
2030 2035 2030 2035

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
275 233 148 148
24,342 22,504 21,782 16,943
34 31 34 31
540 540 365 365
25,191 23,308 22,328 17,487

1.5% 11.6%
381 2,711
Notes:

Abbreviations:

ABAU - Adjusted Business-As-Usual HHDT - heavy-heavy duty trucks CalEEMod® - CALifornia Emissions Estimator MODel MT - metric tonnes CH4 - methane N2O - nitrous oxide
CO2 - carbon dioxide PG&E - Pacific Gas & Electric
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalents RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standard EMFAC - EMission FACtors model TRU - Transportation Refrigeration unit GHG - greenhouse gases yr - year
GHGRP - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
9 The solid waste generation for ABAU was estimated using CalEEMod® defaults. The Project emissions were estimated based on the State goal of a 75% waste diversion target and Fresno's GHGRP methodology. Please see footnote 10 in Table 5-2 for more details. 10 The percent reduction for the Project are the same percentage reduction required, i.e., 1.5% reduction in 2030 and 11.6% in 2035 from Table 4-C in the Fresno GHGRP.
11 Emission reduction needed from ABAU is calculated as the percent reduction from the operational total. The Project emissions do not include an emission reduction since this is solely based on the ABAU conditions. 4 The Project emissions take into account the project commitments in line with the local measures established by the GHGRP, which includes Land Use Strategies and Transportation Demand Management, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Net Zero Energy Commercial Building, Water Conservation, and Waste Diversion and Recycling. It also takes into account additional local measures that would result in project emissions reductions beyond the ABAU scenario, such as the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation and the Executive Order N-79-20. The exact assumptions made for the project emissions inventory reductions are detailed in Table 5-2. 5 The project's ABAU emissions accounts for RPS-required improvements to the electric grid carbon intensity, while the Project emissions account for 100% solar energy, based on the Project's commitment to the PG&E's "Solar Choice" program, which provides 100% solar electricity to customers. 6 For both the ABAU and Project emissions, total mobile emissions include emissions from on-road vehicles and TRUs, using Project-specific vehicle trip rates provided by Kittelson & Associates. TRU emissions were estimated using OFFROAD2021 emission factors. 7 For the ABAU emissions, on-road mobile emissions were estimated using CalEEMod® default trip lengths, EMFAC2021 emission factors, and fleet mix assumptions for employee and member vehicles to represent the same assumptions as the GHGRP. Based on the available EMFAC version at the time of the GHGRP preparation (i.e., EMFAC2017), the analysis assumes extracted data from EMFAC2017. For the delivery truck fleet mix, the analysis made a simplifying assumption that the fraction of natural gas and gasoline-powered HHDT would be diesel-powered. 8 For the Project emissions, on-road mobile emissions were estimated using CalEEMod® default trip lengths, EMFAC2021 emission factors, and EMFAC2021 fleet mix for delivery trucks. The fleet mixes for employee and member light duty vehicles are based on the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan E3 Modeling workbook. Please see footnote 7 in Table 5-2 for more details.

GHG Emissions2
(MT CO2e/yr)
Operational Total
Waste Disposed9
Area Sources
Energy Usage5
Mobile6,7,8
Water
Emissions Category1
ABAU3 Project4
Percent Reduction Needed From ABAU10
Emission Reduction Needed11
1 Operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod®. See Appendix A for details. 2 Emissions are presented as CO2e, which include CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, weighted by their respective global warming potentials. 3 The ABAU emissions account for the local regulations that were in place at the time the Fresno GHGRP was published. --
--

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 5-2. Local Measures Reductions Table for 2030 and 2035 Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
2030 2035
Land Use Strategies and Transportation
Demand Management2 48 36
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations3,4,5 230 862
Advanced Clean Trucks6 142 297
ZEV Regulations7 2,418 5,265
Commercial Energy Net Zero Energy Commercial Building8 127 85 Industrial Energy (water) Water Conservation9 00
Solid Waste Waste Diversion and Recycling10 175 175
3,140 6,719
381 2,711

YES YES
Notes:

Abbreviations:

ABAU - Adjusted Business-As-Usual MT - metric tonnes
CalEEMod® - CALifornia Emissions Estimator MODel PG&E - Pacific Gas & Electric CalGreen - California Green Building Standards Code RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standard CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalents TIA - transportation impact assessment EMFAC - EMissions FACtor Model VMT - vehicle mile traveled EV - electric vehicle ZEV - zero emission vehicle
GHGRP - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
Sector Local Measures
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2e/year)
11 The reduction needed is calculated based on the percent reduction from ABAU needed in Table 4-C in the Fresno GHGRP. 8 The project has committed to PG&E's "Solar Choice" program, which provides 100% solar electricity to customers. The ABAU emissions for commercial building energy accounts for RPS-required improvements to the electric grid carbon intensity, and the improvements from this in 2030 and 2035 reflect the Project's commitment to PG&E's "Solar Choice" program.
9 The project will align with CalGreen2019, which is accounted for in Fresno's GHGRP ABAU emissions. 10 The ABAU solid waste generation was estimated using CalEEMod® defaults assumes a 63% employee-based diversion rate statewide, based on 2010 CalRecycle data, available here:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/disposalrate/graphs/estdiversion/. Accessed: August 2022. The improvement from ABAU was estimated based on the State goal of a 75% waste diversion target and Fresno's GHGRP methodology.

Transportation1
1 The ABAU emissions for the transportation emissions inventory utilizes EMFAC2017 fleet mix defaults which takes into account the State policies that were in place at the time of the Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update release. 3 The number of electric vehicle chargers assumed for 2030/2035 aligns with CalGreen2022 requirements, see Table

5.106.5.3.1. Available here: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1/chapter-5-nonresidential-mandatorymeasures. Accessed: August 2022. 4 For 2030, Annual energy delivery is estimated based on an average monthly energy delivery of 588 kWh per charging station for conventional Level 2 chargers, as reported by the California Energy Commission. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-500-2018-020/CEC-500-2018-020.pdf. 5 For 2035, it is assumed that the EV chargers will be used 8 hours/day at 25 miles per hour of charge in line with the increase in EVs predicted by the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan E3 PATHWAYS Modeling Workbook. 6 EMFAC2021 fleet mix defaults are utilized for the delivery truck fleet mixes, which represents the improvement from ABAU due to the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation which became effective March 2021 and was incorporated into the EMFAC2021 model. This regulation requires an increasing number of zero emission truck sales over time starting in 2024. Available here: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/. Accessed: August 2022. 7 The member and employee light-duty vehicle fleet assumptions were based on Executive Order N-79-20, which requires that by 2035 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035. The fleet mix projections were calculated to align with the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update E3 PATHWAYS modeling workbook, which provides year-by-year fleet projections that align with this Executive Order. The E3 Modeling workbook can be found here:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp-PATHWAYS-data-E3.xlsx. Accessed: August 2022. 2 Costco will provide a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees that can result in a 4% reduction in employee vehicle trips, based on Kittelson & Associates TIA.

Total
Reduction Needed11
Reduction Met?

Page 1 of 1 ends

Costco Commercial Center
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Fresno, California
Ramboll

APPENDIX A
CALEEMOD® OUTPUT
Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Project-specific information (RPS Emission Factor)Land Use - Project-specific informationConstruction Phase - Project-specific informationOff-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Project-specific informationOff-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Project-specific informationOff-road Equipment - Project-specific informationOff-road Equipment - Project-specific information

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 889.00 Space 15.55 355,600.00 0
Automobile Care Center 4.80 1000sqft 0.11 4,800.00 0
Discount Club 241.34 1000sqft 5.54 241,340.00 0
Gasoline/Service Station 32.00 Pump 1.33 4,517.60 0

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Rural3
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
191.61 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT - Project-specific informationDemolition - Project-specific informationGrading - Project-specific informationVehicle Trips - Unmitigated Construction RunConsumer Products - Unmitigated Construction RunArea Coating - Unmitigated Construction Run Landscape Equipment - Unmitigated Construction RunEnergy Use - Unmitigated Construction RunWater And Wastewater - Unmitigated Construction RunSolid Waste - Unmitigated Construction RunConstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water 2x/day to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 8021. All construction equipment >50 hp mitigated to Tier 3 + Level 3 DPF.Vehicle Emission Factors -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 125329 0tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 375986 0tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 21336 0 tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 14.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 14.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 50.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 370.00 110.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 7.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 30.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 7.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/11/2025 11/10/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/14/2025 11/10/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/26/2023 5/8/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/28/2023 6/12/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/15/2023 7/5/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/14/2025 9/13/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/9/2023 5/8/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/15/2025 9/14/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/16/2023 7/6/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/10/2023 5/9/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/29/2023 6/13/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/15/2025 7/29/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/27/2023 5/1/2023 tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 0tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_Degreaser 3.542E-07 0tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_PesticidesFertilizers 5.152E-08 0 tblEnergyUse LightingElect 2.70 0.00tblEnergyUse LightingElect 3.71 0.00tblEnergyUse LightingElect 2.70 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.35 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 4.16 0.00tblEnergyUse NT24E 2.30 0.00tblEnergyUse NT24E 4.16 0.00tblEnergyUse NT24NG 3.84 0.00tblEnergyUse NT24NG 2.08 0.00tblEnergyUse NT24NG 3.84 0.00tblEnergyUse T24E 1.75 0.00tblEnergyUse T24E 1.91 0.00tblEnergyUse T24E 1.75 0.00tblEnergyUse T24NG 16.86 0.00tblEnergyUse T24NG 8.53 0.00tblEnergyUse T24NG 16.86 0.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,000.00tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 60,000.00 tblLandscapeEquipment NumberSummerDays 180 0
tblLandUse LotAcreage 8.00 15.55tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.10 1.33 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 172.00 401.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 203.98 191.61tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 18.34 0.00tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 1,037.93 0.00tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 17.25 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 1.00 2.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 53.75 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 182.17 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 11.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 33.67 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 166.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 41.80 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 172.01 0.00 tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 451,589.32 0.00tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 17,876,662.33 0.00tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 425,020.45 0.00tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 276,780.55 0.00tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 10,956,664.01 0.00tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 260,496.40 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 2.2806 4.5511 3.7117 0.0113 0.9356 0.1729 1.1085 0.3872 0.1595 0.5467 0.0000 1,026.939 5 1,026.939
5 0.1854 0.0533 1,047.441
0 Maximum 2.2806 4.5511 3.7117 0.0113 0.9356 0.1729 1.1085 0.3872 0.1595 0.5467 0.0000 1,026.939 5 1,026.939
5 0.1854 0.0533 1,047.441
0 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 2.0686 3.9074 4.6415 0.0113 0.5786 0.0294 0.6080 0.2169 0.0291 0.2459 0.0000 1,026.938 8 1,026.938
8 0.1854 0.0533 1,047.440
3 Maximum 2.0686 3.9074 4.6415 0.0113 0.5786 0.0294 0.6080 0.2169 0.0291 0.2459 0.0000 1,026.938 8 1,026.938
8 0.1854 0.0533 1,047.440
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

9.30 14.14 -25.05 0.00 38.16 82.99 45.15 43.99 81.76 55.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-1-2023 7-31-2023 3.2883 2.75152 8-1-2023 9-30-2023 2.0410 1.7429 Highest 3.2883 2.7515

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction DetailConstruction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/1/2023 5/8/2023 6 72 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2023 5/8/2023 6 73 Grading Grading 5/9/2023 6/12/2023 6 30 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Grading/BC Overlap Grading 6/13/2023 7/5/2023 6 20
5 Building Construction Building Construction 7/6/2023 11/10/2023 6 1106 Paving Paving 7/29/2023 9/13/2023 6 407 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/14/2023 11/10/2023 6 50
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37Grading Graders 3 8.00 187 0.41Grading Other Construction Equipment 2 8.00 401 0.42Grading Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8.00 247 0.40Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48Grading Surfacing Equipment 1 8.00 263 0.30Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Grading/BC Overlap Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38Grading/BC Overlap Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8.00 100 0.40Grading/BC Overlap Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40Grading/BC Overlap Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 375,986; Non-Residential Outdoor: 125,329; Striped Parking Area: 21,336 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Gradin
g (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Gradin
g (Gradin
g Phase): 165
Acres of Pavin
g: 15.55
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction EquipmentUse DPF for Construction EquipmentWater Exposed AreaBuilding Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8.00 100 0.40Building Construction Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Paving Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 8.00 100 0.40Paving Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 2.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTGrading 15 38.00 0.00 7,500.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTGrading/BC Overlap 11 28.00 0.00 375.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 11 230.00 99.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 46.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.1000e004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.9400e003 0.0752 0.0688 1.4000e- 004 3.4900e- 003 3.4900e- 003 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 11.8972 11.8972 3.3300e- 003 0.0000 11.9805 Total 7.9400e003 0.0752 0.0688 1.4000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 3.4900e- 003 3.6000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.2500e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 11.8972 11.8972 3.3300e- 003 0.0000 11.9805 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.3000e004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0567 0.0567 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0593 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 2.1000e004 1.5000e- 004 1.7700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.5083 0.5083 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.5126 Total 2.1000e004 2.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.5650 0.5650 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.5719 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 5.0000e005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2400e003 0.0641 0.0864 1.4000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 11.8972 11.8972 3.3300e- 003 0.0000 11.9805 Total 3.2400e003 0.0641 0.0864 1.4000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 11.8972 11.8972 3.3300e- 003 0.0000 11.9805 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.3000e004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0567 0.0567 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0593 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 2.1000e004 1.5000e- 004 1.7700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.5083 0.5083 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.5126 Total 2.1000e004 2.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.5650 0.5650 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.5719 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1200e003 0.0215 0.0312 4.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 9.8000e- 004 9.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.8302 3.8302 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.8612 Total 2.1200e003 0.0215 0.0312 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 9.8000e- 004 9.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.8302 3.8302 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.8612 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.4000e004 1.0000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3389 0.3389 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.3417 Total 1.4000e004 1.0000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3389 0.3389 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.3417 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0600e003 0.0243 0.0328 4.0000e- 005 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.8302 3.8302 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.8612 Total 1.0600e003 0.0243 0.0328 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.8302 3.8302 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.8612 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.4000e004 1.0000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3389 0.3389 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.3417 Total 1.4000e004 1.0000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3389 0.3389 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.3417 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.4522 0.0000 0.4522 0.2086 0.0000 0.2086 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1079 1.1479 0.7006 1.9600e003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0428 0.0428 0.0000 172.1647 172.1647 0.0557 0.0000 173.5567 Total 0.1079 1.1479 0.7006 1.9600e003 0.4522 0.0465 0.4987 0.2086 0.0428 0.2514 0.0000 172.1647 172.1647 0.0557 0.0000 173.5567 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 8.0000e003 0.4693 0.0990 2.2100e- 003 0.0642 4.4300e- 003 0.0686 0.0177 4.2400e- 003 0.0219 0.0000 212.4374 212.4374 1.3900e- 003 0.0334 222.4289 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 2.3000e003 1.6100e- 003 0.0192 6.0000e- 005 7.0900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.1200e- 003 1.8800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 5.5190 5.5190 1.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 5.5650 Total 0.0103 0.4709 0.1182 2.2700e003 0.0713 4.4600e- 003 0.0757 0.0195 4.2700e- 003 0.0238 0.0000 217.9564 217.9564 1.5200e- 003 0.0336 227.9939 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2035 0.0000 0.2035 0.0939 0.0000 0.0939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0480 0.9363 1.0751 1.9600e003 5.6200e- 003 5.6200e- 003 5.6200e- 003 5.6200e- 003 0.0000 172.1645 172.1645 0.0557 0.0000 173.5565 Total 0.0480 0.9363 1.0751 1.9600e003 0.2035 5.6200e- 003 0.2091 0.0939 5.6200e- 003 0.0995 0.0000 172.1645 172.1645 0.0557 0.0000 173.5565 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 8.0000e003 0.4693 0.0990 2.2100e- 003 0.0642 4.4300e- 003 0.0686 0.0177 4.2400e- 003 0.0219 0.0000 212.4374 212.4374 1.3900e- 003 0.0334 222.4289 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 2.3000e003 1.6100e- 003 0.0192 6.0000e- 005 7.0900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.1200e- 003 1.8800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 5.5190 5.5190 1.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 5.5650 Total 0.0103 0.4709 0.1182 2.2700e003 0.0713 4.4600e- 003 0.0757 0.0195 4.2700e- 003 0.0238 0.0000 217.9564 217.9564 1.5200e- 003 0.0336 227.9939 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Grading/BC Overlap - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1967 0.0000 0.1967 0.1011 0.0000 0.1011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0329 0.3343 0.3036 5.7000e004 0.0151 0.0151 0.0139 0.0139 0.0000 50.3819 50.3819 0.0163 0.0000 50.7893 Total 0.0329 0.3343 0.3036 5.7000e004 0.1967 0.0151 0.2118 0.1011 0.0139 0.1149 0.0000 50.3819 50.3819 0.0163 0.0000 50.7893 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e004 0.0235 4.9500e- 003 1.1000e- 004 3.2100e- 003 2.2000e- 004 3.4300e- 003 8.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 1.0900e- 003 0.0000 10.6219 10.6219 7.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 11.1215 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.1300e003 7.9000e- 004 9.4400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 003 9.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7111 2.7111 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.7337 Total 1.5300e003 0.0243 0.0144 1.4000e- 004 6.6900e- 003 2.4000e- 004 6.9300e- 003 1.8000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 2.0300e- 003 0.0000 13.3329 13.3329 1.3000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 13.8551 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Grading/BC Overlap - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0885 0.0000 0.0885 0.0455 0.0000 0.0455 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0141 0.2857 0.3759 5.7000e004 2.1800e- 003 2.1800e- 003 2.1800e- 003 2.1800e- 003 0.0000 50.3819 50.3819 0.0163 0.0000 50.7892 Total 0.0141 0.2857 0.3759 5.7000e004 0.0885 2.1800e- 003 0.0907 0.0455 2.1800e- 003 0.0477 0.0000 50.3819 50.3819 0.0163 0.0000 50.7892 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e004 0.0235 4.9500e- 003 1.1000e- 004 3.2100e- 003 2.2000e- 004 3.4300e- 003 8.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 1.0900e- 003 0.0000 10.6219 10.6219 7.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 11.1215 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.1300e003 7.9000e- 004 9.4400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 003 9.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7111 2.7111 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.7337 Total 1.5300e003 0.0243 0.0144 1.4000e- 004 6.6900e- 003 2.4000e- 004 6.9300e- 003 1.8000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 2.0300e- 003 0.0000 13.3329 13.3329 1.3000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 13.8551 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1776 1.8072 1.6238 3.0900e003 0.0814 0.0814 0.0748 0.0748 0.0000 271.4578 271.4578 0.0878 0.0000 273.6527 Total 0.1776 1.8072 1.6238 3.0900e003 0.0814 0.0814 0.0748 0.0748 0.0000 271.4578 271.4578 0.0878 0.0000 273.6527 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.6200e003 0.2227 0.0698 1.0000e- 003 0.0327 1.3900e- 003 0.0340 9.4400e- 003 1.3300e- 003 0.0108 0.0000 95.4877 95.4877 5.3000e- 004 0.0144 99.7859 Worker 0.0511 0.0357 0.4263 1.3400e003 0.1573 7.3000e- 004 0.1580 0.0418 6.7000e- 004 0.0425 0.0000 122.4820 122.4820 2.9000e- 003 3.1900e- 003 123.5038 Total 0.0567 0.2584 0.4961 2.3400e003 0.1899 2.1200e- 003 0.1920 0.0512 2.0000e- 003 0.0532 0.0000 217.9697 217.9697 3.4300e- 003 0.0176 223.2896 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0758 1.5354 2.0193 3.0900e003 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 271.4575 271.4575 0.0878 0.0000 273.6524 Total 0.0758 1.5354 2.0193 3.0900e003 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 271.4575 271.4575 0.0878 0.0000 273.6524 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.6200e003 0.2227 0.0698 1.0000e- 003 0.0327 1.3900e- 003 0.0340 9.4400e- 003 1.3300e- 003 0.0108 0.0000 95.4877 95.4877 5.3000e- 004 0.0144 99.7859 Worker 0.0511 0.0357 0.4263 1.3400e003 0.1573 7.3000e- 004 0.1580 0.0418 6.7000e- 004 0.0425 0.0000 122.4820 122.4820 2.9000e- 003 3.1900e- 003 123.5038 Total 0.0567 0.2584 0.4961 2.3400e003 0.1899 2.1200e- 003 0.1920 0.0512 2.0000e- 003 0.0532 0.0000 217.9697 217.9697 3.4300e- 003 0.0176 223.2896 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0356 0.3745 0.2593 5.4000e004 0.0168 0.0168 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 47.0096 47.0096 0.0152 0.0000 47.3896 Paving 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0559 0.3745 0.2593 5.4000e004 0.0168 0.0168 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 47.0096 47.0096 0.0152 0.0000 47.3896 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.0500e003 7.3000e- 004 8.7600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.2500e- 003 8.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5174 2.5174 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.5384 Total 1.0500e003 7.3000e- 004 8.7600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.2500e- 003 8.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5174 2.5174 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.5384 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0131 0.2697 0.3271 5.4000e004 2.0600e- 003 2.0600e- 003 2.0600e- 003 2.0600e- 003 0.0000 47.0095 47.0095 0.0152 0.0000 47.3896 Paving 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0335 0.2697 0.3271 5.4000e004 2.0600e- 003 2.0600e- 003 2.0600e- 003 2.0600e- 003 0.0000 47.0095 47.0095 0.0152 0.0000 47.3896 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.0500e003 7.3000e- 004 8.7600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.2500e- 003 8.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5174 2.5174 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.5384 Total 1.0500e003 7.3000e- 004 8.7600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.2500e- 003 8.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5174 2.5174 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.5384 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.8169 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.7900e003 0.0326 0.0453 7.0000e- 005 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 6.3831 6.3831 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.3927 Total 1.8217 0.0326 0.0453 7.0000e005 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 6.3831 6.3831 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.3927 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 4.6500e003 3.2500e- 003 0.0388 1.2000e- 004 0.0143 7.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 11.1347 11.1347 2.6000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 11.2276 Total 4.6500e003 3.2500e- 003 0.0388 1.2000e- 004 0.0143 7.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 11.1347 11.1347 2.6000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 11.2276 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.8169 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4900e003 0.0339 0.0458 7.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.3831 6.3831 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.3927 Total 1.8184 0.0339 0.0458 7.0000e005 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.3831 6.3831 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.3927 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 4.6500e003 3.2500e- 003 0.0388 1.2000e- 004 0.0143 7.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 11.1347 11.1347 2.6000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 11.2276 Total 4.6500e003 3.2500e- 003 0.0388 1.2000e- 004 0.0143 7.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 11.1347 11.1347 2.6000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 11.2276 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Automobile Care Center 0.00 0.00 0.00
Discount Club 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gasoline/Service Station 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Automobile Care Center 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 21 51 28 Discount Club 14.70 6.60 6.60 16.70 64.30 19.00 45 40 15 Gasoline/Service Station 14.70 6.60 6.60 2.00 79.00 19.00 14 27 59 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Automobile Care Center 0.510058 0.053037 0.175964 0.161396 0.026773 0.007006 0.013819 0.022114 0.000717 0.000291 0.024206 0.001529 0.003090 Discount Club 0.510058 0.053037 0.175964 0.161396 0.026773 0.007006 0.013819 0.022114 0.000717 0.000291 0.024206 0.001529 0.003090 Gasoline/Service Station 0.510058 0.053037 0.175964 0.161396 0.026773 0.007006 0.013819 0.022114 0.000717 0.000291 0.024206 0.001529 0.003090 Parking Lot 0.510058 0.053037 0.175964 0.161396 0.026773 0.007006 0.013819 0.022114 0.000717 0.000291 0.024206 0.001529 0.003090

5.0 Energy Detail5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Discount Club 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Gasoline/Service
Station
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Discount Club 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Gasoline/Service
Station
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Discount Club 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Gasoline/Service
Station
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Discount Club 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Gasoline/Service
Station
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Discount Club 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Gasoline/Service
Station
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Discount Club 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Gasoline/Service
Station
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Discount Club 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Gasoline/Service
Station
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 39 Date: 11/21/2022 12:59 PM Costco Fresno Mitigated Construction Run - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Costco Fresno (Project) Operation
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Project-specific values (RPS emission factor)Land Use - Project-specific valuesConstruction Phase - Operational runOff-road Equipment - Operational runVehicle Trips - Project-specific values, mobile emissions calculated seperatelyConsumer Products - Updated emission factor for consumer products to refine the VOC emissions based on recent CARB regulations.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 889.00 Space 8.00 355,600.00 0
Automobile Care Center 4.80 1000sqft 0.11 4,800.00 0
Discount Club 241.34 1000sqft 5.54 241,340.00 0
Gasoline/Service Station 32.00 Pump 0.10 4,517.60 0

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Rural3
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
191.61 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 1.62E-05
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 203.98 191.61tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 53.75 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 182.17 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 11.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 33.67 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 166.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 41.80 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 172.01 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Highest

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Energy 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 330.8528 330.8528 0.0345 6.5300e- 003 333.6620 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 217.9149 0.0000 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9496 12.3158 18.2653 0.6132 0.0147 37.9717 Total 0.9616 0.1351 0.1241 8.1000e004 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 223.8644 343.1895 567.0539 13.5261 0.0212 911.5307 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Energy 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 330.8528 330.8528 0.0345 6.5300e- 003 333.6620 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 217.9149 0.0000 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9496 12.3158 18.2653 0.6132 0.0147 37.9717 Total 0.9616 0.1351 0.1241 8.1000e004 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 223.8644 343.1895 567.0539 13.5261 0.0212 911.5307 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction DetailConstruction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2023 4/30/2023 5 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73Demolition Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Automobile Care Center 0.00 0.00 0.00
Discount Club 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gasoline/Service Station 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Automobile Care Center 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 21 51 28 Discount Club 14.70 6.60 6.60 16.70 64.30 19.00 45 40 15 Gasoline/Service Station 14.70 6.60 6.60 2.00 79.00 19.00 14 27 59 Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 183.9160 183.9160 0.0317 3.8400e003 185.8520 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 183.9160 183.9160 0.0317 3.8400e003 185.8520 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.6900e- 003 147.8100 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.6900e- 003 147.8100

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.0138 0.1255 0.1054 7.5000e004 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 0.0000 136.6443 136.6443 2.6200e- 003 2.5100e- 003 137.4563 Gasoline/Service
Station
93514.3 5.0000e004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.9903 4.9903 1.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 5.0199 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 147.8100 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.0138 0.1255 0.1054 7.5000e004 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 0.0000 136.6443 136.6443 2.6200e- 003 2.5100e- 003 137.4563 Gasoline/Service
Station
93514.3 5.0000e004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.9903 4.9903 1.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 5.0199 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 147.8100 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
41328 3.5919 6.2000e004 7.0000e- 005 3.6297
Discount Club 1.91141e
+006
166.1263 0.0286 3.4700e003 167.8751
Gasoline/Service
Station
38896.5 3.3806 5.8000e004 7.0000e- 005 3.4162
Parking Lot 124460 10.8172 1.8600e003 2.3000e- 004 10.9310 Total 183.9160 0.0317 3.8400e003 185.8520
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
41328 3.5919 6.2000e004 7.0000e- 005 3.6297
Discount Club 1.91141e
+006
166.1263 0.0286 3.4700e003 167.8751
Gasoline/Service
Station
38896.5 3.3806 5.8000e004 7.0000e- 005 3.4162
Parking Lot 124460 10.8172 1.8600e003 2.3000e- 004 10.9310 Total 183.9160 0.0317 3.8400e003 185.8520
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Unmitigated 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222

0.1817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.7641 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.9000e004 1.0000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Total 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.7641 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.9000e004 1.0000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Total 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 18.2653 0.6132 0.0147 37.9717
Unmitigated 18.2653 0.6132 0.0147 37.9717

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

0.451589 /

0.276781

0.4398 0.0148 3.5000e004 0.9144
Discount Club 17.8767 /

10.9567

17.4115 0.5845 0.0140 36.1967
Gasoline/Service
Station

0.42502 /

0.260496

0.4140 0.0139 3.3000e004 0.8606
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 18.2653 0.6132 0.0147 37.9717
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

0.451589 /

0.276781

0.4398 0.0148 3.5000e004 0.9144
Discount Club 17.8767 /

10.9567

17.4115 0.5845 0.0140 36.1967
Gasoline/Service
Station

0.42502 /

0.260496

0.4140 0.0139 3.3000e004 0.8606
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 18.2653 0.6132 0.0147 37.9717
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Unmitigated 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Category/Year8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

18.34 3.7229 0.2200 0.0000 9.2232
Discount Club 1037.93 210.6904 12.4515 0.0000 521.9766
Gasoline/Service
Station

17.25 3.5016 0.2069 0.0000 8.6751
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

18.34 3.7229 0.2200 0.0000 9.2232
Discount Club 1037.93 210.6904 12.4515 0.0000 521.9766
Gasoline/Service
Station

17.25 3.5016 0.2069 0.0000 8.6751
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 21 Date: 1/24/2022 1:27 PM Costco Fresno (Project) Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Project-specific values (RPS emission factor)Land Use - Project-specific valuesConstruction Phase - Operational emissions onlyOff-road Equipment - Operational emissions onlyVehicle Trips - Project-specific values, mobile emissions calculated seperatelyConsumer Products - Updated emission factor for consumer products to refine the VOC emissions based on recent CARB regulations.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Gasoline/Service Station 32.00 Pump 1.33 4,517.60 0
Automobile Care Center 4.80 1000sqft 0.11 4,800.00 0
Discount Club 241.34 1000sqft 5.54 241,340.00 0
Parking Lot 889.00 Space 15.55 355,600.00 0

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Rural3
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company Operational Year 2030
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
130.13 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/26/2023 4/30/2023
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 1.62E-05
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.10 1.33tblLandUse LotAcreage 8.00 15.55 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 203.98 130.13tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 53.75 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 182.17 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 11.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 33.67 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 166.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 41.80 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 172.01 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Highest

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Energy 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 271.8415 271.8415 0.0345 6.5300e- 003 274.6507 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 217.9149 0.0000 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9496 8.3641 14.3137 0.6132 0.0147 34.0200 Total 0.9616 0.1351 0.1241 8.1000e004 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 223.8644 280.2265 504.0909 13.5261 0.0212 848.5677 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Energy 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 271.8415 271.8415 0.0345 6.5300e- 003 274.6507 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 217.9149 0.0000 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9496 8.3641 14.3137 0.6132 0.0147 34.0200 Total 0.9616 0.1351 0.1241 8.1000e004 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 223.8644 280.2265 504.0909 13.5261 0.0212 848.5677 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction DetailConstruction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/1/2023 4/30/2023 5 0
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionOffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 15.55 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Automobile Care Center 0.00 0.00 0.00
Discount Club 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gasoline/Service Station 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Automobile Care Center 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 21 51 28 Discount Club 14.70 6.60 6.60 16.70 64.30 19.00 45 40 15 Gasoline/Service Station 14.70 6.60 6.60 2.00 79.00 19.00 14 27 59 Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Automobile Care Center 0.542478 0.054482 0.176258 0.134700 0.021641 0.005926 0.015139 0.022678 0.000679 0.000278 0.021974 0.001325 0.002442 Discount Club 0.542478 0.054482 0.176258 0.134700 0.021641 0.005926 0.015139 0.022678 0.000679 0.000278 0.021974 0.001325 0.002442 Gasoline/Service Station 0.542478 0.054482 0.176258 0.134700 0.021641 0.005926 0.015139 0.022678 0.000679 0.000278 0.021974 0.001325 0.002442 Parking Lot 0.542478 0.054482 0.176258 0.134700 0.021641 0.005926 0.015139 0.022678 0.000679 0.000278 0.021974 0.001325 0.002442

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 124.9047 124.9047 0.0317 3.8400e003 126.8407 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 124.9047 124.9047 0.0317 3.8400e003 126.8407 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.6900e- 003 147.8100 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.6900e- 003 147.8100

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0138 0.1255 0.1054 7.5000e004 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 0.0000 136.6443 136.6443 2.6200e- 003 2.5100e- 003 137.4563 Gasoline/Service
Station
93514.3 5.0000e004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.9903 4.9903 1.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 5.0199 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 147.8100 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0138 0.1255 0.1054 7.5000e004 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 0.0000 136.6443 136.6443 2.6200e- 003 2.5100e- 003 137.4563 Gasoline/Service
Station
93514.3 5.0000e004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.9903 4.9903 1.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 5.0199 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 147.8100 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
41328 2.4394 6.2000e004 7.0000e- 005 2.4772
Discount Club 1.91141e
+006
112.8230 0.0286 3.4700e003 114.5718
Gasoline/Service
Station
38896.5 2.2959 5.8000e004 7.0000e- 005 2.3315
Parking Lot 124460 7.3464 1.8600e003 2.3000e- 004 7.4602 Total 124.9047 0.0317 3.8400e003 126.8407
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
41328 2.4394 6.2000e004 7.0000e- 005 2.4772
Discount Club 1.91141e
+006
112.8230 0.0286 3.4700e003 114.5718
Gasoline/Service
Station
38896.5 2.2959 5.8000e004 7.0000e- 005 2.3315
Parking Lot 124460 7.3464 1.8600e003 2.3000e- 004 7.4602 Total 124.9047 0.0317 3.8400e003 126.8407
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Unmitigated 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222

0.1817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.7641 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.8000e004 1.0000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Total 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.7641 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.8000e004 1.0000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Total 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 14.3137 0.6132 0.0147 34.0200
Unmitigated 14.3137 0.6132 0.0147 34.0200

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

0.451589 /

0.276781

0.3447 0.0148 3.5000e004 0.8192
Discount Club 17.8767 /

10.9567

13.6446 0.5845 0.0140 32.4298
Gasoline/Service
Station

0.42502 /

0.260496

0.3244 0.0139 3.3000e004 0.7710
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 14.3137 0.6132 0.0147 34.0200
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

0.451589 /

0.276781

0.3447 0.0148 3.5000e004 0.8192
Discount Club 17.8767 /

10.9567

13.6446 0.5845 0.0140 32.4298
Gasoline/Service
Station

0.42502 /

0.260496

0.3244 0.0139 3.3000e004 0.7710
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 14.3137 0.6132 0.0147 34.0200
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Unmitigated 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Category/Year8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

18.34 3.7229 0.2200 0.0000 9.2232
Discount Club 1037.93 210.6904 12.4515 0.0000 521.9766
Gasoline/Service
Station

17.25 3.5016 0.2069 0.0000 8.6751
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

18.34 3.7229 0.2200 0.0000 9.2232
Discount Club 1037.93 210.6904 12.4515 0.0000 521.9766
Gasoline/Service
Station

17.25 3.5016 0.2069 0.0000 8.6751
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:38 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2030 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Project-specific values (RPS emission factor)Land Use - Project-specific valuesConstruction Phase - Operational emissions onlyOff-road Equipment - Operational emissions onlyVehicle Trips - Project-specific values, mobile emissions calculated seperatelyConsumer Products - Updated emission factor for consumer products to refine the VOC emissions based on recent CARB regulations.

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Rural3
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company Operational Year 2035
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

86.75 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/26/2023 4/30/2023
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 1.62E-05
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.10 1.33tblLandUse LotAcreage 8.00 15.55 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 203.98 86.75tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 53.75 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 182.17 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 11.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 33.67 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 166.88 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 23.72 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 41.80 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 172.01 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Highest

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Energy 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 230.2034 230.2034 0.0345 6.5300e- 003 233.0126 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 217.9149 0.0000 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9496 5.5759 11.5254 0.6132 0.0147 31.2318 Total 0.9616 0.1351 0.1240 8.1000e004 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 223.8644 235.8002 459.6646 13.5261 0.0212 804.1414 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Energy 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 230.2034 230.2034 0.0345 6.5300e- 003 233.0126 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 217.9149 0.0000 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9496 5.5759 11.5254 0.6132 0.0147 31.2318 Total 0.9616 0.1351 0.1240 8.1000e004 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0103 223.8644 235.8002 459.6646 13.5261 0.0212 804.1414 Mitigated Operational

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionOffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 15.55 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Automobile Care Center 0.553747 0.055870 0.176952 0.125831 0.019734 0.005457 0.015107 0.021893 0.000653 0.000272 0.021077 0.001181 0.002226 Discount Club 0.553747 0.055870 0.176952 0.125831 0.019734 0.005457 0.015107 0.021893 0.000653 0.000272 0.021077 0.001181 0.002226 Gasoline/Service Station 0.553747 0.055870 0.176952 0.125831 0.019734 0.005457 0.015107 0.021893 0.000653 0.000272 0.021077 0.001181 0.002226 Parking Lot 0.553747 0.055870 0.176952 0.125831 0.019734 0.005457 0.015107 0.021893 0.000653 0.000272 0.021077 0.001181 0.002226

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 83.2666 83.2666 0.0317 3.8400e003 85.2026 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 83.2666 83.2666 0.0317 3.8400e003 85.2026 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.6900e- 003 147.8100 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.6900e- 003 147.8100

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0138 0.1255 0.1054 7.5000e004 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 0.0000 136.6443 136.6443 2.6200e- 003 2.5100e- 003 137.4563 Gasoline/Service
Station
93514.3 5.0000e004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.9903 4.9903 1.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 5.0199 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 147.8100 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0138 0.1255 0.1054 7.5000e004 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 9.5400e- 003 0.0000 136.6443 136.6443 2.6200e- 003 2.5100e- 003 137.4563 Gasoline/Service
Station
93514.3 5.0000e004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.9903 4.9903 1.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 5.0199 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0149 0.1350 0.1134 8.1000e004 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 146.9368 146.9368 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 147.8100 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
41328 1.6262 6.2000e004 7.0000e- 005 1.6640
Discount Club 1.91141e
+006

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
41328 1.6262 6.2000e004 7.0000e- 005 1.6640
Discount Club 1.91141e
+006

75.2125 0.0286 3.4700e003 76.9612
Gasoline/Service
Station
38896.5 1.5306 5.8000e004 7.0000e- 005 1.5661
Parking Lot 124460 4.8974 1.8600e003 2.3000e- 004 5.0113 Total 83.2666 0.0317 3.8400e003 85.2026
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Unmitigated 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222

0.1817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.7641 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.8000e004 1.0000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Total 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.7641 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.8000e004 1.0000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Total 0.9467 1.0000e004 0.0107 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0209 0.0209 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0222 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 11.5254 0.6132 0.0147 31.2318
Unmitigated 11.5254 0.6132 0.0147 31.2318

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

0.451589 /

0.276781

0.2775 0.0148 3.5000e004 0.7521
Discount Club 17.8767 /

10.9567

10.9867 0.5845 0.0140 29.7718
Gasoline/Service
Station

0.42502 /

0.260496

0.2612 0.0139 3.3000e004 0.7078
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 11.5254 0.6132 0.0147 31.2318
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

0.451589 /

0.276781

0.2775 0.0148 3.5000e004 0.7521
Discount Club 17.8767 /

10.9567

10.9867 0.5845 0.0140 29.7718
Gasoline/Service
Station

0.42502 /

0.260496

0.2612 0.0139 3.3000e004 0.7078
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 11.5254 0.6132 0.0147 31.2318
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Unmitigated 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Category/Year8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

18.34 3.7229 0.2200 0.0000 9.2232
Discount Club 1037.93 210.6904 12.4515 0.0000 521.9766
Gasoline/Service
Station

17.25 3.5016 0.2069 0.0000 8.6751
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center

18.34 3.7229 0.2200 0.0000 9.2232
Discount Club 1037.93 210.6904 12.4515 0.0000 521.9766
Gasoline/Service
Station

17.25 3.5016 0.2069 0.0000 8.6751
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 217.9149 12.8784 0.0000 539.8748
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 20 Date: 7/26/2022 7:52 PM Costco Fresno (Project) 2035 Operation - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Costco Commercial Center
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Fresno, California
Ramboll

APPENDIX B

OPERATIONAL MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
Table B-1a. Trip Lengths and Vehicle Miles Traveled by Operational Mobile Sources (Herndon/Riverside) Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Average
One-Way Trip
Length1,2
Peak Daily Trips
(one-way
trips/day)3
Peak Daily
VMT4
Annual Average
Trips (one-way
trips/yr)
Annual
Average VMT
Primary 17.3 10,046 173,528 3,666,790 63,337,720
Diverted 1.0 4,038 4,119 1,473,870 1,503,435
Pass-By 0.1 3,788 379 1,382,620 138,262
Warehouse, Fuel Station, and Car Wash
Employee Vehicles Primary 30.7 300 9,210 109,500 3,361,650 MDO Driver and Warehouse Employee
Vehicles Primary 30.7 136 4,175 49,640 1,523,875
MDO Delivery Trucks Primary 81.5 20 1,630 7,300 594,950 Fuel Delivery Trucks Primary 125.0 14 1,750 5,110 638,750 Warehouse Delivery Trucks Primary 125.0 26 3,250 9,490 1,186,250 Notes:

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - CALifornia Emissions Estimator MODel
MDO - market delivery operation
VMT - vehicle miles traveled
4 Peak daily VMT based on Project-specific data provided by Kittelson & Associates or estimated as a product of average trip length and number of trips presented in this table.

Trip Type
Member Vehicles
1 Average trip lengths for primary and diverted trip types are based on Project-specific data provided by Kittelson & Associates. Pass-by trip length for member vehicles is assumed to be equal to the CalEEMod® default trip length of 0.1 miles. 3 Peak daily trips are based on Project-specific data provided by Kittelson & Associates. 2 Average trip length for MDO delivery trucks provided by Costco. The average routed round trip length for Fresno MDO delivery trucks is 163 miles.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table B-1b. Trip Lengths and Vehicle Miles Traveled by Operational Mobile Sources (4500 W. Shaw Avenue)
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Peak Daily Trips
(one-way
trips/day)1
Peak Daily
VMT2
Annual Average
Trips (one-way
trips/yr)
Annual Average
VMT
Primary 1,363 58,264 497,495 21,266,360
Pass-by 48 0 17,520 0
Diverted 2,099 3,442 766,135 1,256,330
Notes:

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - CALifornia Emissions Estimator MODel
MDO - market delivery operation
VMT - vehicle miles traveled
2 Peak daily VMT based on Project-specific data provided by Kittelson & Associates or estimated as a product of average trip length and number of trips presented in this table.

Trip Type
1 Peak daily trips are based on Project-specific data provided by Kittelson & Associates.

Passenger Vehicles

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table B-2. Operational Mobile Source Fleet Mixes
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Fleet Mix
CalEEMod®
Default1
Gas 12,057,533 52.8% 55.0%
Phe 351,337 1.54% 1.6%
Elec 514,390 2.25% 0%
Dsl 22,675 0.10% 0%
Gas 1,013,826 5.88% 5.9%
Phe 1,027 0.01% 0.0%
Elec 1,049 0.01% 0%
Dsl 250 0.00% 0%
Gas 5,488,159 19.29% 19.4%
Phe 39,774 0.14% 0.1%
Elec 17,710 0.06% 0%
Dsl 14,595 0.05% 0%
Gas 4,629,686 17.47% 17.8%
Phe 29,118 0.11% 0.1%
Elec 19,405 0.07% 0%
Dsl 71,606 0.27% 0%
LHD1 All 2.7% -- -- --
LHD2 All 0.7% -- -- --
MHD All 1.4% -- -- --
HHDT All 2.2% -- -- --
OBUS All 0.1% -- -- --
UBUS All 0.0% -- -- --
MCY All 2.4% -- -- --
SBUS All 0.2% -- -- --
MH All 0.3% -- -- --
Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - CALifornia Emissions Estimator MODel MDV - medium-duty vehicle EMFAC - EMission FACtors model MH - motor homes
HHDT - Heavy heavy-duty truck MHD - medium heavy-duty trucks LDA - light duty automobiles OBUS - other buses
LDT - light-duty trucks SBUS - school buses
LHD - light heavy-duty trucks UBUS - urban buses
MCY - motorcycles VMT - vehicle miles traveled

17.6%

16.1%
Notes:

Fuel Type

EMFAC VMT
Output2
(miles/day)
Employee Vehicle
Fleet Mix3
Member Vehicle
Fleet Mix4
1 CalEEMod® default for Fresno County calendar year 2023. 2 Data obtained from EMFAC2021 for default emissions activity. 3 Fleet mix for employee vehicles estimated based on the ratio of the vehicle classes in CalEEMod® default fleet mix and the EMFAC2021 VMT output.
4 Fleet mix for member vehicles visiting the Costco Gas Station are estimated based on the ratio of the vehicle classes in CalEEMod® default fleet mix and the EMFAC2021 VMT output. Vehicles are assumed to be gasoline or plug-in hybrid.

Vehicle
Category
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV

51.0%

5.3%

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table B-3. Operational Mobile Source GHG Emission Factors - Running Exhaust Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
CO2 N2O CH4
LDA Gas 12,057,533 3,843 0.06 0.03
LDA Phe 351,337 53 0.00 0.00
LDA Elec 514,390 0 0.00 0.00
LDA Dsl 22,675 6 0.00 0.00
LDT1 Gas 1,013,826 388 0.01 0.01
LDT1 Phe 1,027 0 0.00 0.00
LDT1 Elec 1,049 0 0.00 0.00
LDT1 Dsl 250 0 0.00 0.00
LDT2 Gas 5,488,159 2,188 0.04 0.02
LDT2 Phe 39,774 6 0.00 0.00
LDT2 Elec 17,710 0 0.00 0.00
LDT2 Dsl 14,595 5 0.00 0.00
MDV Gas 4,629,686 2,265 0.05 0.02
MDV Phe 29,118 4 0.00 0.00
MDV Elec 19,405 0 0.00 0.00
MDV Dsl 71,606 32 0.01 0.00
HHDT Dsl 2,030,441 3,590 0.57 0.00
CO2 N2O CH4
LDA 289 0.005 0.002
LDA 136 0.001 0.000
LDA 0 0.000 0.000
LDA 231 0.036 0.001
LDT1 347 0.013 0.009
LDT1 124 0.001 0.000
LDT1 0 0.000 0.000
LDT1 401 0.063 0.012
LDT2 362 0.007 0.003
LDT2 129 0.001 0.000
LDT2 0 0.000 0.000
LDT2 307 0.048 0.001
MDV 444 0.009 0.005
MDV 136 0.001 0.000
MDV 0 0.000 0.000
MDV 412 0.065 0.001
EMFAC
Vehicle
Class Fuel

EMFAC VMT
Output1
(miles/day)
EMFAC Emissions Output1
Passenger Vehicles
Delivery Trucks2
EMFAC
Vehicle
Class
Running Exhaust Emission Factors3
(grams/mile)
Passenger Vehicles
Dsl
Fuel
Gas
Phe
Gas
Phe
Gas
Phe
Gas
Phe
Elec
Dsl
Elec
Dsl
Elec
Dsl
Elec

Page 1 of 2 ends

Table B-3. Operational Mobile Source GHG Emission Factors - Running Exhaust Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
CO2 N2O CH4
EMFAC
Vehicle
Class
Running Exhaust Emission Factors3
(grams/mile)
Fuel
331 0.006 0.003
324 0.006 0.003
HHDT 1604.00 0.25 0.00
Notes:

Abbreviations:

Delivery Trucks2
1 Data obtained from EMFAC2021 for default emissions activity. 2 Delivery trucks are assumed to be diesel-fueled.

Dsl
Member Vehicle Emission Factor4
Employee Vehicle Emission Factor4

Page 2 of 2 ends

Table B-4. Operational Mobile Source GHG Emission Factors - Starting Exhaust Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
CO2 N2O CH4
LDA Gas 1,459,129 115.4 0.1 0.119
LDA Phe 31,224 2.29 0.0 0.001
LDA Elec 56,838 0 0 0
LDA Dsl 3,207 0 0 0
LDT1 Gas 135,565 13.9 0.0 0.021
LDT1 Phe 83 0.0066 0.000 0.0
LDT1 Elec 118 0 0 0
LDT1 Dsl 62 0 0 0
LDT2 Gas 657,946 66.5 0.0 0.067
LDT2 Phe 3,337 0.290 0.0 0.000
LDT2 Elec 2,516 0 0 0
LDT2 Dsl 1,661 0 0 0
MDV Gas 598,810 75.1 0.0 0.081
MDV Phe 2,568 0.3 0.0 0.000
MDV Elec 2,761 0 0 0
MDV Dsl 8,640 0 0 0
HHDT Dsl 237,288 0.0 0.0 0.0
CO2 N2O CH4
LDA 71.73 0.03 0.0742
LDA 66.44 0.02 0.0416
LDA 0 0 0
LDA 0 0 0
LDT1 93.34 0.04 0.1408
LDT1 72.34 0.02 0.0416
LDT1 0 0 0
LDT1 0 0 0
LDT2 91.64 0.04 0.0925
LDT2 78.85 0.02 0.0416
LDT2 0 0 0
LDT2 0 0 0
MDV 113.71 0.05 0.1229
MDV 99.36 0.02 0.0416
MDV 0 0 0
MDV 0 0 0
84 0.038 0.090
82 0.037 0.087
Member Vehicle Weighted Emission
Factor4
Employee Vehicle Weighted Emission
Factor4
Phe
Elec
Dsl
Dsl
EMFAC Emissions Output1
(tons/day)
Passenger Vehicles
Delivery Trucks2
Starting Exhaust Emission Factors3
(grams/trip)
Passenger Vehicles
EMFAC
Vehicle
Class Fuel
EMFAC Vehicle
Trips Output1
(trips/day)
Vehicle
Class Fuel
Gas
Phe
Elec
Elec
Dsl
Gas
Gas
Dsl
Gas
Phe
Phe
Elec

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table B-4. Operational Mobile Source GHG Emission Factors - Starting Exhaust Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
CO2 N2O CH4
Starting Exhaust Emission Factors3
Vehicle (grams/trip)
Class Fuel
HHDT 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes:

Abbreviations:

CH4 - methane LDT - Light-Duty Truck
CO2 - carbon dioxide HHDT - Heavy-Heavy Duty truck
Dsl - Diesel MDV - medium-duty vehicle
Elec - Electric N2O - nitrous oxide
EMFAC - EMission FACtors model Phe - Plug-in hybrid
LDA - Light Duty Automobile VMT - vehicle miles traveled Conversion Factor:
907184.74 grams per ton
Delivery Trucks2
Dsl
1 Data obtained from EMFAC2021 for default emissions activity. 2 Delivery trucks are assumed to be diesel-fueled.
3 Emission factors for EMFAC vehicle classes are estimated as a ratio of the EMFAC emissions output and EMFAC VMT output.
4 Emission factors for EMFAC vehicle classes are weighted based on the project-specific fleet mix in Table B-2 to estimate trip-based emission factors for passenger vehicles.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table B-5. Operational Mobile Source GHG Emission Factors - Idling Exhaust Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
CO2 N2O CH4
LDA Gas 27.7 0 0.0007
LDA Phe 17.1 0 0.0002
LDA Elec 0.0 0 0.0000
LDA Dsl 25.1 0 0.0006
LDT1 Gas 33.2 0 0.0023
LDT1 Phe 15.5 0 0.0002
LDT1 Elec 0.0 0 0.0000
LDT1 Dsl 43.0 0 0.0023
LDT2 Gas 34.9 0 0.0009
LDT2 Phe 16.1 0 0.0002
LDT2 Elec 0.0 0 0.0000
LDT2 Dsl 32.9 0 0.0005
MDV Gas 43.1 0 0.0013
MDV Phe 16.9 0 0.0002
MDV Elec 0.0 0 0.0000
MDV Dsl 41.6 0 0.0004

32.0 0 0.0009

31.3 0 0.0009
HHDT Dsl 224.0 0 0.0021
Notes:

Abbreviations:

CH4 - methane LDT - Light-Duty Truck
CO2 - carbon dioxide HHDT - Heavy-Heavy Duty truck
Dsl - Diesel MDV - medium-duty vehicle
Elec - Electric N2O - nitrous oxide
EMFAC - EMission FACtors model Phe - Plug-in hybrid
LDA - Light Duty Automobile VMT - vehicle miles traveled mph - miles per hour
Conversion Factor:
60 minutes per hour
EMFAC Vehicle
Class
Idling Emission Factors1
(grams/idle-minute)
Passenger Vehicles
Fuel
Delivery Trucks3
1 Data obtained from EMFAC2021 project-level output. Passenger vehicle emission rates are equivalent to the running exhaust emission rate in grams per mile at 5 mph, multiplied by the speed correction factor of 2.5 mph. 3 Delivery trucks are assumed to be diesel-fueled.
2 Emission factors for EMFAC vehicle classes are weighted based on the project-specific fleet mix in Table B-2 to estimate trip-based emission factors for passenger vehicles.

Employee Vehicle Weighted
Emission Factor2
Member Vehicle Weighted
Emission Factor2

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table B-6a. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates for Operational Mobile Sources (Herndon/Riverside) Costco Commercial CenterFresno, California
CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e5
Primary 17.3 3,666,790 63,337,720 -- 21,293 0.54 0.54 21,468.0 Diverted 1.0 1,473,870 1,503,435 -- 622.32 0.07 0.14 645.2 Pass-By 0.10 1,382,620 138,262 -- 162.36 0.05 0.12 181.3 Warehouse, Fuel Station, and Car Wash
Employee Vehicles Primary 30.7 109,500 3,361,650 -- 1,099 0.03 0.02 1,106.9 MDO Driver and Warehouse Employee
Vehicles Primary 30.70 49,640 1,523,875 -- 498 0.01 0.01 501.8 MDO Delivery Trucks Primary 81.5 7,300 594,950 18,250 958 0.15 0.00 1,003.2 Fuel Delivery Trucks Primary 125.0 5,110 638,750 12,775 1,027 0.16 0.00 1,075.5 Warehouse Delivery Trucks Primary 125.0 9,490 1,186,250 23,725 1,908 0.30 0.00 1,997.4 Member Vehicle Idling at Gasoline Dispensing
Facility Primary -- -- -- 33,638,400 1,076 0.00 0.03 1,076.5 28,643 1.31 0.86 29,056
Abbreviations:

CH4 - methane N2O - nitrous oxide
CO2 - carbon dioxide VMT - vehicle miles traveled
MT - metric tonnes yr - year
Mobile Source Activity
Member Vehicles
Trip Type
Idle
Duration2,3
(minutes/
year)
GHG Emissions4
(MT/yr)
Trip
Distance1
(miles)
Annual
Average
Trips1
(one-way
trips/year)
Annual
Average VMT1
(miles/year)
3 Delivery truck idle duration is 5 minutes based on the CARB Air Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/atcm-to-limit-vehicle-idling/about. Accessed: September 2021. For GDF idling this is actually idling duration in units of minutes per year.4 GHG emissions include running exhaust, starting exhaust, and idling exhaust. Emissions were estimated using emission factors from Tables B-3, B-4, and B-5 along with annual VMT, annual trips, and idle duration.
5 CO2e was estimated using the global warming potentials of CO2, CH4, and N2O, which are 1, 25, and 298 respectively.

Total Emissions
Notes
1 Data obtained from Table B-1a.2 Idle duration for passenger vehicles visiting the gas station is estimated using a maximum queue length of 3 vehicles per queue lane and a transaction time of 4 minutes per vehicle. The queue is assumed to stay constant while the gas station is open (6 AM to 10 PM), 7 days/week. Queue length is based on Saturday midday peak hour average queue length projectionsfrom existing Costco facilities provided by Kittelson & Associates.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table B-6b. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates for Operational Mobile Sources (4500 W. Shaw Avenue) Costco Commercial Center Fresno, California
CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e3
Primary 497,495 21,266,360 7,087 0.15 0.11 7,136
Pass-by 17,520 0 1.48 0.00 0.00 1.7
Diverted 766,135 1,256,330 481 0.04 0.07 494
7,570 0.19 0.19 7,632
Abbreviations:

CH4 - methane N2O - nitrous oxide
CO2 - carbon dioxide VMT - vehicle miles traveled
MT - metric tonnes yr - yearNotes
1 Data obtained from Table B-1b.2 GHG emissions include running exhaust and starting exhaust. Emissions were estimated using emission factors from Tables B-3 and B-4 along with annual VMT and annual trips.
3 CO2e was estimated using the global warming potentials of CO2, CH4, and N2O, which are 1, 25, and 298, respectively.

GHG Emissions2
(MT/yr)
Passenger Vehicles
Annual
Average VMT1
(miles/year)
Total Emissions
Mobile Source Activity Trip Type
Annual
Average
Trips1
(one-way
trips/year)

Page 1 of 1 ends

Costco Commercial Center
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Fresno, California
Confidential

APPENDIX C

GHG CONSISTENCY
Table C-1. Consistency with 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Priority Areas Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Consistency Convert local government fleets to ZEVs and provide EV charging at public sites Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans) Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards
Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements
Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.

Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking
Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing the allowable density of a neighborhood) Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers)
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing) Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings) Abbreviations:

CalGreen - California Green Building Standards Code
CARB - California Air Resources Board
EV - electric vehicle
GHG - greenhouse gas
PG&E - Pacific Gas & Electric
VMT - vehicle miles traveled
ZEV - zero emission vehicle
Transportation Electrification
VMT Reduction
Building Decarbonization
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project. The Project also includes a redesignation from Expressway Area to Superarterial, which allows for multiple modes of travel traffic, including pedestrian and bikes. This could lead to further development of these types of nonvehicular facilities, including bike lanes and sidewalks, which are not currently allowed under the Expressway Area designation.

In addition, the Project plans to encourage employee commute trip reduction through a variety of strategies. The project will provide carpool incentives, partner with local agencies to provide vanpool services, subsidize transit passes and provide bicycle storage and locker rooms for employees who bike to work. This will reduce the employee VMT and provide incentives for employees to commute to work alternative ways.

Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project includes an EV parking requirement and includes 45 installed EV spaces.

Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project plans to use PG&E's Solar Choice program, which provides 100% solar energy to customers. In addition, to the extent applicable to the Project, the Project would meet the CalGreen Building Standards Code in effect at the time of building permit application, which would include a number of energy saving requirements.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table C-2. Consistency with Fresno Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
# Goal Policy Consistency Analysis
Encourage and prioritize full, fair, and equitable
participation by all affected communities in transportation decision-making and planning processes.

Actively work to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of transportation projects.

Promote the improvement and expansion of accessible transportation options to serve the needs of all residents, especially those who have historically faced disproportionate transportation burdens.

Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions.

Support investment in and promotion of active transportation and transit to improve public health and mobility, especially in historically underinvested areas.

Encourage sustainable development that focuses growth near activity centers and mobility options that achieve greater location efficiency.

Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize the loss of farmland, environmentally sensitive areas, and natural resources
Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to facilitate the development of diverse housing choices for all income groups.

Facilitate and promote interagency coordination and consistency across planning efforts.

Incentivize and support efforts to improve air quality and minimize pollutants from transportation.

Prioritize investment in and promote multimodal safety measures to reduce traffic fatalities and incidents in the region.

Promote enhanced Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce congestion and vehicle miles traveled.

Encourage improvements in travel connections across all modes to create an integrated, accessible, and seamless transportation network.

Maximize the cost-effectiveness of transportation improvements.

Encourage investments that increase the system’s resilience to extreme weather events, natural disasters, and pandemics.

Preserve and maintain existing multimodal transportation assets in a state of good repair Support local and regional economic development by leveraging planning and transportation funds that foster public and private investment.

Facilitate efficient, reliable, resilient, and sustainable goods movement.

Support innovative mobility solutions that are accessible, affordable, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality.

Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project would be located nearby to transit stops and thus would allow for utilization of existing transit facilities to visit the Project. In addition, the Project includes an EV parking requirement and includes 45 installed EV spaces.

Support efforts to expand broadband access throughout the region. Not Applicable.

Abbreviations:

EV - electric vehicle
NW - northwest
TDM - Transportation Demand Management
TSM - Transportation Systems Management
VMT - vehicle miles traveled
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project will facilitate goods movement to the Fresno area and provide approximately 165 to 175 jobs. 1 Improved mobility and accessibility for all
Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, it is envisioned that Project's location will provide convenient access for nearby residences for additional retail shopping experiences. In addition, the project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project, and will be located in close proximity to transit stops (e.g., NW Herndon-Hayes transit stop).

Consistent. Per the Transportation Impact Analysis, the Project would be consistent with the applicable plans, policies, and programs and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

The Project plans to encourage commute trip reduction through a variety of strategies. The Project will provide carpool incentives, partner with local agencies to provide vanpool services, subsidize transit passes and provide bicycle storage and locker rooms for employees who bike to work. This will reduce the employee VMT and provide incentives for employees to commute to work alternative ways.

The Project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project. In addition, the Project would be located nearby to transit stops and thus would allow for utilization of existing transit facilities to visit the Project.

Consistent. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual commercial development project, the Project includes a redesignation from Expressway Area to Superarterial, which allows for multiple modes of travel traffic, including pedestrian and bikes. This could lead to further development of these types of non-vehicular facilities, including bike lanes and sidewalks, which are not currently allowed under the Expressway Area designation.

In addition, the project is implementing neighborhood design improvements such as pedestrian network improvements and constructing bikeway facilities as part of the project. The Project will be located nearby transit facilities such as the NW Herndon-Hayes transit stop, thus allowing for alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle visits to the Project that would support efforts to improve air quality and minimize pollutants from transportation.

A region embracing clean transportation,
technology, and innovation 5
Vibrant communities that are accessible by
sustainable transportation options 2
A safe, well-maintained, efficient, and climateresilient multimodal transportation network 3 A transportation network that supports a
sustainable and vibrant economy 4

Page 1 of 1 ends

3. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Update - CEQA Project Consistency Checklist GHG Reduction Plan Update consistency review involves the evaluation of project consistency with the applicable strategies of the GHG Reduction Plan Update. The GHG reduction strategies identified in the GHG Reduction Plan Update relies upon the General Plan and additional local measures as the basis of the development related strategies to reduce GHG emissions. This checklist is developed based on the key local GHG reduction strategies and actions identified in the GHG Reduction Plan Update that are applicable to proposed development projects. Note that not all strategies listed below will apply to all projects. For example, not all projects will meet mixed-use related policies of the General Plan, because not all projects are required to be mixed use.

Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Relevant General Plan
Policy Yes No Not Applicable (NA) Explanation
1: Land Use and Transportation Demand Strategies a. Does the project include mixed-use, development? For GHG Reduction Plan consistency, mixed-use development is defined as pedestrian-friendlydevelopment that blends two or more residential, commercial, cultural, orinstitutional, uses, one of which must be residential Policy UF-1-c, LU-3-b,
Objective-UF 12, UF-12-a,
UF-12-b, UF-12-d,
Policy RC-2-a
b. Is the project high density? For GHG Reduction Plan consistency, is the project developed at 12 units per acre or higher?
LU-5-f
c. Is the project infill development, pursuant to the General Plan definition of location within the City limits as of December 31, 2012? LU-2-a, Objective-12,
UF-12-a, UF-12-b, UF-12-d
d. Does the project implement pedestrian bicycle, and transit linkages with surrounding land uses and neighborhoods? For GHG Reduction Plan consistency, the project must include all sidewalks, paths, trails, and facilities required by the General Plan and Active Transportation Plan, as implemented through the Fresno Municipal Code and project conditions of approval.

Policy UF-1-c, UF-12-e,
Policy RC-2-a, Objective
MT-4,5,6, Policy MT-4-c,
Policy MT-6-a, Policy POSS7-h Objective MT 8, Policies MT-8-a, MT-8-b
e. If the project includes mixed-use or high density development, is it located within ½ mile of a High Quality Transit Area as defined in the City’s CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled? Or, is the project located within 500feet of an existing or planned transit stop? Policy UF-12-a,
UF-12-b, LU-3-b, Objective
MT 8, Policies MT-8-a,
MT-8-b
f. Will the project accommodate a large employer (over 100 employees) and will it implement trip reduction programs such as increasing transit use,carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or other measures to reduce vehicle milestraveled pursuant to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 9410?See the SJVAPCD website for details: https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r9410.pdf Policy MT-8-b, Objective
MT-9, Policy MT-10-c, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District Rule 9410
NANA
NA The project is not a mixed-use
or high density developmentThe project is not a mixed-use development as it does not include residential development.

The project is not high density.
yes
The project implements pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to surrounding land uses and neighborhoods consistent with Fresno's General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. yes
The project will implement trip reduction programs to encourage carpooling and other measures to reduce employee VMT. yes
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Relevant General Plan
Policy Yes No Not Applicable (NA) Explanation
g. If the project includes modifications to the transportation network, do those improvements meet the requirements of the City of Fresno’s CompleteStreets Policy, adopted in October 2019? According to the policy, a complete street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users - including bicyclists,pedestrians, transit vehicles, trucks, and motorists - appropriate to thefunction and context of the facility while connecting to a larger transportation network.See City of Fresno website for details: https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wpcontent/uploads/sites/17/2019/10/Complete-Streets-091119.pdf MT-1-g, MT-1-h
h. Does the project have a less than significant VMT impact, either through satisfying screening criteria or mitigating VMT impacts, pursuant to the City’sadopted VMT thresholds?See City of Fresno website for details: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2021/01/CEQA-Guidelines-for-Vehicle-Miles-TraveledFinal-Adopted-Version.pdf MT-2-b, MT-2-c
2: Electric Vehicle Strategies a. For new multi-family dwelling units with parking, does the project provide EV charging spaces capable of supporting future EV supply equipment (EVcapable) at 10% of the parking spaces per 2019 California Green BuildingStandards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part 11), Section 4.106.4 Policy RC-8-j
b. For new commercial buildings, does project provide EV charging spaces capable of supporting EV capable spaces at 4% to 10% of the parking spacesper 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part11), Section 5.106.5.3 Policy RC-8-j
3: Energy Conservation Strategies a. Does the project meet or exceed mandatory state building energy codes? If yes, does the project follow any other GreenPoint ratings such as LEED,Energy Star or others? If yes, indicate level of certification-Silver, gold,platinum if applicable? Policy RC-5-c, Objective
RC-8, Policy RC 8-a
b. For commercial projects, does the project achieve net zero emissions electricity?Mark NA if project will be permitted before 2030. Mark Yes if voluntary. Add source and capacity in explanation.

Additional Recommended
GHG Plan Measure,
supports Objective RC-8
NA
Of 889 parking spaces, WKHUHZLOOEH LQVWDOOHG(9VSDFHV which is %of the parking spaces (in range).

Project buildout is in 2023.

The project meets mandatory building energy codes; Costco's warehouse designs are consistent with the requirements of LEED.
yes
The project does not consist of multi-family dwelling units. yes
NA
yes
The project includes modifications to the transportation network consistent with the City's Complete Streets Policy. Such improvements include constructing sidewalk along the project frontage, constructing a multi-use path, and installing striping to better delineate the roadway cross section for different users. no The project has a significant VMT impact.

Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Relevant General Plan
Policy Yes No Not Applicable (NA) Explanation
4: Water Conservation Strategies a. Does the project meet or exceed the mandatory outdoor water use measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part 11), Section 4.304? If the project exceeds CalGreen Code mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation. Examples include outdoor water conservation measures such as; drought tolerant landscaping plants, compliant irrigation systems, xeriscape, replacing turf etc. Provide the conservation measure that the project will include in the explanation.

Objective RC-7,
Policy RC-7-a, RC-7-h
b. Does the project meet or exceed the mandatory indoor water use measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN, Title 24, Part 11), Section 4.303? If the project exceeds CalGreen Code, mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation. Examples may include water conserving devices and systems such as water leak detection system, hot water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, energy efficient appliances such as Energy Star Certified dishwashers, washing machines, dual flush toilets, point of use and/or tankless water heaters.

Objective RC-7,
Policy RC-7-a, RC-7-e
5: Waste Diversion and Recycling Strategies a. Does the project implement techniques of solid waste segregation, disposal and reduction, such as recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, and/or waste separation, to reduce the volume of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities? Policy PU-9-a, RC-11-a
b. During construction will the project recycle construction and demolition waste?
Policy RC-11-a
c. Does the project provide recycling canisters in public areas where trashcans are also provided?
Policy RC-11-a
Note: The GHG reduction strategies included in this checklist are based on the GHG reduction strategies identified in the Chapter 5 of the GHG Reduction Plan Update. yesyes
The project meets the mandatoryindoor water use measures. Highefficiency restroom fixtures save40% more water.

The project meets themandatory outdoor wateruse measures. yes
Costco prefers full metal buildingsin order to use the maximumamount of recycled material. yes
yes The project will recycle construction and demolition waste.

The project will provide recyclingcanisters.

Appendix G
Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment

$/+5 3DJHRI )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
5LGJH5RXWH'ULYH6XLWH/DJXQD+LOOV&$
S_

I_

)HEUXDU\
.OHLQIHOGHU3URMHFW1R
$
&RVWFR:KROHVDOH

/DNH'ULYH
,VVDTXDK:DVKLQJWRQ

$WWHQWLRQ
0V.LP.DW]
'LUHFWRURI5HDO(VWDWH'HYHORSPHQW
6XEMHFW
/LPLWHG3KDVH,,(QYLURQPHQWDO6LWH$VVHVVPHQW5HSRUW 3URSRVHG&RVWFR:DUHKRXVHDQG*DV6WDWLRQ
1(&RUQHURI1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHDQG:HVW+HUQGRQ$YHQXH )UHVQR)UHVQR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD

1)UHVQR
5LYHUVLGH5HOR:
&:

'HDU0U.DW]

.OHLQIHOGHU LV SOHDVHG WR SURYLGH &RVWFR :KROHVDOH &RUSRUDWLRQ &RVWFR
WKLV /LPLWHG 3KDVH,,
(QYLURQPHQWDO 6LWH $VVHVVPHQW
(6$
5HSRUW FRQFHUQLQJ WKH SURSRVHG &RVWFR ZDUHKRXVH DQG JDVVWDWLRQ
WKH³6LWH´
RQWKHSURSHUW\ORFDWHGDWWKHQRUWKHDVWHUQFRUQHURI:HVW+HUQGRQ$YHQXH DQG1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHLQWKH&LW\RI)UHVQR)UHVQR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD VHH)LJXUH

,Q VXPPDU\WHQ FRPSRVLWH VRLO VDPSOHV
LQFOXGLQJ RQH GXSOLFDWH
DQGWHQ GLVFUHWH VRLO VDPSOHV

LQFOXGLQJRQHGXSOLFDWH
ZHUH FROOHFWHGGXULQJWKH/LPLWHG3KDVH,,(6$DQGZHUH VXEPLWWHGIRU ODERUDWRU\DQDO\VLVRIRUJDQRFKORULQHSHVWLFLGHV
2&3V
DUVHQLFDQGOHDG7KHDQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWV
ZHUHFRPSDUHGE\.OHLQIHOGHUWRHQYLURQPHQWDODQGKXPDQKHDOWKVFUHHQLQJOHYHOVDQGKD]DUGRXV ZDVWHWKUHVKROGYDOXHV7KHFRPSDULVRQVLQGLFDWHGUHSRUWHGFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI2&3VDUVHQLFDQG OHDG SUHVHQW LQWKH VRLO VDPSOHV ZHUH EHORZWKHLU UHVSHFWLYH KXPDQ KHDOWK VFUHHQLQJ FULWHULDIRU FRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDO VRLOV DQG EHORZ WKUHVKROGV IRU FODVVLILFDWLRQ DV D &DOLIRUQLDUHJXODWHG RU )HGHUDO 5HVRXUFH &RQVHUYDWLRQ DQG 5HFRYHU\ $FW
5&5$
KD]DUGRXV ZDVWH %DVHG RQ WKH
DQDO\WLFDOUHVXOWVQRIXUWKHUDVVHVVPHQWIRU2&3VDQGPHWDOVLVSUHVHQWO\UHFRPPHQGHG %$&.*5281',1)250$7,21
7KH 6LWH FRQVLVWV RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ DFUHV RI ODQG QRUWKHDVW RI WKH LQWHUVHFWLRQ RI 1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHDQG:HVW+HUQGRQ$YHQXH7KH6LWHLVORFDWHGRQDSRUWLRQRIRQHSDUFHORI ODQGLGHQWLILHGE\WKH)UHVQR&RXQW\$VVHVVRUDV$VVHVVRU¶V3DUFHO1XPEHU $31

7KH6LWHZDVXVHGDVDQRUFKDUGIURPDWOHDVW
WKURXJK

7KH6LWHKDVEHHQYDFDQWIURP
WRGDWH$QHOHFWULFDOWUDQVPLVVLRQOLQHKDVEHHQSUHVHQWH[WHQGLQJDFURVVWKH6LWHGLDJRQDOO\ IURPWKHQRUWKZHVWFRUQHUWRWKHHDVWHUQVLGHRIWKH6LWHVLQFHDWOHDVW 6WRFNSLOHVRIVRLODQG
GHEULVZHUHYLVLEOHRQWKH
DHULDOSKRWRJUDSK

$/+5 3DJHRI )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
./(,1)(/'(55LGJH5RXWH'ULYH6XLWH/DJXQD+LOOV&$ S_

I_

.OHLQIHOGHU¶VGUDIW3KDVH,(6$GDWHG-DQXDU\LGHQWLILHGWKHKLVWRULFDOXVHRIWKH6LWHDV DQRUFKDUGDVDUHFRJQL]HGHQYLURQPHQWDOFRQFHUQ
5(&
GXHWRWKHSRWHQWLDOSUHVHQFHRIDUVHQLF
DQGOHDGLQVXUIDFHVRLOVDVWKHVHPHWDOVZHUHRIWHQXVHGDVDSHVWLFLGHLQRUFKDUGV.OHLQIHOGHU¶V 3KDVH,(6$UHFRPPHQGHGD/LPLWHG3KDVH,,(6$WRDVVHVVWKHSUHVHQFHRIDUVHQLFOHDGDQG SHVWLFLGHVDQGDVVLVWLQZDVWHFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQGXULQJSURSRVHGFRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHV /,0,7('3+$6(,,(19,5210(17$/6,7($66(660(17
7KH/LPLWHG3KDVH,,(6$VFRSHLQFOXGHGWKHIROORZLQJ +HDOWKDQG6DIHW\3ODQ3UHSDUDWLRQ
3ULRUWRLQLWLDWLRQRIILHOGDFWLYLWLHV.OHLQIHOGHUSUHSDUHGD6LWH6SHFLILF+HDOWKDQG6DIHW\3ODQWKDW LQFOXGHV LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ SRVVLEOH FKHPLFDO KD]DUGV SK\VLFDO KD]DUGV PRQLWRULQJ HTXLSPHQWDQGFRQWLQJHQF\SODQVIRUHPHUJHQFLHVWKDWPD\DULVHGXULQJILHOGDFWLYLWLHV7KLVSODQ ZDVEDVHGRQWKHJHQHUDONQRZOHGJHRIFKHPLFDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIPDWHULDOVOLNHO\SUHVHQWRQWKH 6LWH %DVHG RQ HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQV DFWXDOO\ SUHVHQW /HYHO ' 3URWHFWLRQ ZLWK SHUVRQDO
SURWHFWLYH HTXLSPHQW LQFOXGLQJ JORYHV VWHHOWRH UXEEHU ERRWVKDUG KDW DQG H\H SURWHFWLRQ ZDV
DGHTXDWHIRUSHUIRUPLQJWKHILHOGDFWLYLWLHVGHVFULEHGKHUHLQ 6RLO6DPSOLQJ
,QWRWDO.OHLQIHOGHUFROOHFWHGVRLOVDPSOHVIURPORFDWLRQVGHVLJQDWHG66D EFDQG G WKURXJK66
D
E
FDQG
GDWWKH6LWH6RLOVDPSOHVZHUHFROOHFWHGIURPWKHXSSHUVL[LQFKHV RIVRLO.OHLQIHOGHUXVHGDKDQGWURZHOWRFOHDUWKHYHJHWDWLRQIURPHDFKVDPSOHORFDWLRQDQGWKHQ SDFNHGWKHODERUDWRU\SURYLGHGJODVVMDUVE\KDQG7KHJODVVMDUVZHUHWKHQODEHOHGZLWKSHUWLQHQW LQIRUPDWLRQDQGWKHQSURPSWO\SODFHGLQWRD
ZDWHU
LFHFKLOOHGFRROHUIRUWHPSRUDU\VWRUDJH
3ULRUWRWKHFROOHFWLRQRIHDFKVDPSOHWKHKDQGWURZHOZDVFOHDQHGE\ZDVKLQJLQDQRQSKRVSKDWH GHWHUJHQW
LH/LTXLQR[
DQGWDSZDWHUZDVKDQGWKHQULQVLQJLQGHLRQL]HGZDWHU /DERUDWRU\$QDO\VHV
7KH VRLO VDPSOHV ZHUH VXEPLWWHG WR $66(7 /DERUDWRULHV $66(7
D &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO
/DERUDWRU\ $FFUHGLWDWLRQ 3URJUDPDFFUHGLWHG ODERUDWRU\ IRU DQDO\VLV 6RLO VDPSOHV ZHUH FRPSRVLWHG LQWR QLQH SULPDU\ VRLO VDPSOHV
66 &20326,7(WKURXJK66
&20326,7(
SOXV
RQHGXSOLFDWHVDPSOH
66GXSOLFDWH&20326,7(
DWDIRXUWRRQHUDWLRDQGDQDO\]HGIRU2&3V
XVLQJ8QLWHG6WDWHV(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\
86(3$
0HWKRG$$GGLWLRQDOO\QLQH
SULPDU\ GLVFUHWH VRLO VDPSOHV
66#F WKURXJK 66
#
F
SOXV RQH GXSOLFDWH VDPSOH
66
GXSOLFDWH#G
FROOHFWHGIURPDFURVVWKH6LWHZHUHDQDO\]HGIRUDUVHQLFDQGOHDGXVLQJ86(3$ 0HWKRG%

.OHLQIHOGHU'5$)7 3KDVH,(QYLURQPHQWDO6LWH$VVHVVPHQW3URSRVHG&RVWFR:DUHKRXVHDQG *DV6WDWLRQ1(&RUQHURI1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHDQG:HVW+HUQGRQ$YHQXH)UHVQR)UHVQR&RXQW\ &DOLIRUQLD
1)UHVQR
5LYHUVLGH5HOR:
&:
-DQXDU\

$/+5 3DJHRI )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
./(,1)(/'(55LGJH5RXWH'ULYH6XLWH/DJXQD+LOOV&$ S_

I_

),(/'2%6(59$7,216$1'$1$/<7,&$/5(68/76
6RLO6DPSOLQJ$QDO\WLFDO5HVXOWV
$VXPPDU\RIWKHDQDO\WLFDOUHVXOWVIRUWKHVRLOVDPSOHVIROORZV
• $V 7DEOH LQGLFDWHV WHQ FRPSRVLWH VRLO VDPSOHV ZHUH DQDO\]HG IRU 2&3V LQFOXGLQJ D GXSOLFDWH FROOHFWHG RI WKH 66 &20326,7( VRLO VDPSOH 7KH 2&3V ¶GLFKORURGLSKHQ\OGLFKORURHWKHQH
¶''(
DOSKDFKORUGDQH FKORUGDQH DQG
JDPPDFKORUGDQH KDG FRQFHQWUDWLRQV UHSRUWHG DERYHPHWKRG GHWHFWLRQ OLPLWV 0'/
7KH
2&3V¶''(DQGJDPPDFKORUGDQHZHUHUHSRUWHGDWFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI-PLOOLJUDPV SHUNLORJUDP
PJNJ
DQG-PJNJUHVSHFWLYHO\LQWKH66&20326,7(VRLOVDPSOH 7KH ³-´ TXDOLILHU LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOW LV DERYH WKH 0'/ EXW EHORZ WKH ODERUDWRU\UHSRUWLQJOLPLWDQGLVDQHVWLPDWHGYDOXH7KH2&3VDOSKDFKORUGDQHFKORUGDQH DQG JDPPDFKORUGDQH ZHUH UHSRUWHG DW FRQFHQWUDWLRQV RI - PJNJ PJNJ DQG
PJNJ UHVSHFWLYHO\ LQ WKH 66 &20326,7( VRLO VDPSOH 2WKHU 2&3V ZHUH QRW SUHVHQWLQWKHVDPSOHVDWFRQFHQWUDWLRQVDWRUDERYHWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHUHSRUWLQJOLPLW • $V7DEOHLQGLFDWHVWHQGLVFUHWHVRLOVDPSOHVZHUHDQDO\]HGDUVHQLFDQGOHDGLQFOXGLQJD GXSOLFDWHRIWKH66#GVRLOVDPSOH$UVHQLFFRQFHQWUDWLRQVZHUHQRWSUHVHQWLQHDFKRI WKHVDPSOHVDWFRQFHQWUDWLRQVDWRUDERYHWKHLUUHVSHFWLYH0'//HDGFRQFHQWUDWLRQVZHUH GHWHFWHGLQHDFKVDPSOHDQDO\]HGDQGUDQJHGIURPPJNJWRPJNJ $66(7¶V ODERUDWRU\ UHSRUW RI LWV DQDO\VHV LV DWWDFKHG .OHLQIHOGHU¶V HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWVLVSURYLGHGLQWKHQH[WVHFWLRQRIWKLVUHSRUW (9$/8$7,212)$1$/<7,&$/5(68/76
7KH VRLO DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWV ZHUH FRPSDUHGWR 6DQ )UDQFLVFR %D\5HJLRQDO:DWHU 4XDOLW\ &RQWURO %RDUG
6)%5:4&%
7LHU (QYLURQPHQWDO 6FUHHQLQJ /HYHOV
(6/V
ODVW XSGDWHG LQ -XO\

7KH7LHU(6/VZHUHGHVLJQHGE\WKH6)%5:4&%WREHSURWHFWLYHIRUSURSHUWLHVZLWKXQUHVWULFWHG ODQGDQGZDWHUXVHDQGWKH\DGGUHVVPHGLDLQFOXGLQJVRLOJURXQGZDWHUDQGVRLOYDSRUDORQJZLWKD UDQJH RI FRQFHUQV LQFOXGLQJ GLUHFW H[SRVXUH KXPDQ KHDOWK ULVNV LPSDFW WR GULQNLQJ ZDWHU YDSRU LQWUXVLRQDQGLPSDFWWRWHUUHVWULDOKDELWDW8VHRIWKH7LHU(6/VDSSOLHVWKHPRVWFRQVHUYDWLYH(6/ IRU HDFK DQDO\WH RI FRQFHUQ,Q DGGLWLRQWR FRPSDULVRQZLWKWKH7LHU (6/VWKH UHVXOWVZHUH DOVR FRPSDUHGWRWKH6)%5:4&%¶VFRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDO(6/VXSGDWHGLQ-XO\
7KH VRLO DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWV ZHUH DOVR FRPSDUHG WR KXPDQKHDOWK ULVNEDVHG VFUHHQLQJ OHYHOV IRU FRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDO VRLO SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ 'HSDUWPHQW RI 7R[LF 6XEVWDQFHV &RQWURO
'76&
2IILFH RI +XPDQ DQG(FRORJLFDO 5LVN
+(52

+XPDQ+HDOWK5LVN$VVHVVPHQW
++5$
1RWH1XPEHUODVWXSGDWHGLQ-XQHIRUDQDO\WHV WKDW KDYH VXFK YDOXHV )RU WKRVH DQDO\WHV ZLWKRXW SXEOLVKHG '76& +(52 VFUHHQLQJ YDOXHV

'76&6/V
IRUVRLO.OHLQIHOGHUFRPSDUHGWKHPHDVXUHGFRQFHQWUDWLRQVLQWKHVRLOVDPSOHVWRWKH 86 (3$¶V 1RYHPEHU 5HJLRQDO 6FUHHQLQJ /HYHOV 56/V
IRU LQGXVWULDO VRLO
IRU +D]DUG
4XRWLHQWRI

$OVR LQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI FRQFHQWUDWLRQ WKUHVKROGV IRU &DOLIRUQLDUHJXODWHG DQG )HGHUDO 5&5$ KD]DUGRXVZDVWHVWKHUHSRUWHGFRQFHQWUDWLRQVZHUHFRPSDUHGWRWKHLUUHVSHFWLYH&DOLIRUQLD&RGH RI5HJXODWLRQV
&&5
7LWOH7RWDO7KUHVKROG/LPLW&RQFHQWUDWLRQ
77/&
YDOXHLIDQFRQVWLWXHQW
KDV D SXEOLVKHG 77/& $OVR WR DVVHVV ZKHWKHU VROXEOH DQDO\VLV ZDV ZDUUDQWHG WKH UHSRUWHG FRQFHQWUDWLRQVZHUHFRPSDUHGWRWLPHVWKHJLYHQFRQVWLWXHQW¶V&&57LWOH6ROXEOH7KUHVKROG /LPLW &RQFHQWUDWLRQ
67/&
DQG WLPHV LWV )HGHUDO 7R[LFLW\ &KDUDFWHULVWLFV /HDFKLQJ 3RWHQWLDO
$/+5 3DJHRI )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
./(,1)(/'(55LGJH5RXWH'ULYH6XLWH/DJXQD+LOOV&$ S_

I_

7&/3
WKUHVKROGV LI WKH FRQVWLWXHQW KDV VXFK SXEOLVKHG YDOXHV DV SUHYLRXVO\ GLVFXVVHG
7KH
VROXEOH UHVXOWVZHUH FRPSDUHGWRWKH UHVSHFWLYH67/&RU7&/3WKUHVKROG DVDSSOLFDEOH
7KHVH
DSSOLFDEOHVFUHHQLQJYDOXHVDUHLQFOXGHGLQ7DEOHVDQG $V7DEOHLQGLFDWHVWKH2&3V¶''(DOSKDFKORUGDQHFKORUGDQHDQGJDPPDFKORUGDQHKDG FRQFHQWUDWLRQV UHSRUWHG DERYH0'/V LQ RQH RUWZR RIWKH FRPSRVLWH VRLO VDPSOHV 7KH UHSRUWHG FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI ¶''( GLG QRW H[FHHG WKH 7LHU RU FRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDO VRLO (6/V FRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDOVRLO'76&6/LQGXVWULDOVRLO56/RUWKH77/&IRU¶''($OSKDFKORUGDQH DQG JDPPDFKORUGDQH GR QRW KDYH LQGLYLGXDO VFUHHQLQJ OHYHOV KRZHYHU ZKHQ DOSKDFKORUGDQH
DQGJDPPDFKORUGDQHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVZHUHDGGHGWRJHWKHUZLWKFKORUGDQH DVDGGLWLYHFKORUGDQH

LVRPHUV
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
0'/ GRHV QRW H[FHHGWKH LQGXVWULDO 56/ 7KH'76& DQG6)%5:4&% KDYH DFNQRZOHGJHGWKDW QDWXUDOO\RFFXUULQJ
LH EDFNJURXQG
OHYHOV RI DUVHQLF LQ &DOLIRUQLD VRLOV FRPPRQO\ H[FHHG VRLO ULVNEDVHG VFUHHQLQJ OHYHOV IRU DUVHQLF
7KH0'/ IRU DUVHQLF LV WZR RUGHUV RIPDJQLWXGH EHORZ QDWXUDOO\RFFXUULQJEDFNJURXQGDUVHQLFOHYHOV7KHUHIRUHLWLV.OHLQIHOGHU¶VRSLQLRQWKDWWKH0'/LV VXIILFLHQWO\ORZDQGWKDWDUVHQLFLVQRWDFRQFHUQIRUWKH6LWH $V DOVR LQGLFDWHG LQ 7DEOH DUVHQLF DQG OHDG FRQFHQWUDWLRQV GLG QRW H[FHHG WKH JLYHQ PHWDO¶V 77/&WLPHVWKH67/&RUWLPHVWKH77/&%DVHGRQWKHDQDO\WLFDOUHVXOWVVRLOZDVWHZRXOG EHFRQVLGHUHGQRQKD]DUGRXV7KHUHIRUHQRIXUWKHUDVVHVVPHQWLVUHFRPPHQGHG &21&/86,216$1'5(&200(1'$7,216
.OHLQIHOGHU¶VILHOGREVHUYDWLRQVDQGHYDOXDWLRQVRIWKHDQDO\WLFDOUHVXOWVRIWKHVDPSOHVFROOHFWHG DQGDQDO\]HGGXULQJWKLV/LPLWHG3KDVH,,(6$KDYHUHYHDOHGWKHIROORZLQJ
• 7KH UHSRUWHG 2&3 FRQFHQWUDWLRQV GR QRW H[FHHG WKH FRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDO (6/V '76&6/VDQG56/VIRUVRLO&KORUGDQHLQRQHFRPSRVLWHVRLOVDPSOHH[FHHGVWKH7LHU (6/IRUWHUUHVWULDOKDELWDWZKLFKLVQRWGLUHFWO\DSSOLFDEOHWRWKHFRPPHUFLDOGHYHORSPHQWRI WKH6LWH
• $UVHQLFZDVQRWGHWHFWHGDERYHWKHODERUDWRU\0'/V • 5HSRUWHGOHDGFRQFHQWUDWLRQVLQWKHVRLOVDPSOHVGLGQRWH[FHHGLWVUHVSHFWLYH7LHU(6/ RUFRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDO(6/V'76&6/VRU56/V

%UDGIRUG*5&KDQJ$&3DJH$/%DNKWDU')UDPSWRQ-$:ULJKW+

%DFNJURXQG&RQFHQWUDWLRQV
RI7UDFH0HWDOVDQG0DMRU(OHPHQWVLQ&DOLIRUQLD6RLOV.HDUQH\)RXQGDWLRQRI6RLO6FLHQFH'LYLVLRQ RI$JULFXOWXUHDQG1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD0DUFK

$/+5 3DJHRI )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
./(,1)(/'(55LGJH5RXWH'ULYH6XLWH/DJXQD+LOOV&$ S_

I_

• .OHLQIHOGHUXQGHUVWDQGVWKH6LWHDUHDVDPSOHGZLOOEHGHYHORSHGE\&RVWFRDVDSDUNLQJORW %DVHG RQWKH DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWV QRIXUWKHU DVVHVVPHQWIRU2&3V DQGPHWDOV LV SUHVHQWO\ UHFRPPHQGHG
/,0,7$7,216
.OHLQIHOGHU SHUIRUPHG WKLV DVVHVVPHQW DQG SUHSDUHG WKLV UHSRUW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG VWDQGDUGV RI FDUHWKDW H[LVW LQ &DOLIRUQLD DWWKLVWLPH 7KLV UHSRUWPD\ EH XVHG RQO\ E\ &RVWFR DQG RQO\ IRU WKH SXUSRVHV VWDWHG ZLWKLQ D UHDVRQDEOH WLPH IURP LWV LVVXDQFH EXW LQ QR HYHQW ODWHU WKDQ \HDUV IURP WKH GDWH RI WKH UHSRUW $OO LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHUHG E\ .OHLQIHOGHU LV FRQVLGHUHG FRQILGHQWLDO DQG ZLOO EH UHOHDVHG RQO\ XSRQ ZULWWHQ DXWKRUL]DWLRQ RI &RVWFR RU DV UHTXLUHG E\ ODZ 1RQFRPSOLDQFH ZLWK DQ\ RI WKHVH UHTXLUHPHQWV E\ &RVWFR XQOHVV VSHFLILFDOO\ DJUHHGWR LQ DGYDQFH E\ .OHLQIHOGHU LQ ZULWLQJ ZLOO UHOHDVH .OHLQIHOGHUIURP DQ\ OLDELOLW\ UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKH XVH RI WKLV UHSRUW E\ DQ\ XQDXWKRUL]HG SDUW\ EXW RQO\ WR WKH H[WHQW RI DQ\ VXFK QRQFRPSOLDQFH E\ &RVWFR )XUWKHU OLPLWDWLRQV DSSOLFDEOH KHUHWR PD\ EH VHW IRUWK LQ &RVWFR¶V ZULWWHQDJUHHPHQWZLWK.OHLQIHOGHUFRYHULQJWKHZRUNSHUIRUPHGKHUHLQ .OHLQIHOGHU¶V SURIHVVLRQDO RSLQLRQV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DUH EDVHG RQ D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RIILHOG REVHUYDWLRQV DQG WHVWV GHVLJQHG FROOHFWHG DQG SHUIRUPHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG HQJLQHHULQJ SUDFWLFH WKDW H[LVWV DW WKH WLPH &RQVHTXHQWO\ QR ZDUUDQW\ RU JXDUDQWHH H[SUHVVHGRULPSOLHGLVLQWHQGHGRUPDGH
&/26,1*5(0$5.6
7KDQN \RX IRU WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH .OHLQIHOGHU¶V SURIHVVLRQDO HQYLURQPHQWDO VHUYLFHV WR &RVWFR.OHLQIHOGHUORRNVIRUZDUGWRIXWXUHZRUNZLWK\RXRQRWKHUSURMHFWV3OHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFDOO WKHXQGHUVLJQHGVKRXOG\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQV
6LQFHUHO\
./(,1)(/'(5,1&
/LQGVH\'DQGULGJH3HUU\ /L]DQQH6LPPRQV3*
3URMHFW3URIHVVLRQDO 6HQLRU3ULQFLSDO*HRORJLVW FF
$QG\)UDQNV.OHLQIHOGHU
3DROR'L]RQ.OHLQIHOGHU
$WWDFKPHQWV
)LJXUH
±6DPSOH/RFDWLRQ0DS
7DEOHV
±6RLO$QDO\WLFDO5HVXOWV6XPPDU\±2UJDQRFKORULQH3HVWLFLGHV ±6RLO$QDO\WLFDO5HVXOWV6XPPDU\±$UVHQLFDQG/HDG $QDO\WLFDO/DERUDWRU\5HSRUW

$/+5 )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
),*85(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(

NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE

WEST HERNDON AVENUE
9d
2b
2d
5c
7d
5d
5a
9a
2c
8d
7c
3c
3b
6c
1a
4c
6d
1d
4d
5b
1c
6a
8b
4b
7a 7b
4a
3d
8c
1b
8a
3a
9b
6b
2a
9c
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. 0 100 200
Feet
Aerial: ESRI World Imagery, Maxar
Metro 5/10/2020.

Locations are Approximate £
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
1 DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PhaseII_Fig1.mxd
KFH
PLOTTED: 2/26/2021 11:32:40 AM, KHagan
Explanation
!( Sampling Location
Approximate Site
Boundary
LDP

LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED COSTCO WAREHOUSE AND GAS STATION

NE CORNER OF NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE

AND WEST HERNDON AVENUE
FRESNO, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 93722
N FRESNO (RIVERSIDE-RELO W031) CW20-0569
FILE: L:\2021\20211904.001A - CSM Costco Carson CA ENV\2.0 Technical Information\2.8 GIS 20212904
FEB 2021

LAGUNA HILLS, CA

$/+5 )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
7$%/(6
7DEOH
6RLO$QDO\WLFDO5HVXOWV6XPPDU\±2UJDQRFKORULQH3HVWLFLGHV 3URSRVHG&RVWFR:DUHKRXVHDQG*DV6WDWLRQ
1RUWKHDVW&RUQHURI1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHDQG:HVW+HUQGRQ$YHQXH )UHVQR&DOLIRUQLD

'''
''(
''7
DOSKD
&KORUGDQH &KORUGDQH
JDPPD
&KORUGDQH 2WKHU2&3V
ђJNJ ђJNJ ђJNJ ђJNJ ђJNJ ђJNJ ђJNJ
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' - 1' 1' 1' - 1' 1' 1' 1'
- 1'
1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19
19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19

19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19

19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19
19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19
19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19
19 19 19 19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19
[67/& 19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19 [7&/3 19 19 19 19 19 9DU\E\DQDO\WHRU19
1RWHV

''' 'LFKORURGLSKHQ\OGLFKORURHWKDQH
''( 'LFKORURGLSKHQ\OGLFKORURHWKHQH
''7 'LFKORURGLSKHQ\OWULFKORURHWKDQH
2&3V 2UJDQRFKORULQHSHVWLFLGHVDQDO\]HGXVLQJ86(3$0HWKRG ђJNJ 0LFURJUDPVSHUNLORJUDP
J/ 0LFURJUDPVSHUOLWHU
$ 8QLWHG6WDWHV(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\
86(3$
DQDO\WLFDOPHWKRGQXPEHU
1'; 1RWGHWHFWHGDWDFRQFHQWUDWLRQDWRUDERYHWKHODERUDWRU\PHWKRGGHWHFWLRQOLPLWZKLFKIROORZVWKHOHVVWKDQV\PERO

19 $QDO\WHKDVQRSXEOLVKHGYDOXH
(6/ 6DQ)UDQFLVFR%D\5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG(QYLURQPHQWDO6FUHHQLQJ/HYHOIRUVKDOORZVRLOV -XO\

'76&6/ 'HSDUWPHQWRI7R[LF6XEVWDQFHV&RQWUROUHFRPPHQGHGPRGLILHGVFUHHQLQJOHYHOIRUFRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDOVRLO -XQH

56/ 86(3$5HJLRQDO6FUHHQLQJ/HYHOIRULQGXVWULDOVRLO 1RYHPEHU

77/& &DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH7RWDO7KUHVKROG/LPLW&RQFHQWUDWLRQ 67/& &DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH6ROXEOH7KUHVKROG/LPLW&RQFHQWUDWLRQ 7&/3 )HGHUDO7R[LFLW\&KDUDFWHULVWLF/HDFKLQJ3URFHGXUH 67/&
J/

7&/3
J/

(6/&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO
'76&6/&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO
56/,QGXVWULDO
'DWH
6DPSOHG
(6/7LHU
77/&
ђJNJ

66&20326,7(
66&20326,7(
66&20326,7(
6DPSOH
66&20326,7(
66
&20326,7(
66&20326,7(
66&20326,7(
66&20326,7(
66GXSOLFDWH&20326,7(
66&20326,7(

$$/+5
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
3DJHRI )HEUXDU\
7DEOH
6RLO$QDO\WLFDO5HVXOWV6XPPDU\±$UVHQLFDQG/HDG
3URSRVHG&RVWFR:DUHKRXVHDQG*DV6WDWLRQ
1RUWKHDVW&RUQHURI1RUWK5LYHUVLGH'ULYHDQG:HVW+HUQGRQ$YHQXH )UHVQR&DOLIRUQLD

$UVHQLF /HDG

PJNJ

% %
66#F 1'
66#G 1'
66#E 1'
66#G 1'
66#D 1'
66#D 1'
66#G 1'
66GXSOLFDWH#G 1'
66#E 1'
66
#
F 1'

[67/&
[7&/3
1RWHV

PJNJ 0LOOLJUDPVSHUNLORJUDP
PJ/ 0LOOLJUDPVSHUOLWHU
% 8QLWHG6WDWHV(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\
86(3$
1'; 1RWSUHVHQWDWDFRQFHQWUDWLRQDWRUDERYHWKHPHWKRGGH (6/ 6DQ)UDQFLVFR%D\5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG '76&6/ 'HSDUWPHQWRI7R[LF6XEVWDQFHV&RQWUROUHFRPPHQGHGV 56/ 86(3$5HJLRQDO6FUHHQLQJ/HYHOIRULQGXVWULDOVRLO 1RY
77/& &DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH7RWDO7KUHVKROG/ 67/& &DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH6ROXEOH7KUHVKROG 7&/3 )HGHUDO7R[LFLW\&KDUDFWHULVWLF/HDFKLQJ3URFHGXUH 7&/3
PJ/

'76&6/&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO
6DPSOH 'DWH6DPSOHG
(6/&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO
56/,QGXVWULDO
77/&
67/&
PJ/

(6/7LHU

$/+5
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
3DJHRI )HEUXDU\

$/+5 )HEUXDU\
&RS\ULJKW.OHLQIHOGHU
$1$/<7,&$//$%25$725<5(32576
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
February 18, 2021
Kleinfelder
Lindsey Dandridge-Perry
Attention: Lindsey Dandridge-Perry
RE: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
FAX: Workorder No.: N044190
TEL: (949) 585-3133
24411 Ridge Route Dr. #225
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Thank you for the opportunity to service the needs of your company.

Please feel free to call me at (562) 219-7435 if I can be of further assistance to your company.

Sincerely,
Andrew Garaniel
Laboratory Director
Enclosed are the results for sample(s) received on February 16, 2021 by ASSET Laboratories. The sample(s) are tested for the parameters as indicated in the enclosed chain of custody in accordance with the applicable laboratory certifications.

The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report. This Laboratory Report cannot be reproduced in part or in its entirety without written permission from the client and ASSET Laboratories - California. 1 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
ASSET Laboratories Date: 18-Feb-21
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190

CASE NARRATIVE
SAMPLE RECEIVING/GENERAL COMMENTS:

All sample containers were received intact with proper chain of custody documentation.

Information on sample receipt conditions including discrepancies can be found in attached Sample Receipt Checklist Form.

Cooler temperature and sample preservation were verified upon receipt of samples if applicable.

Samples were analyzed within method holding time.

Results were J-Flag. "J" is used to flag those results that are between the PQL (Practical Quantitation Limit) and the calculated MDL (Method Detection Limit). Results that are "J" Flagged are estimated values since it becomes difficult to accurately quantitate the analyte near the MDL.

Analytical comments for EPA 8081A:

RPD for Matrix Spike (MS)/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) is outside criteria on analyte 4,4´-DDT; however, the analytical batch was validated by the Laboratory Control Sample (LCS). 2 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
ASSET Laboratories Date: 18-Feb-21
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Work Order Sample Summary
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Collection Date Matrix Date Received Contract No:

Date Reported
N044190-001A SS-1a 2/16/2021 8:05:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-002A SS-1b 2/16/2021 8:15:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-003A SS-1c 2/16/2021 8:10:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-004A SS-1d 2/16/2021 8:20:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-005A SS-1 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-006A SS-2a 2/16/2021 8:30:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-007A SS-2b 2/16/2021 8:35:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-008A SS-2c 2/16/2021 8:50:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-009A SS-2d 2/16/2021 8:40:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-010A SS-2 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-011A SS-3a 2/16/2021 9:55:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-012A SS-3b 2/16/2021 9:45:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-013A SS-3c 2/16/2021 10:00:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-014A SS-3d 2/16/2021 9:40:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-015A SS-3 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-016A SS-4a 2/16/2021 9:00:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-017A SS-4b 2/16/2021 9:07:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-018A SS-4c 2/16/2021 9:25:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-019A SS-4d 2/16/2021 9:15:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-020A SS-4 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-021A SS-5a 2/16/2021 12:00:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-022A SS-5b 2/16/2021 12:20:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-023A SS-5c 2/16/2021 12:10:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-024A SS-5d 2/16/2021 12:15:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-025A SS-5 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-026A SS-6a 2/16/2021 12:25:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-027A SS-6b 2/16/2021 12:35:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-028A SS-6c 2/16/2021 12:45:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-029A SS-6d 2/16/2021 12:40:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil 3 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Work Order Sample Summary
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Collection Date Matrix Date Received Contract No:

Date Reported
N044190-030A SS-6 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-031A SS-7a 2/16/2021 2:10:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-032A SS-7b 2/16/2021 1:55:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-033A SS-7c 2/16/2021 2:25:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-034A SS-7d 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-035A SS-7 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-036A SS-7a duplicate 2/16/2021 2:15:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-037A SS-7b duplicate 2/16/2021 2:00:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-038A SS-7c duplicate 2/16/2021 2:30:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-039A SS-7d duplicate 2/16/2021 1:35:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-040A SS-7 duplicate COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-041A SS-8a 2/16/2021 12:50:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-042A SS-8b 2/16/2021 12:55:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-043A SS-8c 2/16/2021 1:10:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-044A SS-8d 2/16/2021 1:05:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-045A SS-8 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-046A SS-9a 2/16/2021 2:40:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-047A SS-9b 2/16/2021 2:45:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-048A SS-9c 2/16/2021 2:55:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-049A SS-9d 2/16/2021 3:05:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-050A SS-9 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-051A SS-01@1c 2/16/2021 8:12:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-052A SS-02@2d 2/16/2021 8:43:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-053A SS-03@3b 2/16/2021 9:50:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-054A SS-04@4d 2/16/2021 9:20:00 AM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-055A SS-05@5a 2/16/2021 12:05:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-056A SS-06@6a 2/16/2021 12:30:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-057A SS-07@7d 2/16/2021 1:40:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-058A SS-07 duplicate@7d 2/16/2021 1:45:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil N044190-059A SS-08@8b 2/16/2021 1:00:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil 4 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Work Order Sample Summary
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Collection Date Matrix Date Received Contract No:

Date Reported
N044190-060A SS-09@9c 2/16/2021 3:00:00 PM 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 Soil 5 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-1 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-005
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.68 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 02:31 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.49 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 02:31 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.28 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 15 2/17/2021 02:31 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 49.9 0 2/17/2021 02:31 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 56.0 0 2/17/2021 02:31 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 6 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-2 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-010
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.67 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 0.35 0.35 2/17/2021 02:57 PM 2.0 J μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 02:57 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.34 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.48 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 02:57 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 0.32 0.28 2/17/2021 02:57 PM 1.0 J μg/Kg 1 Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 14 2/17/2021 02:57 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 52.6 0 2/17/2021 02:57 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 54.7 0 2/17/2021 02:57 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 7 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-3 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-015
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.67 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 03:22 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 0.96 0.52 2/17/2021 03:22 PM 1.0 J μg/Kg 1 beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 12 2.4 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.49 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 03:22 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 1.2 0.28 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1 Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 15 2/17/2021 03:22 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 53.7 0 2/17/2021 03:22 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 51.5 0 2/17/2021 03:22 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 8 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-4 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-020
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.68 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 04:20 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.49 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 04:20 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.28 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 15 2/17/2021 04:20 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 57.1 0 2/17/2021 04:20 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 58.9 0 2/17/2021 04:20 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 9 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-5 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-025
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.68 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 04:46 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.49 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 04:46 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.28 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 15 2/17/2021 04:46 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 61.0 0 2/17/2021 04:46 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 55.0 0 2/17/2021 04:46 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 10 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-6 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-030
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.67 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 05:12 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.34 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.48 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 05:12 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.28 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 14 2/17/2021 05:12 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 70.6 0 2/17/2021 05:12 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 56.6 0 2/17/2021 05:12 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 11 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-7 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-035
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.68 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 05:37 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.49 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 05:37 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.28 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 15 2/17/2021 05:37 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 41.7 0 2/17/2021 05:37 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 49.5 0 2/17/2021 05:37 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 12 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-7 duplicate COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-040
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.67 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 06:03 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.34 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.48 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 06:03 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 14 2/17/2021 06:03 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 53.3 0 2/17/2021 06:03 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 53.0 0 2/17/2021 06:03 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 13 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-8 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-045
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.67 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 06:29 PM 0.99 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 0.99 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 0.99 ND 0.51 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1 beta-BHC 0.99 ND 0.34 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.4 ND 2.3 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 0.99 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 0.99 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.48 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 06:29 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 0.99 ND 0.23 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 0.99 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1 Heptachlor 0.99 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 0.99 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.4 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 84 ND 14 2/17/2021 06:29 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 51.7 0 2/17/2021 06:29 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 52.0 0 2/17/2021 06:29 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 14 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-9 COMPOSITE
Collection Date: 2/16/2021
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-050
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY GC/ECD
EPA 8081A
Analyst: YG
EPA 3546
RunID: NV00922-GC7_210217A 85282 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND 0.67 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND 0.35 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Aldrin ND 0.28 2/17/2021 06:55 PM 1.0 μg/Kg 1
alpha-BHC 1.0 ND 0.43 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
alpha-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.52 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
beta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.34 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Chlordane 8.5 ND 2.4 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
delta-BHC 1.0 ND 0.45 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Dieldrin 2.0 ND 0.44 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan I 1.0 ND 0.30 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan II 2.0 ND 0.61 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Endosulfan sulfate 2.0 ND 0.48 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1 Endrin ND 1.0 2/17/2021 06:55 PM 2.0 μg/Kg 1
Endrin aldehyde 2.0 ND 0.90 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Endrin ketone 2.0 ND 0.58 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-BHC 1.0 ND 0.24 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
gamma-Chlordane 1.0 ND 0.28 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor 1.0 ND 0.60 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0 ND 0.27 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1 Methoxychlor 8.5 ND 2.8 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Toxaphene 85 ND 14 2/17/2021 06:55 PM μg/Kg 1
Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 32-100 %REC 55.5 0 2/17/2021 06:55 PM 1 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 26-104 %REC 55.3 0 2/17/2021 06:55 PM 1 Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 15 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-01@1c
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 8:12:00 AM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-051
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 03:25 PM 1
Lead 5.8 0.30 2/17/2021 03:25 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 16 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-02@2d
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 8:43:00 AM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-052
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 03:54 PM 1
Lead 5.5 0.29 2/17/2021 03:54 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 17 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-03@3b
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 9:50:00 AM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-053
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:10 PM 1
Lead 6.1 0.29 2/17/2021 04:10 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 18 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-04@4d
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 9:20:00 AM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-054
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:16 PM 1
Lead 5.8 0.30 2/17/2021 04:16 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 19 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-05@5a
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 12:05:00 PM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-055
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:22 PM 1
Lead 4.4 0.30 2/17/2021 04:22 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 20 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-06@6a
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 12:30:00 PM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-056
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:28 PM 1
Lead 6.1 0.29 2/17/2021 04:28 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 21 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-07@7d
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 1:40:00 PM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-057
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:34 PM 1
Lead 5.6 0.29 2/17/2021 04:34 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 22 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-07 duplicate@7d
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 1:45:00 PM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-058
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:40 PM 1
Lead 5.6 0.30 2/17/2021 04:40 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 23 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-08@8b
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 1:00:00 PM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-059
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:46 PM 1
Lead 5.6 0.29 2/17/2021 04:46 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 24 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03
Client Sample ID: SS-09@9c
Collection Date: 2/16/2021 3:00:00 PM
Matrix: SOIL
CLIENT: Kleinfelder
Lab Order: N044190
Lab ID: N044190-060
ASSET Laboratories Print Date: 18-Feb-21
Analyses Result Qual Units Date Analyzed MDL PQL DF

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TOTAL METALS BY ICP
EPA 6010B
Analyst: CEI
EPA 3050B
RunID: NV00922-ICP2_210217A 85278 QC Batch: PrepDate: 2/17/2021 Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg ND 0.54 2/17/2021 04:52 PM 1
Lead 7.4 0.30 2/17/2021 04:52 PM 1.0 mg/Kg 1
Qualifiers: B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference Results are wet unless otherwise specified DO Surrogate Diluted Out 25 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
ASSET Laboratories Date: 18-Feb-21Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03CLIENT: KleinfelderWork Order: N044190 ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: 6010_S
Sample ID: MB-85278
Batch ID: 85278 TestNo: EPA 6010B Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: mg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: PBS
RunNo: 150787
SeqNo: 4109732
SampType: TestCode: MBLK 6010_S
EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.0 ND
Lead 1.0 NDSample ID: LCS-85278
Batch ID: 85278 TestNo: EPA 6010B Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: mg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: LCSS
RunNo: 150787
SeqNo: 4109733
SampType: TestCode: LCS 6010_S
EPA 3050B
Arsenic 24.689 1.0 25.00 98.8 80 120 0
Lead 24.862 1.0 25.00 99.4 80 120 0Sample ID: N044190-051A-MS Batch ID: 85278 TestNo: EPA 6010B Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: mg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: ZZZZZZ
RunNo: 150787
SeqNo: 4109739
SampType: TestCode: MS 6010_S
EPA 3050B
Arsenic 20.524 1.0 24.95 82.3 75 125 0
Lead 28.025 1.0 24.95 89.2 75 125 5.759Sample ID: N044190-051A-MSD Batch ID: 85278 TestNo: EPA 6010B Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: mg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: ZZZZZZ
RunNo: 150787
SeqNo: 4109740
SampType: TestCode: MSD 6010_S
EPA 3050B
Arsenic 20.936 1.0 24.99 83.8 75 125 20 0 20.52 1.99
Lead 28.099 1.0 24.99 89.4 75 125 20 5.759 28.03 0.263
Qualifiers:

B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference DO Surrogate Diluted Out Calculations are based on raw values 26 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03CLIENT: KleinfelderWork Order: N044190 ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: 8081SOIL_M
Sample ID: LCS-85282
Batch ID: 85282 TestNo: EPA 8081A Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: μg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: LCSS
RunNo: 150789
SeqNo: 4109834
SampType: TestCode: LCS 8081SOIL_M
EPA 3546
4,4´-DDD 14.537 2.0 16.67 87.2 35 117 0
4,4´-DDE 13.668 2.0 16.67 82.0 44 118 04,4´-DDT 12.995 2.0 16.67 78.0 37 114 0Aldrin 12.940 1.0 16.67 77.6 35 128 0alpha-BHC 13.457 1.0 16.67 80.7 38 123 0alpha-Chlordane 16.67 78.3 39 118 13.052 1.0 0beta-BHC 11.995 1.0 16.67 72.0 34 109 0delta-BHC 13.075 1.0 16.67 78.4 40 107 0Dieldrin 14.103 2.0 16.67 84.6 39 129 0Endosulfan I 13.233 1.0 16.67 79.4 39 118 0Endosulfan II 13.890 2.0 16.67 83.3 34 139 0Endosulfan sulfate 16.67 92.4 49 114 15.410 2.0 0Endrin 15.153 2.0 16.67 90.9 47 130 0Endrin aldehyde 16.67 82.4 42 116 13.730 2.0 0Endrin ketone 16.67 96.1 43 114 16.018 2.0 0gamma-BHC 13.625 1.0 16.67 81.7 35 124 0gamma-Chlordane 16.67 79.9 33 117 13.315 1.0 0Heptachlor 13.233 1.0 16.67 79.4 44 126 0Heptachlor epoxide 16.67 76.8 37 118 12.807 1.0 0Methoxychlor 14.528 8.5 16.67 87.2 49 121 0 Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 16.67 70.0 32 100 11.668
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 16.67 79.8 26 104 13.297
Sample ID: MB-85282
Batch ID: 85282 TestNo: EPA 8081A Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: μg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: PBS
RunNo: 150789
SeqNo: 4109835
SampType: TestCode: MBLK 8081SOIL_M
EPA 3546
4,4´-DDD 2.0 ND
4,4´-DDE 2.0 ND4,4´-DDT 2.0 ND
Qualifiers:

B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference DO Surrogate Diluted Out Calculations are based on raw values 27 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03CLIENT: KleinfelderWork Order: N044190 ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: 8081SOIL_M
Sample ID: MB-85282
Batch ID: 85282 TestNo: EPA 8081A Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: μg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: PBS
RunNo: 150789
SeqNo: 4109835
SampType: TestCode: MBLK 8081SOIL_M
EPA 3546
Aldrin 1.0 ND
alpha-BHC 1.0 NDalpha-Chlordane 1.0 NDbeta-BHC 1.0 NDChlordane 8.5 NDdelta-BHC 1.0 NDDieldrin 2.0 NDEndosulfan I 1.0 NDEndosulfan II 2.0 NDEndosulfan sulfate 2.0 NDEndrin 2.0 NDEndrin aldehyde 2.0 NDEndrin ketone 2.0 NDgamma-BHC 1.0 NDgamma-Chlordane 1.0 NDHeptachlor 1.0 NDHeptachlor epoxide 1.0 NDMethoxychlor 8.5 NDToxaphene 85 ND Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 16.67 67.0 32 100 11.177
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 16.67 75.7 26 104 12.612
Sample ID: N044190-005A-MS
Batch ID: 85282 TestNo: EPA 8081A Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Units: μg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: ZZZZZZ
RunNo: 150789
SeqNo: 4109847
SampType: TestCode: MS 8081SOIL_M
EPA 3546
4,4´-DDD 11.275 2.0 16.63 67.8 33 104 0
4,4´-DDE 9.096 2.0 16.63 54.7 27 104 0
4,4´-DDT 3.537 2.0 16.63 21.3 16 103 0Aldrin 8.512 1.0 16.63 51.2 27 101 0 Qualifiers:

B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference DO Surrogate Diluted Out Calculations are based on raw values 28 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03CLIENT: KleinfelderWork Order: N044190 ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: 8081SOIL_M
Sample ID: N044190-005A-MS
Batch ID: 85282 TestNo: EPA 8081A Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: μg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: ZZZZZZ
RunNo: 150789
SeqNo: 4109847
SampType: TestCode: MS 8081SOIL_M
EPA 3546
alpha-BHC 8.928 1.0 16.63 53.7 30 100 0
alpha-Chlordane 16.63 51.1 32 100 8.504 1.0 0beta-BHC 8.170 1.0 16.63 49.1 24 100 0delta-BHC 8.871 1.0 16.63 53.4 32 100 0Dieldrin 9.234 2.0 16.63 55.5 30 100 0Endosulfan I 8.529 1.0 16.63 51.3 26 100 0Endosulfan II 8.936 2.0 16.63 53.7 26 100 0Endosulfan sulfate 16.63 58.1 26 100 9.663 2.0 0Endrin 9.771 2.0 16.63 58.8 37 102 0Endrin aldehyde 16.63 46.8 15 100 7.779 2.0 0Endrin ketone 16.63 50.5 19 100 8.399 2.0 0gamma-BHC 8.890 1.0 16.63 53.5 30 100 0gamma-Chlordane 16.63 53.8 24 102 8.946 1.0 0Heptachlor 7.743 1.0 16.63 46.6 30 106 0Heptachlor epoxide 16.63 51.5 28 100 8.559 1.0 0Methoxychlor 5.623 8.5 16.63 33.8 21 122 J 0 Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 16.63 48.3 32 100 8.037
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 16.63 52.2 26 104 8.684
Sample ID: N044190-005A-MSD
Batch ID: 85282 TestNo: EPA 8081A Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: μg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: ZZZZZZ
RunNo: 150789
SeqNo: 4109848
SampType: TestCode: MSD 8081SOIL_M
EPA 3546
4,4´-DDD 10.603 2.0 16.65 63.7 33 104 20 0 11.27 6.15
4,4´-DDE 8.783 2.0 16.65 52.8 27 104 20 0 9.096 3.50
4,4´-DDT 4.897 2.0 16.65 29.4 16 103 20 R 0 3.537 32.2Aldrin 8.261 1.0 16.65 49.6 27 101 20 0 8.512 3.00alpha-BHC 8.407 1.0 16.65 50.5 30 100 20 0 8.928 6.01alpha-Chlordane 16.65 50.0 32 100 20 8.319 1.0 0 8.504 2.20beta-BHC 7.818 1.0 16.65 47.0 24 100 20 0 8.170 4.40 Qualifiers:

B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike/Surrogate outside of limits due to matrix interference DO Surrogate Diluted Out Calculations are based on raw values 29 of 30
NEVADA|P:702.307.2659 F:702.307.2691
3151 W. Post Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89118
ELAP Cert 2676 | NV Cert NV00922
“Serving Clients with Passion and Professionalism” ORELAP/NELAP Cert 4046 CALIFORNIA|P:562.219.7435 F:562.219.7436
11110 Artesia Blvd., Ste B, Cerritos, CA 90703
ELAP Cert 2921
EPA ID CA01638
Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03CLIENT: KleinfelderWork Order: N044190 ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: 8081SOIL_M
Sample ID: N044190-005A-MSD
Batch ID: 85282 TestNo: EPA 8081A Analysis Date: 2/17/2021 Prep Date: 2/17/2021
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPD LowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual Units: μg/Kg
PQL
Client ID: ZZZZZZ
RunNo: 150789
SeqNo: 4109848
SampType: TestCode: MSD 8081SOIL_M
EPA 3546
delta-BHC 8.499 1.0 16.65 51.0 32 100 20 0 8.871 4.29
Dieldrin 8.648 2.0 16.65 51.9 30 100 20 0 9.234 6.55Endosulfan I 8.620 1.0 16.65 51.8 26 100 20 0 8.529 1.06Endosulfan II 8.830 2.0 16.65 53.0 26 100 20 0 8.936 1.20Endosulfan sulfate 16.65 54.3 26 100 20 9.033 2.0 0 9.663 6.74Endrin 9.516 2.0 16.65 57.2 37 102 20 0 9.771 2.64Endrin aldehyde 16.65 41.5 15 100 20 6.901 2.0 0 7.779 12.0Endrin ketone 16.65 48.2 19 100 20 8.021 2.0 0 8.399 4.61gamma-BHC 8.555 1.0 16.65 51.4 30 100 20 0 8.890 3.83gamma-Chlordane 16.65 52.2 24 102 20 8.695 1.0 0 8.946 2.85Heptachlor 7.425 1.0 16.65 44.6 30 106 20 0 7.743 4.19Heptachlor epoxide 16.65 48.5 28 100 20 8.069 1.0 0 8.559 5.89Methoxychlor 6.268 8.5 16.65 37.7 21 122 20 J 0 5.623 0 Surr: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 16.65 48.1 32 100 8.009 0
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 16.65 50.9 26 104 8.474 0
Qualifiers:

If you have any questions or further instruction, please contact our Project Coordinator at (702) 307-2659.

Carrier name: ASSET
Cooler Received/Opened On: 2/17/2021
Rep sample Temp (Deg C): 3.8/4.1 IR Gun ID: 2
Temp Blank: Yes No
Last 4 digits of Tracking No.: NA
Cooling process: Ice Ice Pack Dry Ice Other None
Packing Material Used: None
Workorder: N044190
Sample Receipt Checklist

4. Chain of custody present? Yes No

6. Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Yes No

7. Chain of custody agrees with sample labels? Yes No

8. Samples in proper container/bottle? Yes No

9. Sample containers intact? Yes No

10. Sufficient sample volume for indicated test? Yes No

11. All samples received within holding time? Yes No

13. Water - VOA vials have zero headspace? Yes No NA

14. Water - pH acceptable upon receipt? Yes No NA
Example: pH > 12 for (CN,S); pH<2 for Metals

1. Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes No Not Present

2. Custody seals intact, signed, dated on shippping container/cooler? Yes No Not Present

3. Custody seals intact on sample bottles? Yes No Not Present

5. Sampler's name present in COC? Yes No

12. Temperature of rep sample or Temp Blank within acceptable limit? Yes No NA

15. Did the bottle labels indicate correct preservatives used? Yes No NA

16. Were there Non-Conformance issues at login? Yes No NA Was Client notified? Yes No NA
Comments:

Checklist Completed By: BHN Reviewed By:

Sample ID Client Sample ID Date Collected
Date Received:

Date Due Matrix Test No
WORK ORDER Summary 17-Feb-21
WorkOrder: N044190
Comments:Client ID: KLEFE02Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03 QC Level: RTNE Hld MS Sub
2/16/2021
Test Name
ASSET Laboratories
Storage
N044190-001A SS-1a 2/16/2021 8:05:00 AM Soil WS
N044190-002A SS-1b 2/16/2021 8:15:00 AM WSN044190-003A SS-1c 2/16/2021 8:10:00 AM WSN044190-004A SS-1d 2/16/2021 8:20:00 AM WSN044190-005A SS-1 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-006A SS-2a 2/16/2021 8:30:00 AM WS
N044190-007A SS-2b 2/16/2021 8:35:00 AM WSN044190-008A SS-2c 2/16/2021 8:50:00 AM WSN044190-009A SS-2d 2/16/2021 8:40:00 AM WSN044190-010A SS-2 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-011A SS-3a 2/16/2021 9:55:00 AM WS
N044190-012A SS-3b 2/16/2021 9:45:00 AM WSN044190-013A SS-3c 2/16/2021 10:00:00 AM WSN044190-014A SS-3d 2/16/2021 9:40:00 AM WSN044190-015A SS-3 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-016A SS-4a 2/16/2021 9:00:00 AM WS
N044190-017A SS-4b 2/16/2021 9:07:00 AM WSN044190-018A SS-4c 2/16/2021 9:25:00 AM WS

Page 1 of 4 ends

Sample ID Client Sample ID Date Collected
Date Received:

Date Due Matrix Test No
WORK ORDER Summary 17-Feb-21
WorkOrder: N044190
Comments:Client ID: KLEFE02Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03 QC Level: RTNE Hld MS Sub
2/16/2021
Test Name
ASSET Laboratories
Storage
N044190-019A SS-4d 2/16/2021 9:15:00 AM Soil WS
N044190-020A SS-4 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-021A SS-5a 2/16/2021 12:00:00 PM WS
N044190-022A SS-5b 2/16/2021 12:20:00 PM WSN044190-023A SS-5c 2/16/2021 12:10:00 PM WSN044190-024A SS-5d 2/16/2021 12:15:00 PM WSN044190-025A SS-5 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-026A SS-6a 2/16/2021 12:25:00 PM WS
N044190-027A SS-6b 2/16/2021 12:35:00 PM WSN044190-028A SS-6c 2/16/2021 12:45:00 PM WSN044190-029A SS-6d 2/16/2021 12:40:00 PM WSN044190-030A SS-6 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-031A SS-7a 2/16/2021 2:10:00 PM WS
N044190-032A SS-7b 2/16/2021 1:55:00 PM WSN044190-033A SS-7c 2/16/2021 2:25:00 PM WSN044190-034A SS-7d 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM WSN044190-035A SS-7 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG

Page 2 of 4 ends

Sample ID Client Sample ID Date Collected
Date Received:

Date Due Matrix Test No
WORK ORDER Summary 17-Feb-21
WorkOrder: N044190
Comments:Client ID: KLEFE02Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03 QC Level: RTNE Hld MS Sub
2/16/2021
Test Name
ASSET Laboratories
Storage
N044190-036A SS-7a duplicate 2/16/2021 2:15:00 PM Soil WS N044190-037A SS-7b duplicate 2/16/2021 2:00:00 PM WSN044190-038A SS-7c duplicate 2/16/2021 2:30:00 PM WSN044190-039A SS-7d duplicate 2/16/2021 1:35:00 PM WSN044190-040A SS-7 duplicate COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-041A SS-8a 2/16/2021 12:50:00 PM WS
N044190-042A SS-8b 2/16/2021 12:55:00 PM WSN044190-043A SS-8c 2/16/2021 1:10:00 PM WSN044190-044A SS-8d 2/16/2021 1:05:00 PM WSN044190-045A SS-8 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-046A SS-9a 2/16/2021 2:40:00 PM WS
N044190-047A SS-9b 2/16/2021 2:45:00 PM WSN044190-048A SS-9c 2/16/2021 2:55:00 PM WSN044190-049A SS-9d 2/16/2021 3:05:00 PM WSN044190-050A SS-9 COMPOSITE 2/16/2021 2/18/2021 EPA 3546 Microwave Extraction YG 2/18/2021 EPA 8081A ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES BY
GC/ECD
YG
N044190-051A SS-01@1c 2/16/2021 8:12:00 AM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-052A SS-02@2d 2/16/2021 8:43:00 AM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI

Page 3 of 4 ends

Sample ID Client Sample ID Date Collected
Date Received:

Date Due Matrix Test No
WORK ORDER Summary 17-Feb-21
WorkOrder: N044190
Comments:Client ID: KLEFE02Project: Fresno Phase II, 20212901.001A Task 03 QC Level: RTNE Hld MS Sub
2/16/2021
Test Name
ASSET Laboratories
Storage
N044190-052A SS-02@2d 2/16/2021 8:43:00 AM 2/18/2021 Soil EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI N044190-053A SS-03@3b 2/16/2021 9:50:00 AM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-054A SS-04@4d 2/16/2021 9:20:00 AM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-055A SS-05@5a 2/16/2021 12:05:00 PM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-056A SS-06@6a 2/16/2021 12:30:00 PM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-057A SS-07@7d 2/16/2021 1:40:00 PM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-058A SS-07 duplicate@7d 2/16/2021 1:45:00 PM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-059A SS-08@8b 2/16/2021 1:00:00 PM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-060A SS-09@9c 2/16/2021 3:00:00 PM 2/18/2021 EPA 3050B SOPREP TOTAL METALS CEI 2/18/2021 EPA 6010B TOTAL METALS BY ICP CEI
N044190-061A FOLDER 2/18/2021 2/18/2021 Folder Folder LAB 2/18/2021 Folder Folder LAB

Page 4 of 4 ends

Appendix H
Noise Calculations

Existing Traffic Noise
Project:

Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Hard
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor:

Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Medium % Heavy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 75 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 1 Riverside Dr (Between Spruce Ave and the northernmost project driveway) 2,050 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 57.02 Riverside Dr (Between the northernmost project driveway and Fir Avenue) 2,060 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.63 Riverside Dr (Between Fir Avenue and the southernmost project driveway) 2,270 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 59.04 Riverside Dr (Between the southernmost project driveway and Herndon Ave) 2,260 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 59.05 Herndon Ave (west of Riverside Drive) 24,880 45 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 70.86 Herndon Ave (Between Riverside Dr and Arthur Ave) 21,050 50 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 71.47 Herndon Ave (East of Arthur Ave) 21,050 50 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 71.48 ADT Limit to Comply with General Plan Exterior Noise Standard 9,000 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 65.0 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 28 221 698
12 39
Segment Description and Location
ADT
4 12
1 111411 25
22 70
Input
Speed Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Output
Distance to
Directional
Centerline, (feet)4
4 221
36 Distance to Contour, (feet)3
698
5 16 49 156
39 19 61 191 60522 70
Existing-Plus-Project Traffic Noise
Project:

Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Hard
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor:

Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Medium % Heavy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 75 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 1 Riverside Dr (Between Spruce Ave and the northernmost project driveway) 5,536 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 61.32 Riverside Dr (Between the northernmost project driveway and Fir Avenue) 7,783 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 64.33 Riverside Dr (Between Fir Avenue and the southernmost project driveway) 19,500 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 68.34 Riverside Dr (Between the southernmost project driveway and Herndon Ave) 20,603 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 68.65 Herndon Ave (west of Riverside Drive) 37,158 45 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 72.66 Herndon Ave (Between Riverside Dr and Arthur Ave) 26,352 50 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 72.47 Herndon Ave (East of Arthur Ave) 26,321 50 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 72.4 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels.

Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional
Centerline, (feet) Segment Description and Location 4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics Distance to Contour, (feet)3 2 7 21 67
11 36 113 35829 90 286 904
4 14 43 135
11 34 107 33928 87 276 87328 87 276 872
Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator
Project:

Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Hard
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor:

Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Medium % Heavy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 75 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Riverside Dr (Between Spruce Ave and Entry B) 6,124 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 61.72 Riverside Dr (Between Entry B and Entry C) 9,483 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 65.23 Riverside Dr (Between Entry C and Entry D) 23,459 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 69.1 4 Riverside Dr (Between Entry D and Herndon Ave) 25,128 40 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 69.4 5 Herndon Ave (west of Riverside Drive) 37,169 45 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 72.6 6 Herndon Ave (Between Riverside Dr and Arthur Ave) 26,332 50 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 72.4 7 Herndon Ave (East of Arthur Ave) 26,332 50 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 72.4 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0%35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels.

Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional
Centerline, (feet) Segment Description and Location 4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics Distance to Contour, (feet)3 2 7 23 74
14 44 138 43729 90 286 904
5 16 52 165
13 41 129 40828 87 276 87328 87 276 873
Citation # Citations
1 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Table (5-11), Pg 5-60. Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2013 (September). Table (4-2), Pg 4-17. 2 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (5-26), Pg 5-60. Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2013 (September). Equation (4-5), Pg 4-17 3 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (2-16), Pg 2-32. FHWA 2004 TNM Version 2.5 4 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (5-11), Pg 5-47, 48. FHWA 2004 TNM Version 2.5 5 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (2-26), Pg 2-55, 56. Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2013 (September). Equation (2-23), Pg 2-5 6 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (2-27), Pg 2-57. Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2013 (September). Equation (2-24), Pg 2-5 7 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Pg 2-53. Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2013 (September). Pg 2-57. 8 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (5-7), Pg 5-45. FHWA 2004 TNM Version 2.5 9 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (5-8), Pg 5-45. FHWA 2004 TNM Version 2.5 10 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (5-9), Pg 5-45. FHWA 2004 TNM Version 2.5 11 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (5-13), Pg 5-49. FHWA 2004 TNM Version 2.5 12 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement. 2009 (November). Equation (5-14), Pg 5-49. FHWA 2004 TNM Version 2.5 13 Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual. Report No. FHWA-PD-96-010. 1998 (January). Equation (16), Pg 67 14 Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual. Report No. FHWA-PD-96-010. 1998 (January). Equation (20), Pg 69 15 Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual. Report No. FHWA-PD-96-010. 1998 (January). Equation (18), Pg 69 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009 (November). Technical Noise Supplement. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf. Accessed A 2017.

Fresno Costco Onsite Construction Noise
Location
Distance to Nearest
Receptor in feet Equipment
Usage
Factor1
Threshold 1,193 Paver 0.2
50 Grader 0.4
Single-Family Residence
(West Parr Avenue west of
project site) 90
Roller

0.2 Rio Vista Middle School 850 Scraper 0.4
River Bluff Elementary
School 1230
Ground Type hard
Source Height 8
Receiver Height 5
Ground Factor2 0.00
Predicted Noise Level 3
Paver 78.0
Grader 81.0
Roller 78.0
Scraper 81.0
88 Sources:
1 Obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 1. 2 Based on Figure 6-5 from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 6-23). 3 Based on the following from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 12-3).

Leq(equip) = E.L.+10*log (U.F.) - 20*log (D/50) - 10*G*log (D/50) Where: E.L. = Emission Level;
U.F.= Usage Factor;
G = Constant that accounts for topography and ground effects (FTA 2006: pg 6-23); and D = Distance from source to receiver.

87.6 85
Combined Predicted
Noise Level (Leq dBA)
Reference Emission
Noise Levels (Lmax) at 50
feet1

60.0 85

82.4 85

62.9 85

59.7 Leq dBA at 50 feet3
Combined Predicted Noise Level (Leq dBA at 50 feet)
Fresno Costco Offsite Construction Noise
Location
Distance to Nearest
Receptor in feet Equipment
Usage
Factor1
Threshold 974 Paver 0.2
50 Grader 0.4
Nearest Residence 90
Off-site improvements
corresponding with
infrastructure improvment
1 in PD 60
Off-site improvements
corresponding with
infrastructure improvment
3 in PD 1000
Off-site improvements
corresponding with
infrastructure improvment
5 in PD 80
Ground Type hard
Source Height 8Receiver Height 5Ground Factor2 0.00
Predicted Noise Level 3
Paver 78.0Grader 81.0
86 Sources:
1 Obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 1.2 Based on Figure 6-5 from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 6-23). 3 Based on the following from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 12-3).

Leq(equip) = E.L.+10*log (U.F.) - 20*log (D/50) - 10*G*log (D/50) Where: E.L. = Emission Level;U.F.= Usage Factor;G = Constant that accounts for topography and ground effects (FTA 2006: pg 6-23); andD = Distance from source to receiver.

Leq dBA at 50 feet3
Combined Predicted Noise Level (Leq dBA at 50 feet)

59.881.780.784.2
Combined Predicted
Noise Level (Leq dBA)
Reference Emission
Noise Levels (Lmax) at 50
feet1

60.0 8585.8 85
Equipment Description
Acoustical
Usage
Factor (%)
Spec
721.560 Lmax @
50ft (dBA
slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax @
50ft
(dBA slow)
No. of
Actual Data
Samples
(count)
Spec
721.560
LmaxCalc
Spec
721.560
Leq
Distance
Actual
Measured
LmaxCalc
Actual
Measured
Leq
Auger Drill Rig 20 85 84 36 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0Backhoe 40 80 78 372 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0Bar Bender 20 80 na 0 74.0 67.0 100Blasting na 94 na 0 88.0 100Boring Jack Power Unit 50 80 83 1 74.0 71.0 100 77.0 74.0Chain Saw 20 85 84 46 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0Clam Shovel (dropping) 20 93 87 4 87.0 80.0 100 81.0 74.0Compactor (ground) 20 80 83 57 74.0 67.0 100 77.0 70.0Compressor (air) 40 80 78 18 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0Concrete Batch Plant 15 83 na 0 77.0 68.7 100Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 79 40 79.0 75.0 100 73.0 69.0Concrete Pump Truck 20 82 81 30 76.0 69.0 100 75.0 68.0Concrete Saw 20 90 90 55 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0Crane 16 85 81 405 79.0 71.0 100 75.0 67.0Dozer 40 85 82 55 79.0 75.0 100 76.0 72.0Drill Rig Truck 20 84 79 22 78.0 71.0 100 73.0 66.0Drum Mixer 50 80 80 1 74.0 71.0 100 74.0 71.0Dump Truck 40 84 76 31 78.0 74.0 100 70.0 66.0Excavator 40 85 81 170 79.0 75.0 100 75.0 71.0Flat Bed Truck 40 84 74 4 78.0 74.0 100 68.0 64.0Front End Loader 40 80 79 96 74.0 70.0 100 73.0 69.0Generator 50 82 81 19 76.0 73.0 100 75.0 72.0Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 50 70 73 74 64.0 61.0 100 67.0 64.0Gradall 40 85 83 70 79.0 75.0 100 77.0 73.0Grader 40 85 na 0 79.0 75.0 100Grapple (on Backhoe) 40 85 87 1 79.0 75.0 100 81.0 77.0Horizontal Boring Hydr. Jack 25 80 82 6 74.0 68.0 100 76.0 70.0Hydra Break Ram 10 90 na 0 84.0 74.0 100Impact Pile Driver 20 95 101 11 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0Jackhammer 20 85 89 133 79.0 72.0 100 83.0 76.0Man Lift 20 85 75 23 79.0 72.0 100 69.0 62.0Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 20 90 90 212 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0Pavement Scarafier 20 85 90 2 79.0 72.0 100 84.0 77.0Paver 50 85 77 9 79.0 76.0 100 71.0 68.0Pickup Truck 40 55 75 1 49.0 45.0 100 69.0 65.0Pneumatic Tools 50 85 85 90 79.0 76.0 100 79.0 76.0Pumps 50 77 81 17 71.0 68.0 100 75.0 72.0Refrigerator Unit 100 82 73 3 76.0 76.0 100 67.0 67.0Rivit Buster/chipping gun 20 85 79 19 79.0 72.0 100 73.0 66.0Rock Drill 20 85 81 3 79.0 72.0 100 75.0 68.0Roller 20 85 80 16 79.0 72.0 100 74.0 67.0Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) 20 85 96 9 79.0 72.0 100 90.0 83.0Scraper 40 85 84 12 79.0 75.0 100 78.0 74.0Shears (on backhoe) 40 85 96 5 79.0 75.0 100 90.0 86.0Slurry Plant 100 78 78 1 72.0 72.0 100 72.0 72.0Slurry Trenching Machine 50 82 80 75 76.0 73.0 100 74.0 71.0Soil Mix Drill Rig 50 80 na 0 74.0 71.0 100Tractor 40 84 na 0 78.0 74.0 100Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) 40 85 85 149 79.0 75.0 100 79.0 75.0Vacuum Street Sweeper 10 80 82 19 74.0 64.0 100 76.0 66.0Ventilation Fan 100 85 79 13 79.0 79.0 100 73.0 73.0Vibrating Hopper 50 85 87 1 79.0 76.0 100 81.0 78.0Vibratory Concrete Mixer 20 80 80 1 74.0 67.0 100 74.0 67.0Vibratory Pile Driver 20 95 101 44 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0Warning Horn 5 85 83 12 79.0 66.0 100 77.0 64.0Welder / Torch 40 73 74 5 67.0 63.0 100 68.0 64.0chipper 75Source:FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 9.1U.S. Department of TransportationCA/T Construction Spec. 721.560 Nightime Construction Activities- Concrete Pour
Location
Distance to Nearest
Receptor in feet
Interior Noise
Level (Leq dBA) Equipment
Usage
Factor1
threshold 3,077 Concrete Mixer Truck 0.4
Single-family Residence (West Parr
Avenue west of project site) 400 43.7
Concrete Mixer Truck

0.4 Rio Vista Middle School 1400 32.8 Concrete Pump Truck 0.16 River Bluff Elementary School 1550 32.0 Tractor 0.4

0.4 0.4

0.4 0.4
Ground Type hard
Source Height 8
Receiver Height 5
Ground Factor2 0.00
Predicted Noise Level 3
Concrete Mixer Truck 81.0
Concrete Mixer Truck 81.0
Concrete Pump Truck 74.0
Tractor 80.0

85.8 Sources:
1 Obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 1. 2 Based on Figure 6-5 from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 6-23). 3 Based on the following from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 12-3).

67.7 85
Combined Predicted
Noise Level (Leq dBA)
Reference Emission
Noise Levels (Lmax) at 50
feet1

50.0 85

56.8 82

56.0 84
Leq dBA at 50 feet3
Combined Predicted Noise Level (Leq dBA at 50 feet)
Nightime Construction Activities- Concrete Pour
Location
Distance to Nearest
Receptor in feet Equipment
Usage
Factor1
threshold 5,104 Concrete Mixer Truck 1
Single-family Residence (West Parr
Avenue west of project site) 400 Concrete Mixer Truck 1 Rio Vista Middle School 1400 Concrete Pump Truck 1
River Bluff Elementary School 1550 Tractor 1
1 1
1 1
Ground Type hard
Source Height 8
Receiver Height 5
Ground Factor2 0.00
Predicted Noise Level 3
Concrete Mixer Truck 85.0
Concrete Mixer Truck 85.0
Concrete Pump Truck 82.0
Tractor 84.0

90.2 Sources:
1 Obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 1. 2 Based on Figure 6-5 from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 6-23). 3 Based on the following from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 12-3).

72.1 85
Combined Predicted
Noise Level (Leq dBA)
Reference Emission
Noise Levels (Lmax) at 50
feet1

50.0 85

61.2 82

60.4 84
Combined Predicted Noise Level (Leq dBA at 50 feet)
Leq dBA at 50 feet3
Equipment
Description
Acoustical
Usage
Factor (%)
Spec
721.560
Lmax @
50ft (dBA
slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax @
50ft
(dBA slow)
No. of
Actual Data
Samples
(count)
Spec
721.560
LmaxCalc
Spec
721.560
Leq
Distance
Actual
Measured
LmaxCalc
Actual
Measured
Leq
Auger Drill Rig 20 85 84 36 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0Backhoe 40 80 78 372 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0Bar Bender 20 80 na 0 74.0 67.0 100Blasting na 94 na 0 88.0 100Boring Jack Power Unit 50 80 83 1 74.0 71.0 100 77.0 74.0Chain Saw 20 85 84 46 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0Clam Shovel (dropping) 20 93 87 4 87.0 80.0 100 81.0 74.0Compactor (ground) 20 80 83 57 74.0 67.0 100 77.0 70.0Compressor (air) 40 80 78 18 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0Concrete Batch Plant 15 83 na 0 77.0 68.7 100Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 79 40 79.0 75.0 100 73.0 69.0Concrete Pump Truck 20 82 81 30 76.0 69.0 100 75.0 68.0Concrete Saw 20 90 90 55 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0Crane 16 85 81 405 79.0 71.0 100 75.0 67.0Dozer 40 85 82 55 79.0 75.0 100 76.0 72.0Drill Rig Truck 20 84 79 22 78.0 71.0 100 73.0 66.0Drum Mixer 50 80 80 1 74.0 71.0 100 74.0 71.0Dump Truck 40 84 76 31 78.0 74.0 100 70.0 66.0Excavator 40 85 81 170 79.0 75.0 100 75.0 71.0Flat Bed Truck 40 84 74 4 78.0 74.0 100 68.0 64.0Front End Loader 40 80 79 96 74.0 70.0 100 73.0 69.0Generator 50 82 81 19 76.0 73.0 100 75.0 72.0Generator (<25KVA, VMS s 50 70 73 74 64.0 61.0 100 67.0 64.0Gradall 40 85 83 70 79.0 75.0 100 77.0 73.0Grader 40 85 na 0 79.0 75.0 100Grapple (on Backhoe) 40 85 87 1 79.0 75.0 100 81.0 77.0Horizontal Boring Hydr. Jac 25 80 82 6 74.0 68.0 100 76.0 70.0 Hydra Break Ram 10 90 na 0 84.0 74.0 100Impact Pile Driver 20 95 101 11 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0Jackhammer 20 85 89 133 79.0 72.0 100 83.0 76.0Man Lift 20 85 75 23 79.0 72.0 100 69.0 62.0Mounted Impact Hammer ( 20 90 90 212 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0Pavement Scarafier 20 85 90 2 79.0 72.0 100 84.0 77.0Paver 50 85 77 9 79.0 76.0 100 71.0 68.0Pickup Truck 40 55 75 1 49.0 45.0 100 69.0 65.0Pneumatic Tools 50 85 85 90 79.0 76.0 100 79.0 76.0Pumps 50 77 81 17 71.0 68.0 100 75.0 72.0Refrigerator Unit 100 82 73 3 76.0 76.0 100 67.0 67.0Rivit Buster/chipping gun 20 85 79 19 79.0 72.0 100 73.0 66.0Rock Drill 20 85 81 3 79.0 72.0 100 75.0 68.0Roller 20 85 80 16 79.0 72.0 100 74.0 67.0Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle 20 85 96 9 79.0 72.0 100 90.0 83.0Scraper 40 85 84 12 79.0 75.0 100 78.0 74.0Shears (on backhoe) 40 85 96 5 79.0 75.0 100 90.0 86.0Slurry Plant 100 78 78 1 72.0 72.0 100 72.0 72.0Slurry Trenching Machine 50 82 80 75 76.0 73.0 100 74.0 71.0Soil Mix Drill Rig 50 80 na 0 74.0 71.0 100Tractor 40 84 na 0 78.0 74.0 100Vacuum Excavator (Vac-tru 40 85 85 149 79.0 75.0 100 79.0 75.0Vacuum Street Sweeper 10 80 82 19 74.0 64.0 100 76.0 66.0Ventilation Fan 100 85 79 13 79.0 79.0 100 73.0 73.0Vibrating Hopper 50 85 87 1 79.0 76.0 100 81.0 78.0Vibratory Concrete Mixer 20 80 80 1 74.0 67.0 100 74.0 67.0Vibratory Pile Driver 20 95 101 44 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0Warning Horn 5 85 83 12 79.0 66.0 100 77.0 64.0Welder / Torch 40 73 74 5 67.0 63.0 100 68.0 64.0Source:FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 9.1U.S. Department of TransportationCA/T Construction Spec. 721.560 KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.

Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Table A. Propagation of vibration decibels (VdB) with distance Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
vibration level distance vibration level distance
(VdB) @ (ft) (VdB) @ (ft)
Vibratory Roller 94 @ 25 77.3 @ 90 Distance to sensitive receptor Vibratory Roller 94 @ 25 80.0 @ 73 Threshold
Small bull dozer 58.0 @ 25 41.3 @ 90 80 vdb
Large bull dozer 87.0 @ 25 70.3 @ 90
Loaded trucks 86.0 @ 25 69.3 @ 90
The Lv metric (VdB) is used to assess the likelihood for vibration to result in human annoyance.

Table B. Propagation of peak particle velocity (PPV) with distance Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
vibration level distance vibration level distance
(PPV) @ (ft) (PPV) @ (ft)
Vibratory Roller 0.210 @ 25 0.031 @ 90 Distance to sensitive receptor Vibratory Roller 0.210 @ 25 0.198 @ 26 Threshold
Small bull dozer 0.003 @ 25 0.000 @ 90
Large bull dozer 0.089 @ 25 0.013 @ 90 0.2 ppv
Loaded trucks 0.076 @ 25 0.011 @ 90
The PPV metric (in/sec) is used for assessing the likelihood for the potential of structural damage.

Notes:

Federal Transit Association (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Washington, D.C. Accessed: December 20, 2020. Page Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf Reference Noise Level
STEP 2A: Identify the vibration source and enter the reference vibration level (VdB) and distance.

Reference Noise Level
Computation of propagated vibration levels is based on the equations presented on pg. 185 of FTA 2018. Estimates of attenuated vibration levels do not account for reductions from intervening underground barriers or other underground structures of any type, or changes in soil type.

Distance Propagation Calculations for
Stationary Sources of Ground Vibration
STEP 1: Determine units in which to perform calculation. — If vibration decibels (VdB), then use Table A and proceed to Steps 2A and 3A. — If peak particle velocity (PPV), then use Table B and proceed to Steps 2B and 3B.

STEP 3A: Select the distance to
the receiver.

STEP 3B: Select the distance to
the receiver.

STEP 2B: Identify the vibration source and enter the reference peak particle velocity (PPV) and distance.

KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.

Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Table A. Propagation of vibration decibels (VdB) with distance Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
vibration level distance vibration level distance
(VdB) @ (ft) (VdB) @ (ft) 80 vdb
loaded truck 86 @ 25 74.6 @ 60 Off-site improvements corresponding with infrastructure improvment 1 in PD loaded truck 86 @ 25 37.9 @ 1000 Off-site improvements corresponding with infrastructure improvment 3 in PD loaded truck 86 @ 25 70.8 @ 80 Off-site improvements corresponding with infrastructure improvment 5 in PD loaded truck 86 @ 25 79.9 @ 40 Threshold
The Lv metric (VdB) is used to assess the likelihood for vibration to result in human annoyance.

Table B. Propagation of peak particle velocity (PPV) with distance Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
vibration level distance vibration level distance
(PPV) @ (ft) (PPV) @ (ft) 0.2 ppv
loaded truck 0.076 @ 25 0.020 @ 60 Off-site improvements corresponding with infrastructure improvment 1 in PD loaded truck 0.076 @ 25 0.000 @ 1000 Off-site improvements corresponding with infrastructure improvment 3 in PD loaded truck 0.076 @ 25 0.013 @ 80 Off-site improvements corresponding with infrastructure improvment 5 in PD loaded truck 0.076 @ 25 0.181 @ 14 Threshold
The PPV metric (in/sec) is used for assessing the likelihood for the potential of structural damage.

Notes:

STEP 3A: Select the distance to
the receiver.

STEP 3B: Select the distance to
the receiver.

STEP 2B: Identify the vibration source and enter the reference peak particle velocity (PPV) and distance.

KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.

Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Table A. Propagation of vibration decibels (VdB) with distance Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
vibration level distance vibration level distance
(VdB) @ (ft) (VdB) @ (ft) 80 vdb
large bull dozer 87.0 @ 25 49.1 @ 460 Learn4Life Highschool large bull dozer 87.0 @ 25 79.9 @ 43 Threshold
The Lv metric (VdB) is used to assess the likelihood for vibration to result in human annoyance.

Table B. Propagation of peak particle velocity (PPV) with distance Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
vibration level distance vibration level distance
(PPV) @ (ft) (PPV) @ (ft) 0.2 ppv
large bull dozer 0.089 @ 25 0.001 @ 460 Learn4Life Highschool large bull dozer 0.089 @ 25 0.191 @ 15 Threshold
The PPV metric (in/sec) is used for assessing the likelihood for the potential of structural damage.

Notes:

STEP 3A: Select the distance to
the receiver.

STEP 3B: Select the distance to
the receiver.

STEP 2B: Identify the vibration source and enter the reference peak particle velocity (PPV) and distance.

Decommissioning
Location
Distance to Nearest
Receptor in feet Equipment
Usage
Factor1
Threshold 1,732 Concrete Saw 0.2
Learn4Life Highschool 450 Excavator 0.4
Nearest Residence
(West San Jose Ave and
North Gates Ave) 1400
Excavator

0.4 Excavator 0.4Dozer 0.4Dozer 0.4Ground Type SoftSource Height 8Receiver Height 5Ground Factor2 0.63 Predicted Noise Level 3
Concrete Saw 83.0Excavator 81.0Excavator 81.0Excavator 81.0Dozer 81.0Dozer 81.0 Sources:
1 Obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 1.2 Based on Figure 6-5 from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 6-23). 3 Based on the following from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 12-3).

Leq(equip) = E.L.+10*log (U.F.) - 20*log (D/50) - 10*G*log (D/50) Where: E.L. = Emission Level;U.F.= Usage Factor;G = Constant that accounts for topography and ground effects (FTA 2006: pg 6-23); andD = Distance from source to receiver.

50.4 88.5
Reference Emission
Noise Levels (Lmax) at 50
feet1
85858585

63.4 85
Combined Predicted
Noise Level (Leq dBA)

50.0 Combined Predicted Noise Level (Leq dBA at 50 feet) Leq dBA at 50 feet3
90 Equipment Description
Acoustical
Usage
Factor (%)
Spec
721.560 Lmax @
50ft (dBA
slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax @
50ft
(dBA slow)
No. of
Actual Data
Samples
(count)
Spec
721.560
LmaxCalc
Spec
721.560
Leq
Distance
Actual
Measured
LmaxCalc
Actual
Measured
Leq
Auger Drill Rig 20 85 84 36 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0Backhoe 40 80 78 372 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0Bar Bender 20 80 na 0 74.0 67.0 100Blasting na 94 na 0 88.0 100Boring Jack Power Unit 50 80 83 1 74.0 71.0 100 77.0 74.0Chain Saw 20 85 84 46 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0Clam Shovel (dropping) 20 93 87 4 87.0 80.0 100 81.0 74.0Compactor (ground) 20 80 83 57 74.0 67.0 100 77.0 70.0Compressor (air) 40 80 78 18 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0Concrete Batch Plant 15 83 na 0 77.0 68.7 100Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 79 40 79.0 75.0 100 73.0 69.0Concrete Pump Truck 20 82 81 30 76.0 69.0 100 75.0 68.0Concrete Saw 20 90 90 55 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0Crane 16 85 81 405 79.0 71.0 100 75.0 67.0Dozer 40 85 82 55 79.0 75.0 100 76.0 72.0Drill Rig Truck 20 84 79 22 78.0 71.0 100 73.0 66.0Drum Mixer 50 80 80 1 74.0 71.0 100 74.0 71.0Dump Truck 40 84 76 31 78.0 74.0 100 70.0 66.0Excavator 40 85 81 170 79.0 75.0 100 75.0 71.0Flat Bed Truck 40 84 74 4 78.0 74.0 100 68.0 64.0Front End Loader 40 80 79 96 74.0 70.0 100 73.0 69.0Generator 50 82 81 19 76.0 73.0 100 75.0 72.0Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 50 70 73 74 64.0 61.0 100 67.0 64.0Gradall 40 85 83 70 79.0 75.0 100 77.0 73.0Grader 40 85 na 0 79.0 75.0 100Grapple (on Backhoe) 40 85 87 1 79.0 75.0 100 81.0 77.0Horizontal Boring Hydr. Jack 25 80 82 6 74.0 68.0 100 76.0 70.0Hydra Break Ram 10 90 na 0 84.0 74.0 100Impact Pile Driver 20 95 101 11 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0Jackhammer 20 85 89 133 79.0 72.0 100 83.0 76.0Man Lift 20 85 75 23 79.0 72.0 100 69.0 62.0Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 20 90 90 212 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0Pavement Scarafier 20 85 90 2 79.0 72.0 100 84.0 77.0Paver 50 85 77 9 79.0 76.0 100 71.0 68.0Pickup Truck 40 55 75 1 49.0 45.0 100 69.0 65.0Pneumatic Tools 50 85 85 90 79.0 76.0 100 79.0 76.0Pumps 50 77 81 17 71.0 68.0 100 75.0 72.0Refrigerator Unit 100 82 73 3 76.0 76.0 100 67.0 67.0Rivit Buster/chipping gun 20 85 79 19 79.0 72.0 100 73.0 66.0Rock Drill 20 85 81 3 79.0 72.0 100 75.0 68.0Roller 20 85 80 16 79.0 72.0 100 74.0 67.0Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) 20 85 96 9 79.0 72.0 100 90.0 83.0Scraper 40 85 84 12 79.0 75.0 100 78.0 74.0Shears (on backhoe) 40 85 96 5 79.0 75.0 100 90.0 86.0Slurry Plant 100 78 78 1 72.0 72.0 100 72.0 72.0Slurry Trenching Machine 50 82 80 75 76.0 73.0 100 74.0 71.0Soil Mix Drill Rig 50 80 na 0 74.0 71.0 100Tractor 40 84 na 0 78.0 74.0 100Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) 40 85 85 149 79.0 75.0 100 79.0 75.0Vacuum Street Sweeper 10 80 82 19 74.0 64.0 100 76.0 66.0Ventilation Fan 100 85 79 13 79.0 79.0 100 73.0 73.0Vibrating Hopper 50 85 87 1 79.0 76.0 100 81.0 78.0Vibratory Concrete Mixer 20 80 80 1 74.0 67.0 100 74.0 67.0Vibratory Pile Driver 20 95 101 44 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0Warning Horn 5 85 83 12 79.0 66.0 100 77.0 64.0Welder / Torch 40 73 74 5 67.0 63.0 100 68.0 64.0chipper 75Source:FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 9.1U.S. Department of TransportationCA/T Construction Spec. 721.560 Attenuation Calculations for Stationary Noise Sources (HVAC and Car Wash) KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
noise level distance Ground Type noise level distance
(dBA) @ (ft) (soft/hard) (dBA) @ (ft)
HVAC units 70.0 @ 50 soft 10 5 0.62 46.4 @ 400HVAC units 70.0 @ 50 hard 10 5 0.00 44.9 @ 900Car Wash Dryers 69.0 @ 50 hard 10 5 0.00 43.9 @ 900Notes:

Sources:Computation of the ground factor is based on the equation presentd in Table 4-26 on pg. 86 of FTA 2018, where the distance of the reference noise leve can be adjusted and the usage factor is not applied (i.e., the usage factor is equal to 1).Federal Transit Association (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Available:
<http://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-noSTEP 1: Identify the noise source and enter the reference noise level (dBA and distance). STEP 2: Select the ground type (hard or soft), and enter the source and receiver heights. STEP 3: Select the distance to the receiver. Estimates of attenuated noise levels do not account for reductions from intervening barriers, including walls, trees, vegetation, or structures of any type. Computation of the attenuated noise level is based on the equation presented on pg. 176 and 177 of FTA 2018. Source Height (ft) Receiver Height (ft) Ground Factor Reference Noise Level Attenuation Characteristics Attenuation Calculations for Stationary Noise Sources (Heavy Vehicle Loading) KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
noise level distance Ground Type noise level distance
(dBA) @ (ft) (soft/hard) (dBA) @ (ft)
Operational Noise Lmax at nearest residence 86.0 @ 50 hard 5 8 0.00 66.0 @ 500Operational Noise CNEL at nearest residence 88.7 @ 50 hard 5 8 0.00 68.7 @ 500Operational Noise Leq at nearest residence 84.0 @ 50 hard 5 8 0.00 64.0 @ 500

0.660.660.660.660.660.66
Notes:

Sources:Computation of the ground factor is based on the equation presentd in Table 4-26 on pg. 86 of FTA 2018, where the distance of the reference noise leve can be adjusted and the usage factor is not applied (i.e., the usage factor is equal to 1).Federal Transit Association (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Available:
<http://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-reportSTEP 1: Identify the noise source and enter the reference noise level (dBA and distance). STEP 2: Select the ground type (hard or soft), and enter the source and receiver heights. STEP 3: Select the distance to the receiver. Estimates of attenuated noise levels do not account for reductions from intervening barriers, including walls, trees, vegetation, or structures of any type. Computation of the attenuated noise level is based on the equation presented on pg. 176 and 177 of FTA 2018. Source Height (ft) Receiver Height (ft) Ground Factor Reference Noise Level Attenuation Characteristics Attenuation Calculations for Stationary Noise Sources
KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.

Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
noise level distance Ground Type noise level distance
(dBA) @ (ft) (soft/hard) (dBA) @ (ft)
Tire Center 65.0 @ 50 hard 2 5 0.00 46.9 @ 400
Notes:

Sources:

Computation of the ground factor is based on the equation presentd in Table 4-26 on pg. 86 of FTA 2018, where the distance of the reference noise leve can be adjusted and the usage factor is not applied (i.e., the usage factor is equal to 1).

Federal Transit Association (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Available: <http://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>Accessed: March 5, 2020.

STEP 1: Identify the noise source and enter the reference noise level (dBA and distance). STEP 2: Select the ground type (hard or soft), and enter the source and receiver heights.

STEP 3: Select the distance to the
receiver.

Estimates of attenuated noise levels do not account for reductions from intervening barriers, including walls, trees, vegetation, or structures of any type.

Computation of the attenuated noise level is based on the equation presented on pg. 176 and 177 of FTA 2018.

Source
Height (ft)
Receiver
Height (ft)
Ground
Factor
Reference Noise Level Attenuation Characteristics
Parking Lot Noise Calculation
KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Number of automobiles per hour 2130
Number of buses per hour 0
Distance to sensitive receptor (feet) 400
distance sound level
Leq @ 50 65.7
Leq @ 400 47.6
Source
Federal Transit Administration. 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Washington, D.C. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

Accessed February 4, 2019. See pages 45–47, including Equation 4-14.

Attenuation Calculations for Stationary Noise Sources (Trash Compactor) KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
noise level distance Ground Type noise level distance
(dBA) @ (ft) (soft/hard) (dBA) @ (ft)
Trash Compactor 50.0 @ 50 hard 5 5 0.00 31.9 @ 400 Distance to nearest residence west of project site Notes:

STEP 3: Select the distance to the receiver.

Estimates of attenuated noise levels do not account for reductions from intervening barriers, including walls, trees, vegetation, or structures of any type.Computation of the attenuated noise level is based on the equation presented on pg. 176 and 177 of FTA 2018.

Source
Height (ft)
Receiver
Height (ft)
Ground
Factor
Reference Noise Level Attenuation Characteristics
Attenuation Calculations for Stationary Noise Sources
KEY: Orange cells are for input.

Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.

Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).

Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
noise level distance Ground Type noise level distance
(dBA) @ (ft) (soft/hard) (dBA) @ (ft)
High range of typical SENL (Haul Truck) 90.0 @ 50 soft 8 5 0.63 92.6 @ 40 nearest recpetor w/ sound wall High range of typical SENL (Haul Truck) 90.0 @ 50 hard 8 5 0.00 91.9 @ 40 nearest recpetor w/ sound wall

0.66 0.66

0.66 0.66
Notes:

Sources:

Federal Transit Association (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Available:
<http://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-noSTEP 1: Identify the noise source and enter the reference noise level (dBA and distance).

STEP 2: Select the ground type (hard or soft),
and enter the source and receiver heights.

STEP 3: Select the distance to
the receiver.

Estimates of attenuated noise levels do not account for reductions from intervening barriers, including walls, trees, vegetation, or structures of any type.

Computation of the attenuated noise level is based on the equation presented on pg. 176 and 177 of FTA 2018.

Source
Height (ft)
Receiver
Height (ft)
Ground
Factor
Reference Noise Level Attenuation Characteristics

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

Planning and Development Department
January 2024
Final 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
January 2024
20210052.01
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... II 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................................2-1 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................................................5-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................................................................................6-1 Appendices
A Urban Decay Impact Memorandum
B Netting Report
Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2 Revised Site Plan................................................................................................................................................................1-5 Figure 2-1 Photometric Plan..........................................................................................................................................................2-163 Tables
Table 2-1 List of Commenters...........................................................................................................................................................2-1 City of Fresno
ii Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Central Valley RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
COG Council of Governments
dB decibels
Draft EIR draft environmental impact report
EV electric vehicle
Final EIR final environmental impact report
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
ITP incidental take permit
Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PRC Public Resources Code
project Costco Commercial Center
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SENL single-event noise level
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SR State Route
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA transportation impact analysis
UWMP urban water management plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This final environmental impact report (Final EIR) has been prepared by the City of Fresno, as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15132). This Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) for the Costco Commercial Center (project). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and this document (response to comments document), which includes comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS FINAL EIR
CEQA requires a lead agency that has prepared a Draft EIR to consult with and obtain comments from responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is the mechanism for responding to these comments. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR, which are reproduced in this document; and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications and amplifications to the Draft EIR, including project updates, made in response to these comments and as a result of the applicant’s ongoing planning and design efforts. The Final EIR will be used to support the City’s decision regarding whether to approve the Costco Commercial Center project.

This Final EIR will also be used by CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project.

Responsible, trustee, and interested agencies may include:

X State Water Resource Control Board,
X Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board,
X San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and X Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District.

1.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

1.2.1 Project Location
The project site is a 22.4-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive in the city of Fresno. The project site is bordered by the unbuilt right-of way of 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 (Figure 1-1).

Introduction Ascent
City of Fresno
1-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 1-1 Project Location
Ascent Introduction
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 1-3

1.2.2 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.

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.

1.2.3 Characteristics of the Project

COSTCO WAREHOUSE BUILDING
The proposed Costco building would occupy 219,126 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.

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. 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.

Introduction Ascent
City of Fresno
1-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR

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 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.

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.

PROPOSED DESIGN REFINEMENTS
Since publication of the Draft EIR, the applicant has proposed several minor refinements to the project design.

Overall, the changes result in a reduced building footprint for the warehouse retail and car wash components of the project, as described in further detail below. The revised site plan is provided as Figure 1-2.

X Reduced Warehouse Size: The size of the warehouse would be reduced by 22,216 square feet by adjusting the northern wall of the warehouse structure approximately 54 feet south of the plan lines shown in Figure 2-8 of the Draft EIR. As revised, the total warehouse retail building footprint would be 219,126 square feet.

X Design of Warehouse Entry: The entry canopy at the northwestern corner of the building would be designed with a 45-degree angle, rather than a 90-degree angle as depicted in previous plans.

X Shorter Car Wash Tunnel: The layout of the car wash building would also be refined, including a reduction of the proposed tunnel length, from 170 feet to 140 feet.

X Parking Lot Design Changes: Finally, the curb cuts on North Arthur Avenue would be revised to reduce potential for cut-through traffic between North Arthur Avenue and North Riverside Avenue in front of the warehouse entrance. As a result of these changes, the number of parking stalls would increase from 869 to 873.

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.

Ascent Introduction
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 1-5
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021.

Figure 1-2 Revised Site Plan
Ascent Introduction
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 1-7

1.3 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Draft EIR identified the following significant impacts related to the project:

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

1.4 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
On July 11, 2023, the City released the Draft EIR for public review and comment. The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the City’s website (https://www.fresno.gov/planning/plans-projects-under-review/#tab-14); and was made available at the Planning and Development Department (2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043). The document was also available for review at the Teague Branch Library (4718 N Polk Avenue). A notice of availability of the Draft EIR was published in the Fresno Bee.

As a result of these notification efforts, written and verbal comments were received from two state agencies (California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Transportation) and one local agency (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District), an organization representing the project applicant, and individuals.

Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and provides responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5).

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR is organized as follows:

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of the Final EIR, summarizes the Costco Commercial Center project and the major conclusions of the Draft EIR, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of the Final EIR.

Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period, copies of the comment letters received, and responses to the comments.

Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” presents revisions to the Draft EIR text made in response to comments, or to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections. Changes in the text are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by underline where text is added.

Chapter 4, “References,” identifies the documents used as sources for the analysis.

Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final EIR.

Introduction Ascent
City of Fresno
1-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-1
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter contains comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, which concluded on August 28, 2023. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft EIR.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.

Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date

AGENCIES
A1 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
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
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-2 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter No. Commenter Date
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
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
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-3
Letter No. Commenter Date
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
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, 2023 1
1 The comment was received after the close of the public comment period.

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The written individual comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments are provided below. The comment letters are reproduced in their entirety and are followed by the response(s). Where a commenter has provided multiple comments, each comment is indicated by a line bracket and an identifying number in the margin of the comment letter.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-4 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR

2.2.1 Agencies
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-5
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-6 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-7
Letter A1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager
August 14, 2023
Response A1-1
The comment provides introductory remarks and states that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code. Page 2-21 of the Draft EIR identifies CDFW as a trustee agency that has jurisdiction over resources potentially affected by the project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A1-2
The comment states that CDFW concurs with the analysis related to biological resources and determined that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are sufficient to mitigate impacts to listed species. In addition, the comment states that consultation with CDFW is recommended and an incidental take permit (ITP) would be required if take of listed species cannot be avoided. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b, described on pages 3.5-15 and 3.5-16 of the Draft EIR, requires the project proponent to retain a qualified biologist to implement avoidance buffers around active nest sites of listed or fully protected species (e.g., Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite) in consultation with CDFW and conduct periodic monitoring of these sites during project construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.5-1b would avoid incidental take of Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other nesting raptors; therefore, it is not anticipated that an ITP would be needed for the project. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A1-3
The comment recommends that surveys for Swainson's Hawk, white-tailed kite, and other raptors be conducted by a qualified biologist with knowledge of Swainson’s hawk natural history and behaviors and following the survey methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b, described on pages 3.5-15 and 3.5-16 of the Draft EIR, states that nesting bird surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys. The qualified biologist would be required to follow survey protocols promulgated by CDFW. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A1-4
The comment provides closing remarks, resources with additional information, and the CDFW contact for coordination in connection with the project. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document. No further response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-8 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-9
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-10 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-11
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-12 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter A2 California Department of Transportation
Dave Padilla, Branch Chief
August 15, 2023
Response A2-1
The comment provides introductory remarks, a summary of the proposed project, and a description of the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) mission and review process. The comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document. No further response is required.

Response A2-2
The comment summarizes the findings of the transportation impact analysis (TIA), stating that the project would not have a significant safety impact on state facilities and that there is adequate length on existing facilities for projectrelated queuing. The comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the TIA or Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A2-3
The comment identifies a new interchange that is being constructed along State Route 99 at Veterans Boulevard, which is projected to reduce traffic volumes in the project vicinity. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A2-4
The comment recommends that the project proponent contribute to a local impact fee program to fund future infrastructure improvements “necessary to complement future SR 99 facility safety improvements” being completed by Caltrans (see Comment A2-3). The City of Fresno’s citywide development impact fees include funds for transportation projects. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required.

Response A2-5
The comment identifies the net increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would result from the project and restates the conclusion from the TIA and Draft EIR that the project will have a significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the TIA or Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A2-6
The comment recommends that alternative transportation policies be applied to the project and an assessment of multi-modal facilities be conducted to identify improvements to alleviate traffic congestion caused by the project. As described below in Response A2-7, the project would include construction of the elements of the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan that are planned adjacent to the project site and all applicable alternative transportation policies would be applied to the project.

For a full discussion of the project’s consistency with programs, plans, and ordinances related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, refer to Impact 3.13-1 in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR. As summarized on page 3.13-12:

The nature of bulk shopping and auto-oriented services at the Costco facility does not lend itself to substantially increased transit ridership. Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with any existing transit stops. Furthermore, off-site bicycle and pedestrian improvements could enhance first/last mile connections for transit riders using the bus stops in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project would provide short-term bicycle parking as required by the City Municipal Code (Article 24, Section 15-2429). Consistent with the City of Fresno’s ATP, the proposed project involves the construction of off-site Class I bicycle facilities along the proposed project frontage on West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive and Class II bicycle facilities along newly constructed Spruce Avenue.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-13
This comment does not raise issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A2-7
The comment recommends that the project installs the bike paths along Herndon Avenue and Riverside Avenue as identified in the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan 2016. As indicated in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR, the project would include construction of these facilities. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A2-8
The comment recommends that the project coordinate connections to regional pathways. As indicated above in Responses A2-6 and A2-7, the project would provide connections to regional bikeways. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A2-9
The comment recommends that the project implement multimodal strategies such as those associated with transitoriented development, to reduce traffic-related impacts. The comment does not specify any potential strategies.

Transit-oriented development strategies are typically integrated at the plan or community scale and are not applicable to individual commercial projects. Further, as explained in the Draft EIR (see page 3.13-18), the nature of the proposed Costco as a bulk good seller further limits the applicability and effectiveness of transit as a proposed mode of transportation to reduce traffic and VMT because the primary source of daily VMT is warehouse shopping by Costco members and the nature of Costco’s land use and business model is auto oriented. Members purchase items in bulk at Costco facilities, making walking, biking, or transit trips to the warehouse impractical. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A2-10
The comment recommends that the project “implement ‘smart growth’ principles regarding parking solutions, providing alternative transportation choices to residents and employees.” As examples of such programs, the comment identified “parking for carpools/vanpools, car-share, and/or ride-share programs.” The project does not include a residential component, and no residential parking is planned.

Through application of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, the project applicant would be required to develop a commute reduction program for employees. Specific actions that may be incorporated into this program include designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A2-11
The comment recommends that the project proponent continue to work with the City to implement further improvements to reduce VMT and offer alternate transportation modes for employees. Through application of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, the project applicant would implement a commute reduction program for employees.

Refer to Impact 3.13-2 (Draft EIR pages 3.13-13 through 3.13-18) for further information. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-14 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Response A2-12
The comment recommends that the project provide electric vehicle parking. As stated on page 2-14 of the Draft EIR, the project includes 53 electric vehicle-ready parking stalls. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A2-13
The comment states that the City should consider requiring the project proponent to provide charging stations for freight trucking to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduce freight parking shortages, and maintain the Federal Hours of Service regulations. As described on pages 3.7-11 through 3.7-13 of the Draft EIR, the project would not generate GHG emissions in a manner that would have a significant impact on the environment or that would conflict with the applicable GHG reduction plan adopted by the City or result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Therefore, mitigation requiring the provision of charging stations for freight trucking is not warranted and no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A2-14
The comment states that the City should consider requiring the project proponent to provide on-site parking for freight trucks. The operation of the project would involve both smaller box trucks associated with the market delivery operations (MDO) delivery program and semi-trucks that deliver goods to the warehouse. Approximately 17 to 20 box trucks would regularly park on-site and there are approximately 30 parking spots along Herndon Avenue that are sized for these vehicles. Semi-trucks would not park on-site. Costco’s standard operating procedure is to load and unload trucks as soon as they arrive onsite; therefore, no additional on-site truck parking would be necessary for semi-trucks. This suggestion is unrelated to the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR. However, it is noted for the record and will be provided to decision makers for consideration.

Response A2-15
The comment recommends that the project proponent contribute to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee program. This comment is similar to Comment A2-4. Please refer to Response A2-4 above.

Response A2-16
The comment expresses Caltrans’ support for reducing VMT and GHG emissions in a manner that increases the likelihood that people will benefit from a multimodal transportation network. No comment on the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR is provided and no further response is required.

Response A2-17
The comment provides the Caltrans contact for coordination in connection with the project. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document. No further response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-15
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-16 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-17
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-18 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-19
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-20 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-21
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-22 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-23
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-24 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-25
Letter A3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Mark Montelongo, Program Manager
August 23, 2023
Response A3-1
The comment provides introductory statements summarizing the nature of the project. No response is required.

Response A3-2
The comment recommends that the project use the cleanest available offroad construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment (e.g., tier 4, when available) to further reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions. As described in Section 4.2.1 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the project analysis assumes construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower used at the site would meet US Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 emission standards for PM10 and PM2.5 and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices. Based on the proposed construction practices and equipment mix, and as shown in Table 3.3-5 and Table 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR, the project impact level is less than significant for construction emissions and health-risk impacts during the construction phase. Mitigation is only required if there are significant environmental effects. (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21100(b)(3).) An EIR is not required to discuss mitigation measures for impacts when the EIR had determined that such impacts would be less than significant. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 649.) Therefore, these recommendations are noted and will be provided to the decision-making body for consideration.

However, because project impacts are less than significant, there is no nexus for the City to require San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD’s) recommendations as mitigation in this EIR.

Response A3-3
The comment summarizes review of the Air Quality Technical Report (Draft EIR Appendix C) and identifies an apparent inconsistency between the technical data and the summarized conclusions in the appendix and Draft EIR.

The City subsequently met with SJVAPCD to discuss these concerns and provide additional technical modeling data.

On September 25, 2023, SJVAPCD issued a supplemental comment letter that concurs with the finding reported in the Draft EIR that the project is not expected to have a significant impact on police health.

The analysis in Appendix C and Draft EIR Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” are based on a project commitment to use equipment with diesel particulate filters, which result in a reduction in produced particulate matter. Although the project commitment was included in the Draft EIR’s analyses, this commitment was inadvertently left out of the Draft EIR’s project description. To clarify this commitment, the following text has been added to the second paragraph of Section 2.2.4, “Construction,” (Draft EIR page 2-19) in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” This text clarifies the information provided in the Draft EIR for greater consistency with the technical analysis.

Table 2-2 lists equipment anticipated to be used during construction. All equipment used for construction would have Tier 3 engines with diesel particulate filters. 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.

In addition, one table in Draft EIR Appendix C reported an incorrect construction equipment mix. The corrected version of Table F-1 in the Air Quality Technical Report is provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR.

As documented in the supplemental comment letter, based on SJVAPCD’s review of all technical data in the record there would not be a new or more severe impact to human health risk than disclosed in the Draft EIR. No further response or revision to the Draft EIR is required.

Response A3-4
The comment provides industrial warehouse emission reduction strategies that SJVAPCD recommends to reduce the potential for harmful health effects. The project would comply with all state and local regulations for the gas station Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-26 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
and heavy-duty trucks. As discussed in Section 2.3 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, Airborne Toxic Control Measures for on-road diesel vehicles and idling, and the Truck and Bus Regulation (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 2025) will require truck fleets to become cleaner over time and electrify as the technology becomes feasible to support it. The project would also comply with applicable SJVAPCD and state regulations for the gasoline service station, such as Rule 4622 and installation of Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery control equipment. In addition, note that the project has been designed to incorporate the following features:

X Delivery truck travel and site entry on designated truck routes that use major roadways and avoid traversing through residential communities.

X Availability of transportation refrigeration unit (TRU) plug-ins at loading docks.

X Loading dock operating protocols to minimize truck idling and associated emissions would require that all regulations concerning idling are followed, each is unloaded efficiently, and trucks do not linger at the loading docks.

X Bicycle parking as required in the City’s Municipal Code.

X Non-emergency diesel powered generators would be prohibited during project construction.

Based on modeling that assumes these project commitments, the Draft EIR Section 3.3.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” (page 3.3-19) concludes that the project would generate less-than-significant air quality and health risk impacts during construction and operation of the project. Therefore, SJVAPCD’s recommendations are noted and will be provided to the decision-making body for consideration. However, because project impacts are less than significant, there is no nexus for the City to require SJVAPCD’s recommendations as mitigation in this EIR.

Response A3-5
The comment recommends the City evaluate Heavy Heavy-Duty truck routing patterns for the project, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. The Draft EIR includes a health risk assessment that evaluates the emissions from trucks as they approach and depart the project site. The truck routes utilize the most efficient truck routes wherever possible, taking into consideration City-designated truck routes, intersection traffic controls, turn radii at intersections and site accesses, and direction of approach to destinations within the site. The truck routes are identified to minimize impact to surrounding residential areas or sensitive receptors, and to efficiently enter and exit the project site. As shown in Table 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less-than-significant health risk impacts, demonstrating that there will not be a significant impact resulting from the trucks entering and exiting the project site. The travel routes are shown in Figure 2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR.

Response A3-6
The comment recommends that the City consider two measures to reduce project-generated operational emissions:
use of the cleanest available truck fleet and on-site service equipment. As explained in Response A3-4, Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, Airborne Toxic Control Measures for on-road diesel vehicles and idling, and the Truck and Bus Regulation (13 CCR 2025) will require truck fleets to become cleaner over time and electrify as the technology becomes feasible to support it. In addition, the project would employ electric forklifts, mobility carts, pallet jacks, scissor lifts, floor scrubbers, lift trucks, and combilifts consistent with the recommendation.

Further, any additional mitigation measures in the form of requiring low and zero emission trucks is not required, as operation of these vehicles has not been determined to result in an environmental impact. Mitigation is only required if there are significant environmental effects. (PRC § 21100(b)(3).) An EIR is not required to discuss mitigation measures for impacts when the EIR had determined that such impacts would be less than significant. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 649.) Therefore, SJVAPCD’s recommendations are noted and will be provided to the decision-making body for consideration. However, because project impacts are less than significant, there is no nexus for the City to require SJVAPCD’s recommendations as mitigation in this EIR.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-27
Response A3-7
The comment recommends that the Draft EIR “include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.” See Response A3-4. The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, which is also referred to as 13 CCR § 2485 as referenced by the comment. More specifically, in order to meet the required truck idling limit of 5 minutes, the project includes measures such as posting of appropriate signage at docks delivery areas, each truck to be unloaded efficiently, trucks to not linger at the loading docks, and truck routes that result in efficient traffic flow through the project site to limit truck idling.

The project would result in less-than-significant operational emissions. An EIR is not required to discuss mitigation measures for impacts when the EIR had determined that such impacts would be less than significant. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 649.) Therefore, these recommendations are noted and will be provided to the decision-making body for consideration. However, because project impacts are less than significant, there is no nexus for the City to require SJVAPCD’s recommendations as mitigation in this EIR.

Response A3-8
The comment “recommends the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors.” The Draft EIR Section 3.3.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” (page 3.3-19) concludes that the project would result in less than significant air quality and health risk impacts during construction and operation of the project. Mitigation is only required if there are significant environmental effects. (PRC § 21100(b)(3).) An EIR is not required to identify mitigation measures for impacts when the EIR had determined that such impacts would be less than significant. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 649.) Further, the project would incorporate vegetation and tree canopy improvements for the site. These include perimeter landscaping along the edges of the project site, as well as landscaping within the parking field. Therefore, the project has incorporated this recommendation, and further mitigation is not required.

Response A3-9
The comment suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the project. Costco participates in the PG&E Solar Choice program, which provides 100 percent solar energy to customers, as discussed in Section 3.6 and Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR. The project would also comply with energy efficiency standards of the State’s Title 24 California Building Code, which includes a solar-ready roof of the proposed Costco warehouse.

Beyond this specific project, Costco is investing in a sustainable future and implements many measures and programs to that end (see https://www.costco.com/sustainability-introduction.html). For example, Costco owns and operates more than 100 on-site solar systems around the world, with an intention to expand on-site solar operations; having a solar-ready roof on the warehouse of the Costco warehouse will ensure that Costco can install solar panels here in the future.

As shown in Table 3.3-8 of the Draft EIR, the project’s air quality impacts during operation would be less than significant (see Impact 3.3-5, page 3.3-25). In addition, the Draft EIR determines in Impact 3.6-1 related to inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy and Impact 3.6-2 related to conflict with a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency that the project would have less-than-significant impacts related to energy consumption. Therefore, these recommendations are noted and will be provided to the decision-making body for consideration. However, because project impacts are less than significant, there is no nexus for the City to require SJVAPCD’s recommendations as mitigation in this EIR.

Response A3-10
The comment notes that SJVAPCD recommends installation of electric vehicle chargers at project sites, generally, and identifies that the Draft EIR indicates that the project would include electric vehicle charging stations. The project is Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-28 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
committed to constructing and maintaining electric vehicle (EV) chargers in accordance with Part 11 of the 2022 Title 24 California Building Code, as noted on page 3.7-11 of the Draft EIR. A total of 45 EV chargers will be installed, which aligns with the 2022 Title 24 standard of 5 percent of all parking stations equipped with a Level 2 charging station at a minimum. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A3-11
The comment notes that the project includes construction of bikeways and may be eligible for funding through the District’s Bikeway Incentive Program. Because the comment does not raise a substantive issue or provide a recommendation on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A3-12
The comment summarizes district rules and regulations that reduce the effect of projects on air quality. Costco will be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations governing construction and operation of the project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response A3-13
The comment recommends that a copy of this letter is provided to the project proponent. All letters received on the Draft EIR have been posted to the City’s website (https://www.fresno.gov/planning/plans-projects-under-review/) and are available for public review and download. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-29

2.2.2 Organizations
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-30 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-31
Letter O1 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, on behalf of Costco Wholesale Anna C. Shimko, Partner
August 28, 2023
Response O1-1
The comment provides introductory remarks. This comment includes a statement that supports the adequacy of the CEQA document. No further response is required.

Response O1-2
The comment summarizes the mitigation approach in the Draft EIR and requests refinement to the language in Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 to clarify that the applicant’s obligation to ensure VMT trip reduction through the employee trip reduction measures. The requested addition of “designed to” has been added to the mitigation measure. See Response O1-3 for the full text of the revised mitigation measure.

This revision clarifies the City’s intended approach to implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 and does not affect the severity of the impact disclosed in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Response O1-3
The comment asserts that an employer-sponsored vanpool cannot be included as a component of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program required in Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 because of concerns related to insurance liability, equality, and policing the parameters of use. The comment also questions the applicability of the program because it is described as a form of “public” transportation in the Draft EIR and requests that less VMT reduction is required based on the infeasibility of the vanpool.

As explained in the Draft EIR (page 3.13-18):

Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 would implement Measure T-6 (Mandatory Commute Reduction Program), as identified in the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA 2021). The implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.13-2 would reduce employee trips. However, employee trips account for 436 daily trips (less than 2 percent of the total daily trips) and 13,385 VMT (approximately 7 percent of the daily VMT). Based on the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s estimates in the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Handbook, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 could achieve up to a 26 percent reduction in project employee commute VMT (CAPCOA 2021: 86). Implementation of a mandatory commute reduction program with 100 percent employee participation would only result in a 3,480-mile decrease, or less than 2 percent of the proposed project’s total daily regional VMT.

The City based the mitigation strategy and language on the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook. The CAPCOA Handbook describes employer-sponsored vanpool (Measure T-11) as “a flexible form of public transit” that can be applied at the project site scale and is best implemented and monitored by the building occupant or employer. Therefore, the wording in the Draft EIR is consistent with applicable guidance and does not improperly characterize the vanpool as a service for the general public. No revision to the Draft EIR is necessary.

Table 3.13-5 of the Draft EIR presents the most recent CAPCOA measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the transportation sector and identifies potentially feasible mitigation to reduce VMT that were derived from the Handbook. The City established the target of a 26 percent reduction in employee VMT based on the maximum potential VMT reduction provided in the CAPCOA Handbook for Commute Trip Reduction Programs (Measure T-6).

As explained in the CAPCOA Handbook, this total amount accounts for the potential reductions that could be achieved through the implementation of Measures T-7 through T-11.

Based on the information provided in Comment O1-3, the City has determined that revisions to Table 3.13-5 are required to reflect measures that may be feasibly implemented. As revised, the measure excludes CAPCOA Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-32 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Handbook TDM Measure T-11 – Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool, and, therefore, excludes CAPCOA Handbook TDM Measure T-6 – Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory), of which Measure T-11 is a component. However, the City has identified other project requirements that would be equally effective at reducing VMT. The City concludes that the established 26 percent reduction in employee VMT can be achieved and has not revised this benchmark for compliance as requested in the comment.

The discussion of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 in the Draft EIR is, therefore, revised as follows:

Mitigation Measures
Table 3.13-3 presents the most recent California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (Handbook) measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the transportation sector.

Most of the measures quantified in the CAPCOA Handbook aim to reduce VMT and encourage mode shifts from single-occupancy vehicles to shared (e.g., transit) or active modes of transportation (e.g., bicycle) (CAPCOA 2021). Although all transportation measures are provided below, not all are applicable or feasible given the implementation scale, nature of the proposed project, and/or limited jurisdictional authority of Costco, the applicant, to implement particular measures. The following mitigation measures have been proposed is based on the analysis of feasibility and applicability included in Table 3.13-5.

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

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

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

T-4 Integrate Affordable and
Below Market Rate
Housing

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

T-5 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Program
(Voluntary)
4% project/site employee
commute VMT
Yes 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.

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.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-33
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential VMT
Reduction1
Feasible/Applicable
to the project? Notes
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 EmployerSponsored 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 vas 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.

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.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-34 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential VMT
Reduction1
Feasible/Applicable
to the project? Notes
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 (NonElectric) Bikeshare Program 0.2% from vehicle travel in the plan/community
No This is a plan/communitywide strategy
and is not feasible.

T-22-B Implement Electric
Bikeshare Program

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

T-22-C Implement Scootershare
Program

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

T-23 Provide Community-Based
Travel Planning

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

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

T-25 Extend Transit Network
Coverage or Hours

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

T-26 Increase Transit Service
Frequency

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

T-27 Implement TransitSupportive 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.

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; N/A = not applicable
Source: Mitigation Measures and VMT Reduction Potential provided by CAPCOA 2021 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-35
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Provide a Mandatory Commute Reduction Program for to Reduce Costco Employees’ VMT by at least 26 Percent
Costco shall provide a Mandatory Commute Reduction program for employees that is designed to achieves at least a 26 percent reduction in employee VMT. The commute reduction program shall be provided to the City for approval acceptance prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Specific actions may must include the following measures described in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s 2021 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Handbook:

X Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (estimated to result in up to 4 percent employee VMT reduction):

Costco shall implement a marketing strategy to promote Costco’s commute reduction program.

Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The following features (or similar alternatives) shall be provided:
on-site or online commuter information services,
employee transportation coordinators,
on-site or online transit pass sales, and
guaranteed ride home service.

X Provide Ridesharing Program (estimated to result in up to 8 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall develop and implement a ridesharing program. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and greenhouse gas emissions. The following strategies provide examples of a multifaceted approach for promoting a rideshare program:
designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and
providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

X Implement Subsidized or Discount Transit Program (estimated to result in up to 5.5 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall provide free transit passes for employees. Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and, thus, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

X Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (estimated to result in up to 4.4 percent employee VMT reduction):

Costco shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities include elements such as bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions.

X Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool (estimated to result in up to 20.4 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall implement an employer-sponsored vanpool program. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. The mode shift from long-distance, single-occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions (CAPCOA 2021).

X Improve Street Connectivity (estimated to result in up to 30 percent employee VMT reduction): Costco shall construct West Spruce Avenue along the northern site boundary, creating new connections Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-36 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
between West Spruce Avenue and North Aurther Avenue. The increased connectivity and intersection density that would result from these improvements would facilitate shorter trips, thereby reducing VMT.

X Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements/Construct Bike Facilities/Expand Bikeway Network (estimated to result in up to 10 percent employee VMT reduction1): Costco shall construct new, 12-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle paths along West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive to improve pedestrian access and connect to a larger bicycle network. This encourages a mode shift from automobiles to biking and walking, resulting in VMT reduction.

As revised, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 continues to include CAPCOA Handbook TDM Measures T-7 through T-10, which are the other components of TDM Measure T-6 – Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory), and it further incorporates CAPCOA Handbook TDM Measure T-17 – Improve Street Connectivity, T-18 – Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement, Measure T-19-A – Construct or Improve Bike Facility, T-19-B – Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard, and Measure T-20 – Expand Bikeway Network, none of which were accounted for in the Draft EIR’s calculation of project VMT or potential VMT reductions.

The set of TDM measures in the revised Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 together would facilitate VMT reductions that are equal to or greater than the reductions expected from the original set of transportation measures derived from CAPOA Handbook Measure T-6 (i.e., 26 percent) because the additional measures facilitate walking and further facilitate bicycling through infrastructure improvements and can shorten travel distances to the project site by providing vehicle network connections. Therefore, the proposed revision would not result in the potential for a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Moreover, the revised mitigation incorporates attributes of the project that were evaluated in the Draft EIR but not accounted for in the VMT evaluation. For this reason, the revised mitigation would not generate a new significant impact not disclosed in the Draft EIR.

The proposed revisions constitute a clarification of the approach to reducing employee VMT and the revisions identified above are designed to provide equivalent or greater employee VMT reduction. As a category, employee VMT constitutes less than 2 percent of the overall VMT generated by the project. Therefore, any enhanced reduction would not meaningfully affect the level of VMT generated by the project. The project’s overall impact would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the conclusion presented on page 3.13-17 of the Draft EIR. No new significant environmental impact or substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would occur as a result of these revisions. Therefore, these revisions do not constitute significant new information, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Thus, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

1 Measures T-18 through T-22-C are in the Neighborhood Design subsector. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent (CAPCOA 2021: 135).

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-37

3.2.3 Individuals
Letter I1 Matthew Schellenberg
July 21, 2023
Response I1-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I2 Teresa Sanchez
July 21, 2023
Response I2-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-38 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I3 Dolores Davidain
July 19, 2023
Response I3-1
This comment expresses concern about the size and location of the proposed project, primarily due to accessibility for senior citizens. The comment notes that the new location may benefit nearby residents and supports retention of the gas station existing gas station on Shaw Avenue.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-39
The scale of the Costco facilities is integral to the bulk warehouse business model and creates the potential for various shopping efficiencies. For clarification, page 2-10 the Draft EIR states that the warehouse retail building footprint would occupy an overall footprint of 241,342 square feet; however, the total retail area would only occupy 162,264 square feet and the remaining space would primarily be used for Costco loading, storage, and receiving operations. As revised (see Chapter 1), the warehouse portion of the footprint would be reduced by 22,216 square feet to 140,048 square feet and the total warehouse retail building footprint would be 219,126 square feet. In comparison, the existing Costco warehouse at 4500 West Shaw Avenue has a footprint of 134,000 square feet, which is approximately 6,000 square feet smaller than the portion of the proposed Costco warehouse that would be accessible to the general public.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I4 Vernon Valmonte
July 18, 2023
Response I4-1
This comment expresses concerns about traffic violations on local roadways, existing traffic conditions, and the proposed project's contributions to traffic. CEQA does not include provisions for evaluating impacts related to traffic violations. Further, although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, this topic is addressed outside of the CEQA review process.

On December 28, 2018, the California Resources Agency certified and adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines which included the adoption of CCR Section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts.” Pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion were eliminated as the basis for determining significant impacts, effectively being replaced with VMT as the primary metric to identify transportation-related impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, traffic congestion is not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-40 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
As stated on page 3.13-11 of the Draft EIR, the significance criteria used to evaluate the proposed project’s impacts to transportation under CEQA are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. The Draft EIR identified the following impacts related to transportation that would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation measures:

X Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (refer to pages 3.13-13 through 3.13-18 of the Draft EIR); and 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) (refer to pages 3.13-19 through 3.13-21 of the Draft EIR).

CEQA does not preclude a public agency from approving or carrying out a project that has potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment. Rather, CEQA is intended to: (1) inform government decisionmakers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities; (2) identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; (3) prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage by requiring changes in projects, either by the adoption of alternatives or imposition of mitigation measures; and (4) disclose to the public why a project was approved if that project has significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Code Section 21081 require a public agency to identify the significant impacts of a project and make one or more written findings for each impact. When significant and unavoidable impacts are identified, the public agency is also required to issue a statement of overriding considerations. The statement of overriding considerations is a written statement explaining the specific reasons why the social, economic, legal, technical, or other beneficial aspects of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and why the lead agency is willing to accept such impacts.

This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I4-2
The comment expresses concerns that the proposed project would increase the presence of unhoused populations in the project vicinity. CEQA does not include provisions for consideration of unhoused populations separate and distinct from the analysis of a project’s impacts on the environment. CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on the physical environment. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 states:

Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes.

As explained on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, the project would not remove any existing housing and would not displace any people or housing. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the concern that the project would increase the unhoused population in the area. The issue raised by the commenter is considered speculative and beyond the scope of CEQA; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-41
Letter I5 Denise King
July 17, 2023
Response I5-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. The comment states that the proposed project would result in environmental impacts related to increased traffic and pedestrian safety hazards, including school-aged children and the elderly. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including VMT and safety hazards. As described in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” in the Draft EIR (see Impact 3.13-1, page 3.13-12):

There are no existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities along the proposed project site boundary. Trail improvements provided by the proposed project would include Class I bicycle facilities along the project’s frontage on West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive which is consistent with future facilities identified in the City of Fresno’s ATP (City of Fresno 2016) adjacent to the proposed project site. The proposed project also involves the construction of West Spruce Avenue along the northern proposed project site boundary. The City has identified the construction of Spruce Avenue, including Class II bicycle facilities, as a condition of approval (City of Fresno 2022), which would be consistent with the City of Fresno’s ATP.

Therefore, pedestrian mobility in the vicinity may be improved through development of the project. Based on the lack of existing public facilities and the proposed public pedestrian infrastructure, the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would not conflict with planned pedestrian facilities. Further, the City of Fresno has met with the Central Unified School District regarding the proposed project to ensure that project-related truck deliveries do not pose a safety hazard for students at school bus drop-off/pick-up locations.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-42 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Regarding delivery trucks, the Draft EIR (see page 2-20) describes an anticipated delivery schedule between approximately 2:00 and 10:00 a.m. at a rate of two to three trucks per hour and a total of approximately 10 to 13 trucks per day for the warehouse. Fuel would be delivered to the gas station in two to three trucks per day, and the tire center would receive shipments once or twice a week. As disclosed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR (see page 2-14), the primary truck access route would be the southernmost driveway along North Arthur Avenue, with a secondary truck route using the southernmost driveway along North Riverside Drive, minimizing exposure of existing residents to truck traffic. The truck loading dock would be located on the southern facade of the warehouse building.

As explained in Response I4-1, the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the project to generate VMT. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states that VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.

The City’s CEQA Guidelines and the OPR Technical Advisory describe that the term “automobile” as used in Section 15064.3(a), refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks; heavy vehicles are not included in the definition. Therefore, heavy-duty trucks (i.e., delivery trucks) were not included in the VMT analysis. However, it should be noted that the LOS analysis presented in the Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR, does include truck traffic. In addition, truck traffic is evaluated as a component of the project in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” and Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” of the Draft EIR.

The comment states that the proposed project would result in hazardous fumes, vehicle emissions, pollution, and dust. Pages 3.3-19 through 3.3-25 in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR address the proposed project’s impacts related to criteria air pollutants, including exhaust and fugitive dust from construction (Impact 3.3-1) and operation (Impact 3.3-2); toxic air contaminants (Impact 3.3-3); carbon monoxide concentrations (Impact 3.3-4); and odors (Impact 3.3-4). The analysis incorporates the project-specific traffic modeling performed for the project. The Draft EIR concludes that each of these impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Heavy vehicle noise associated with loading and delivery is evaluated in Impact 3.11-3. The analysis found that interior noise levels at the nearest surrounding residences would be approximately 35 decibels (dB) Leq, which is below the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dB. However, because noise generated by the loading dock would potentially exceed exterior noise standards, Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 has been identified. Through application of this mitigation, the project applicant would be required to 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. Specifically, 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 would:

X obtain an exception to Article 1, “Noise Regulations,” through the Chief Administrative Officer; X install temporary noise curtains as close as possible to the noise-generating activity such that the curtains obstruct the direct line of sight between the noise-generating construction activity and the nearby sensitive receptors;
X use noise-reducing enclosures and techniques around stationary noise-generating equipment; X operate heavy-duty construction equipment at the lowest operating power possible; X equip construction equipment with back-up alarms that are either audible self-adjusting backup alarms or alarms that only sound when an object is detected; and
X provide a minimum of one week of advanced notice to owners of all residential located within 350 feet of where nighttime construction activity would take place.

With application of the mitigation, the City’s noise standards would be achieved, and the impact would be less than significant.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-43
Finally, the comment indicates that there are other locations in the Fresno area that may be more appropriate for the proposed project based on proximity to residential uses. No Specific sites are identified. Please refer to Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” in the Draft EIR, which provides a brief analysis of three potential site alternatives.

Letter I6 Sharon Ross
July 17, 2023.

Response I6-1
The comment expresses concerns related to project-generated traffic congestion and pollution. Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” and Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics.

This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-44 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I7 Susan Hansen
July 17, 2023
Response I7-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. The comment also provides suggestions related to site access and asks if site access will connect to the State Route (SR) 99 freeway ramps. Pages 2-13 through 2-14 of the Draft EIR provide a description of the proposed access points to the project site, which include driveways along North Riverside Drive, West Herndon Avenue, and North Arthur Avenue. Regional access to the project site from SR 99 would be provided from West Herndon Avenue. The Veterans Boulevard interchange on SR 99 that is under construction may also provide access. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-45
Letter I8 Claudia Readwright
July 17, 2023
Response I8-1
This comment requests that bicyclists are considered in project planning and that the project include bicycle facilities for customers. As discussed on page 3.13-12 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would provide short-term bicycle parking as required by the City Municipal Code (Article 24, Section 15-2429) and Class I and II bicycle facilities along the proposed project frontages. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-46 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I9 Shahzaib Zaman
July 17, 2023
Response I9-1
The comment expresses concerns related to school buses, students, traffic, student theft, and congestion. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including VMT and safety hazards. In addition, CEQA does not include provisions for evaluating impacts related to theft. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-47
Letter I10 Tj Atwal
July 17, 2023
Response I10-1
The commenter expresses concerns related to rezoning. Rezoning, in and of itself, is not necessarily a significant impact under CEQA; however, CEQA is concerned with whether a project would result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with relevant plans, policies, and zoning regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The environmental effects that would result from the proposed changes to the general plan land use designations, zoning, and parking lot standards are evaluated throughout the Draft EIR. Refer to Impact 3.10-1 in Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” (pages 3.10-5 through 3.10-7 of the Draft EIR) for a discussion of the potential for the project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with zoning adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Please refer to Response I4-1 for a response to concerns regarding traffic.

The commenter also expresses concerns that the project would result in the foreclosure or bankruptcy of established businesses resulting in “eye sores or hard to redevelop sites.” As discussed in Response I4-2, CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on the physical environment. The proposed project’s economic effects on local gas stations in the vicinity of the project site is not, in and of itself, a significant impact under CEQA.

Further, the potential for the proposed project to result in the closure of established gas station businesses and consequently result in indirect environmental impacts, such as urban blight, is largely speculative. The commenter does not support the opinion that the proposed Costco gas station would substantially affect operations of the eight gas stations noted in the vicinity of the project, nor is there justification provided for the assumption that individuals would choose to wait “hours” for gas at the proposed station. Notably, the Costco gas station would be a memberonly facility offset from the main thoroughfare (Herndon Avenue) with limited hours that would not offer auxiliary attractions such as convenience store products and customer restrooms. It is anticipated that trips to the proposed gas station would be combined with visits to the Costco warehouse.

An evaluation of the potential for the Costco relocation and gas station to result in urban decay impacts was conducted by ALH Urban and Regional Economics in 2023. This analysis concludes that the proposed Costco gas Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-48 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
station would have minimal effects on existing gas stations and would not result in strong sales declines. No existing gas stations were identified as likely to close and urban decay is not anticipated to result (see Appendix A).

Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I11 Rey Alvarez
July 17, 2023
Response I11-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and concerns related to project-generated traffic.

Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA.

Please refer to Response I4-1.

Response I11-2
The comment generally states that the proposed project may cause environmental issues, including pollution.

Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to this topic. Pages 3.3-19 through 3.3-25 address the proposed project’s impacts related to criteria air pollutants, including exhaust and fugitive dust, from construction (Impact 3.3-1) and operation (Impact 3.3-2); toxic air contaminants (Impact 3.3-3); carbon monoxide Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-49
concentrations (Impact 3.3-4); and odors (Impact 3.3-4). The Draft EIR concludes that each of these impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Letter I12 Agnes Habellion
July 16, 2023
Response I12-1
The comment does not pertain to the proposed project; therefore, no response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-50 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I13 Linnea and David Faeth
July 16, 2023
Response I13-1
The comment expresses concerns related to the local climate and provides design recommendations to reduce carbon emissions. Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change. As described on pages 3.7-11 through 3.7-13 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project includes various design features that mirror the GHG reduction measures in the City’s adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan, which include participating in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E’s) Solar Choice program to procure 100 percent of its electricity from solar resources, implementing a solid waste diversion program, and installing electric vehicle chargers. In addition, as noted on page 2-17, the proposed project would provide landscaping in accordance with the City’s shading requirements. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-51
Letter I14 Alana L. Lewis
July 16, 2023
Response I14-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-52 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I15 Sharon Henson
July 16, 2023
Response I15-1
The comment expresses concern related to the effect of the proposed completion of Spruce Avenue on the character of surrounding neighborhoods. As evaluated in the Draft EIR, the applicant would extend West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue. As discussed on page 3.13-19 of the Draft EIR, extending West Spruce Avenue would be consistent with the City’s planned roadway system depicted on Figure MT-1 of the City’s General Plan Mobility and Transportation Element. Accordingly, the City’s Traffic Planning Section would require the project proponent to extend West Spruce Avenue as a condition of project approval. The asphalt roadway would be a City street and would include curb, gutter, sidewalk, Class II bicycle facilities, and streetlights.

Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” and Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics. Specifically, Impact 3.11-4 evaluates the potential trip redistribution that would result from the completion of Spruce Avenue. For the purpose of the Draft EIR analysis, it is assumed that the residential development north of West Spruce Avenue between North Hayes Avenue and North Sandrini Avenue (approximately 155 single family homes) would be the primary source of traffic on the roadway. This is conservative because the West Spruce Avenue extension would not provide the shortest or most direct route for trips headed south or east from the existing residential development. The proposed roadway segment could be used by cut through traffic during peak travel times when roadway facilities along West Herndon Avenue in the vicinity of the project site are experiencing increases in delay, but use of the roadway by nonresidents is not anticipated to be a major source of traffic due to the location of the road relative to other regional attractants and thoroughfares.

The comment also expresses concerns related to air quality associated with idling cars at the gas station and car wash. Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to these topics. As explained therein, the City quantified the emissions from the permitted gas station based on anticipated throughput and included these emissions in the calculations of maximum annual emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors associated with operation of the project (see Table 3.3-6). 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.

The comment also expresses concerns related to wildlife and an existing ponding basin. Section 3.5, “Biological Resources,” of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to wildlife. As noted on Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-53
page 3.5-12, the project site does not contain wetlands and does not provide an important connection between any areas of natural habitat outside of the project site. The referenced ponding basin may be the stormwater basin located northwest of the project site (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s Basin EG). This basin captures stormwater runoff from the developed area east of North Arthur Avenue for groundwater recharge or release of the settled water into the San Joaquin River. As discussed on pages 3.15-13 through 3.5-16, three special-status wildlife species (burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and white-tailed kite) and protected common native nesting birds have potential to occur on the project site; however, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to these wildlife species from project implementation to a less-than-significant level.

Letter I16 Jeannette Correa
July 16, 2023
Response I16-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-54 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I17 Dantenello Velasquez
July 15, 2023
Response I17-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic and the presence of transients. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I4-2. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I4-2 for a discussion of unhoused populations.

The comment also expresses concerns related to views from the Riverside Golf Course. Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to public views. As described on page

3.1-4 of the Draft EIR, landscaping on the golf course prevents direct line of sight to the project site and existing fencing and netting along North Riverside Drive create visual separation. Page 3.1-8 of the Draft EIR states that the project would reduce the vacant land visible from vantage points on the golf course, but would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality and would be consistent with the visual character of the existing development in the vicinity of the project site. The Draft EIR concludes that the impact on public views would be less than significant.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-55
Letter I18 Randy Ames
July 15, 2023
Response I18-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and concerns related to traffic, specifically related to operation of West Herndon Avenue and the existing railroad. This comment is similar to Comment I4-1. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. Refer also to Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” in the Draft EIR (Impact 3.13-3) that addresses potential queuing impacts along West Herndon. As described therein, the City has identified modification to the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive as conditions of approval for the proposed project. The Draft EIR also includes Mitigation Measure 3.13-3 to revise signal phasing to optimize green-time allocation relative to anticipated volumes at North Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue near the alignment of the existing railway and the California High Speed Rail.

The comment also offers the opinion that a new traffic light is not needed to provide access to the proposed Costco site. For clarification, there is an existing traffic light at the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-56 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Avenue. No traffic lights are proposed along West Herndon Avenue. 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. Construction of the intersection of West Herndon Avenue and North Arthur Avenue to allow right-in/right-out and left-in turning would require a median cut on West Herndon Avenue.

Letter I19 Kiersten Winrow
July 14, 2023
Response I19-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-57
Letter I20 Joseph Pulido
July 14, 2023
Response I20-1
The comment expresses concern that the project activities have been initiated without the necessary project approvals. Any roadwork observed in the project vicinity is part of a separate action (mitigation for the El Paseo Shopping Center) that was subject to separate discretionary approval by the City. The project is currently undergoing environmental review and would not be allowed to undergo construction until the applicable permits and approvals listed on pages 2-21 through 2-22 of the Draft EIR are obtained.

The comment also expresses concerns about the project location, including proximity to adjacent recreational and residential land uses, rezoning, and traffic congestion and safety. Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” and Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I10-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I10-1 for a discussion of the environmental effects that would result from the proposed changes to the general plan land use designations, zoning, and parking lot standards.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-58 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I21 Jeremy Bruno
July 14, 2023
Response I21-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I22 Bob Eurich
July 14, 2023
Response I22-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-59
Letter I23 Sukhi Dhillon
July 14, 2023
Response I23-1
The comment expresses concerns regarding traffic, pollution, and views from the Riverside Golf Course. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, and Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality.

3.1-4 of the Draft EIR, landscaping on the golf course prevents direct line of sight to the project site and existing fencing and netting along North Riverside Drive create visual separation. Page 3.1-8 of the Draft EIR states that the project would reduce the vacant land visible from vantage points on the golf course, but would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality and would be consistent with the visual character of the existing development in the vicinity of the project site. The preliminary landscape plans include trees throughout the site, including along the extension of West Spruce Avenue, which would create a visual barrier between the golf course and the proposed development. The Draft EIR concludes that the impact on public views would be less than significant.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-60 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I24 Sakit Bibra
July 14, 2023
Response I24-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project but does not raise any specific issues related to the physical environment or address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I25 Anya Ellis
July 14, 2023
Response I25-1
The comment requests clarification regarding the project size. The overall project site encompasses 22 acres. As revised, the footprint of the warehouse retail building would be 219,126 square feet; however, the total retail area would only occupy 140,048 square feet and the remaining space would primarily be used for Costco loading, storage, and receiving operations. An additional 12,885 square feet would be developed with fuel canopy and 4,800 square feet would be developed with a car wash. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-61
Letter I26 Michael and Joan Paine
July 14, 2023
Response I26-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to traffic conditions, including congestion, violations, and accidents. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a general discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I18-1 for additional detail related to traffic on West Herndon Avenue. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-62 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I27 Bekah Bryant
July 14, 2023
Response I27-1
The comment expresses concerns related to existing and future traffic conditions. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I18-1 for additional detail related to traffic on West Herndon Avenue. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-63
Letter I28 Randy Mills
July 13, 2023
Response I28-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-64 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I29 William and Melody Hardaway
July 13, 2023
Response I29-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-65
Letter I30 Geoff J.

July 13, 2023
Response I30-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to several topics addressed below.

The comment expresses concerns related to traffic congestion. This comment is similar to Comment I4-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation.

The comment expresses concerns related to zoning conflicts. Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to this topic. This comment is similar to Comment I10-1. Please refer to Response I10-1 for a discussion of the environmental effects that would result from the proposed changes to the general plan land use designations, zoning and parking lot standards.

The comment expresses concerns related to trash and pollution near waterways. Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to water quality. As discussed on pages 3.9-8 and 3.9-9 of the Draft EIR (Impact 3.9-1), project construction and operation would be subject to various regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program; underground storage tank regulations contained in CCR, Title 23, Water, Division 3, Chapter 16; Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s General Permit for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (Order R5-2016-0040); and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD’s) Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Best management practices would be implemented during project construction and incorporated into the project design to ensure that the project would not degrade water quality. The Draft EIR concluded that the project’s impact on water quality would be less than significant.

The comment expresses concerns related to lighting at nearby residential neighborhoods. Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to lighting. As discussed on page 3.1-9 (Impact 3.1-2), all light fixtures would be downcast and would not exceed the City’s 0.5-foot-candle1 standard for light 1 A foot-candle is defined as one lumen per square foot.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-66 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
spillover onto adjacent residential areas. The Draft EIR concluded that the project’s impact related to lighting would be less than significant.

The comment expresses concerns related to noise at nearby residential neighborhoods. Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to noise. As discussed on pages 3.11-22 through 3.11-29, the proposed project would result in permanent new noise sources from stationary equipment and on-site activities, traffic, and truck trips; however, the Draft EIR concluded that these impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Impacts 3.11-4 and 3.11-5). As discussed on pages 3.11-16 through 3.11-20, project construction activities may be required during evening and nighttime hours and the Draft EIR concluded that this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation (Impact 3.11-1). As discussed in Response I4-1, CEQA does not preclude a public agency from approving or carrying out a project that has potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; however, the public agency must make findings for each impact and issue a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the project.

Letter I31 Birdevinder
July 13, 2023
Response I31-1
The comment expresses general concerns related to traffic and safety. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. As explained in Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIR, Costco has proposed the store location because the customer base has outgrown the capacity of the current facility, which opened in 1985. 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. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-67
Letter I32 Bryan Miller
July 13, 2023
Response I32-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project and provides suggestions related to site access. Pages 2-13 through 2-14 of the Draft EIR provide a description of the proposed access points to the project site. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-68 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I33 Colton Metzler
July 13, 2023
Response I33-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-69
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-70 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I34 Ty Murphy
July 13, 2023
Response I34-1
The comment expresses concerns that nearby residents and recreationists at the Riverside Golf Course will experience increased traffic from the project. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. Additionally, as discussed on page 3.12-4 of the Draft EIR, the project would not preclude access to existing recreational facilities, including the Riverside Golf Course. Rather, as noted on page 3.13-11 of the Draft EIR, the proposed intersection at West Herndon Avenue/North Arthur Avenue may result in easier travel for southbound drivers along North Riverside Drive, including nearby residents and visitors to the Riverside Golf Course. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I34-2
The comment states that modifications to the golf course would be required to accommodate the project and expresses concern that these improvements would increase fees and interfere with events at the golf course. Page

3.12-4 of the Draft EIR describes the modifications to the Riverside Golf Course, which include modifications to the existing irrigation system, relocation of the golf cart path, and installation of a new fence and nets. The project applicant would be responsible for implementing and funding these improvements. These minor modifications would be implemented in coordination with the City to ensure that construction activities do not interfere with the use of the golf course. The environmental impacts from these improvements have been evaluated in the Draft EIR. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-71
Letter I35 Jax Ward
July 13, 2023
Response I35-1
This comment states that there is a lack of safe bike lanes and bike parking. The comment also requests that the project consider alternate forms of transportation, including safe routes to schools. This comment is similar to Comment I8-1. Please refer to Response I8-1, above. As explained further in Response I5-1, pedestrian mobility in the vicinity may be improved through development of the project and the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would not conflict with planned pedestrian facilities. Further, the City of Fresno has met with the Central Unified School District regarding the proposed project to ensure that project-related truck deliveries do not pose a safety hazard for students at school bus drop-off/pick-up locations. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-72 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I36 Elizabeth Mendoza
July 13, 2023
Response I36-1
The comment expresses concerns related to the noise, traffic, and safety hazards that would result from the proposed project. Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” and Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics. Refer to Response I15-1 for information about the extension of Spruce Avenue adjacent to the northern boundary of the project and anticipated effects on traffic patterns.

Please also refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and safety and Response I30-1 for a discussion regarding the project’s impact related to noise.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-73
Letter I37 J. Chmielewski
July 13, 2023
Response I37-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for further discussion. The comment also suggests an alternative location for the proposed project that could reduce traffic on Herndon Avenue, compared to the proposed site. As explained in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR, traffic generation is not considered an impact on the environment. Therefore, CEQA does not require the evaluation of alternatives to reduce perceived effects.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the Draft EIR evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. As discussed on pages 6-3 through 6-5 of the Draft EIR, the City considered offsite locations, but dismissed these alternatives from further analysis due to a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) likely infeasibility and because they would not clearly address the project’s significant environmental effects.

The flooring store referenced in the comment is assumed to be the Floor & Décor on North Riverside Drive, northwest of Veterans Boulevard. One of the offsite alternatives considered in the Draft EIR is located on three undeveloped parcels of approximately 8 acres, 6 acres, and 9 acres that are zoned for light industrial use in the area west of North Riverside Drive and north of Veterans Boulevard. This appears to be the same location suggested by the commenter. See Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” of the Draft EIR for further discussion of this alternative project site and reasons for dismissal.

Because this comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-74 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I38 Kent Yamaguchi
July 13, 2023
Response I38-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic and general concerns related to the environment. The comment also expresses opposition to the proposed relocation. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Appendix A for an evaluation of the potential for the project to contribute to urban decay. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-75
Letter I39 Nick Quisenberry
July 13, 2023
Response I39-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic and air quality. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality. The comment also suggests that continued operation of the existing Costco on Shaw Avenue would reduce these impacts. Please refer to the discussion of Alternative 1b: No Project Alternative – No Development in Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” of the Draft EIR.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-76 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I40 Don Marshall
July 13, 2023
Response I40-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project, stating that it would result in economic benefits for the City. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I41 Jerry Montejano
July 13, 2023
Response I41-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project, stating that it would alleviate traffic problems. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-77
Letter I42 William Duane Peverill
July 21, 2023
Response I42-1
The comment is a request to review the Draft EIR and have an opportunity to make comments. In accordance with Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 11, 2023 to August 25, 2023. The Draft EIR was available for review by appointment at the Planning and Development Department at 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, CA 93721. Electronic copies of the Draft EIR were available on request by contacting Jose Valenzuela via e-mail or by phone. The Draft EIR was also available for review on the City’s website at the following link: https://www.fresno.gov/planning/plans-projects-under-review/#tab-14. The City provided the commenter with access to the Draft EIR, as requested, on July 24, 2023. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-78 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I43 Lorraine Arrington
July 21, 2023
Response I43-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns about local businesses. As discussed in Response I4-2, CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on the physical environment. Comment I10-1 raises a similar issue pertaining to gas stations. Similar to the response provided for comment I10-1, the proposed project’s economic effects on local grocery stores in the vicinity of the project site is not, in and of itself, a significant impact under CEQA.

An evaluation of the potential for the Costco relocation and gas station to result in urban decay impacts was conducted by ALH Urban and Regional Economics in 2023. This analysis indicates that food sales are strong in the City of Fresno. Further, because the Costco store is being relocated, it is anticipated that "existing Costco shoppers will transfer their purchases to the new store, such that diversions from existing area food stores will be at a minimum.” The analysis concludes that “sales impacts are not likely to be high enough to contribute to closure of existing food stores” (see Appendix A).

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-79
Letter I44 Dr. Danielle Biggs
July 21, 2023
Response I44-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to existing issues faced in the neighborhood. The comment also raises concerns about project-generated traffic. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. This comment does not offer any Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-80 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I45 Holden Markwith
July 21, 2023
Response I45-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to existing issues faced in the neighborhood. The comment also raises concerns about the project’s proximity to residences and schools, but does not identify any specific environmental issues and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-81
Letter I46 David Scott
July 22, 2023
Response I46-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to traffic, noise, and pollution. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA.

Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality, and Response I30-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to noise.

Finally, the comment indicates that there are other locations in the Fresno area that may be more appropriate for the proposed project. Specifically, the comment suggests a site along Highway 41 along the San Joaquin River. This location is approximately 10 miles east of the proposed project site and 2 miles north of the existing Costco at 7100 N Abby Street in Fresno. Please refer to Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” in the Draft EIR, which provides a brief analysis of three potential site alternatives.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-82 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I47 Amy Siliznoff
July 22, 2023
Response I47-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I18-1 for a response to concerns related to traffic and operation of the existing railroad. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-83
Letter I48 Betty Williams
July 22, 2023
Response I48-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-84 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I49 Jensen Vang
July 22, 2023
Response I49-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic and student safety. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including VMT and safety hazards. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-85
Letter I50 Melody Wolverton
July 22, 2023
Response I50-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-86 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I51 Joseph Pulido
July 22, 2023
Response I51-1
The comment expresses concern that the proposal is final. As discussed on page 1.5 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is currently undergoing environmental review. 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 judgement of the lead agency. Other permits and approvals that may be required for project implementation are listed on pages 2-21 and 2-22 of the Draft EIR.

The comment also expresses concerns related to traffic and student safety. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including VMT and safety hazards. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-87
Letter I52 John Olszowka
July 23, 2023
Response I52-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-88 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I53 Justin Latham
July 23, 2023
Response I53-1
The comment expresses concern that the proposed project would cause local businesses in the area to close, resulting in increased presence of unhoused populations, crime, and trash and reduced property values. This comment is similar to Comment I10-1. Please refer to Response I10-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to urban decay.

The comment also expresses concerns that the proposed project would remove Herndon Avenue. The proposed project would not result in the removal of any existing roadways. As discussed on page 2-6 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project includes a proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning to reclassify West Herndon Avenue from North Riverside Drive to North Hayes Avenue from an expressway to a superarterial. The reclassification would allow construction of a new intersection where West Herndon Avenue meets the private North Arthur right-of-way, which would allow access to the project site.

The comment also expresses concern that the proposed project would ultimately be abandoned and “create more blight and sprawl.” The future closure of the proposed project is speculative, and the resulting potential for urban blight would not be considered a reasonably foreseeable indirect effect of the project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-89
Letter I54 Charles Ognibene
July 23, 2023
Response I54-1
The comment is a request to review the project proposal. This comment is similar to Comment I42-1. Please refer to Response I42-1 regarding circulation of the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The City provided the commenter with access to the Draft EIR, as requested. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Letter I55 Jamey Schmidt
July 24, 203
Response I55-1
The comment expresses concern regarding the water source for the proposed car wash. As discussed on pages 3.9- 10, 3.14-12, and 3.14-13 of the Draft EIR, the project, including the car wash, would be supplied water through the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities. As explained in the Draft EIR (see page 2-13) wash water would be recycled.

A description of the City’s water supply sources is provided on pages 3.14-4 through 3.14-7 of the Draft EIR. The City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projects that the City would have an excess of water through 2045 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The project's water demand, which considers the water demand for the car wash, is accounted for within the City's 2020 UWMP projections for future development. The Draft EIR concludes that there would be sufficient water to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (see Impact 3.14-2, Draft EIR pages 3.14-12 and 3.14-13). This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-90 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I56 William Duane Peverill
July 24, 203
Response I56-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-91
Letter I57 Lorraine Arrington
July 24, 203
Response I57-1
The comment is a follow-up response to a previously submitted comment (Comment I43-1) and does not raise any significant environmental issues; therefore, no response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-92 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-93
Letter I58 Pat Yaralian
July 25, 2023
Response I58-1
The comment describes existing traffic issues in the project vicinity. The comment also expresses concerns that the proposed project would pose roadway safety issues. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including traffic and safety hazards. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I59 Michael Van
July 25, 2023
Response I59-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-94 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I60 Sabrina Hernandez
July 26, 2023
Response I60-1
The comment expresses concern about pedestrian safety in relation to the proposed project and other nearby development. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including traffic and safety hazards. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I60-2
The comment raises concerns about pollution and poor air quality in the area. Please refer to Response I5-1 regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-95
Response I60-3
The comment raises concerns about the proposed project’s effects on small businesses. This comment is similar to I10-1 and I43-1. Please refer to Responses I10-1 and I43-1 regarding the economic effects of the proposed project. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I61 Javier Morales
July 27, 2023
Response I61-1
The comment expresses concerns about the proposed project’s contribution to traffic congestion and opposition to the proposed project’s location. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decisionmakers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I18-1 for a response to concerns related to traffic and operation of the existing railroad. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-96 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I62 James and Louisa Weyant
July 27, 2023
Response I62-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-97
Letter I63 Shirley Hutchison
July 27, 2023
Response I63-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-98 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I64 Maria Leon
July 27, 2023
Response I64-1
The comment expresses opposition to the location selected for the proposed project and raises concerns related to traffic. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA.

Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. The comment suggests an alternative location at Golden State Boulevard and West Herndon Avenue. As described in Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” in the Draft EIR, modification of this area is limited by existing and proposed developments, including the alignment of the California High Speed Rail project. Please refer to Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” in the Draft EIR, which provides a brief analysis of three potential site alternatives. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-99
Letter I65 Norman S. Stahl
July 27, 2023
Response I65-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-100 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I66 Jesus Diaz
July 27, 2023
Response I66-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I67 Anthony Scheideman
July 27, 2023
Response I67-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-101
Letter I68 Rick and Kathy Haskill
July 28, 2023
Response I68-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-102 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I69 Kevin Cartwright
July 28, 2023
Response I69-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Letter I70 Adalino
July 28, 2023
Response I70-1
The comment suggests an alternative location for the proposed project. This comment is similar to Comment I37-1.

Please refer to Response I37-1 regarding alternatives to the proposed project. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-103
Letter I71 Juan Duran
July 28, 2023
Response I71-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-104 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I72 Miguel Duran
July 28, 2023
Response I72-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-105
Letter I73 Fabrizio Robalino
July 31, 2023
Response I73-1
The comment is a request to review the Draft EIR. This comment is similar to Comment I42-1. Please refer to Response I42-1 regarding circulation of the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The City provided the commenter with access to the Draft EIR, as requested. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-106 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I74 Celso “Sal” Romero, Jr.

July 31, 2023
Response I74-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-107
Letter I75 Cindy Diaz
August 1, 2023
Response I75-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-108 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I76 Joy Hinrichsen
August 2, 2023
Response I76-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic, freeway access, and student safety. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. The comment also expresses concerns related to property values. The proposed project’s effect on property values in the vicinity of the project site is not, in and of itself, a significant impact under CEQA. The potential for indirect environmental impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project’s contribution to social or economic changes in the project vicinity is addressed in Response I10-1. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. See also Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” in the Draft EIR, which considers potential offsite alternatives to the proposed project. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I76-2
The comment expresses concerns regarding food vendors. The comment does not pertain to the proposed project; therefore, no response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-109
Letter I77 Garrett Schaefer
August 3, 2023
Response I77-1
The comment expresses interest in future employment opportunities related to the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-110 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I78 Lynda Allison Doty
August 8, 2023
Response I78-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to traffic and congestion.

Please refer also to Response I4-1. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-111
Letter I79 Tom Basset
August 8, 2023
Response I79-1
The comment expresses opposition to the location for the proposed project and requests a more central location.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment and no further response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-112 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I80 Beth Durbin
August 9, 2023
Response I80-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to trucks, traffic, pollution, and noise. Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” and Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality, and Response I30-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to noise. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-113
Letter I81 Sandra J. Iley
August 9, 2023
Response I81-1
The comment expresses opposition to the extension of Spruce Avenue and location of the proposed project, raising concerns related to traffic, noise, and pollution. As discussed on page 3.13-19 of the Draft EIR, extending West Spruce Avenue would be consistent with the City’s planned roadway system depicted on Figure MT-1 of the City’s General Plan Mobility and Transportation Element. Accordingly, the City’s Traffic Planning Section would require the project proponent to extend West Spruce Avenue as a condition of project approval.

The environmental effects of extending West Spruce Avenue (including effects on transportation, noise, and air quality) have been evaluated in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to traffic and Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality. With respect to noise, page 3.11-27 of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of project-generated traffic noise levels on the extended West Spruce Avenue. The Draft EIR concludes that traffic noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise standard at nearby residential uses and concludes the impact would be less than significant (Impact 3.11-4). Pages 3.11-28 and 3.11-29 of the Draft EIR include a discussion of intermittent single-event noise levels from trucks operating in the project vicinity. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation that would require the project applicant to construct a sound wall and/or pave North Riverside Drive with a surface treatment with noise-reducing properties and concludes that mitigation would reduce the noise impact at nearby residences to a less-thansignificant level (Impact 3.11-5). See also Response I30-1 for additional discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to noise and Response I15-1 for information about the extension of Spruce Avenue adjacent to the northern boundary of the project and anticipated effects on traffic patterns.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-114 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I82 Stephanie S.

August 10, 2023
Response I82-1
The comment expresses opposition to the location of the proposed project, raising concerns related to traffic and safety. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA.

Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. The comment also recommends improvements to the roadway network that are outside the scope of the project; accordingly, no further response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-115
Letter I83 Thomas Coppin
August 10, 2023
Response I83-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-116 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I84 Dawn Mathews
August 10, 2023
Response I84-1
The comment indicates a preference for the proposed Costco location. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment and no further response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-117
Letter I85 Larry Rodriguez
August 11, 2023
Response I85-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic and pedestrian safety. The comment provides observations of other Costco locations as examples and recommends roadway improvements to accommodate the traffic. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please also refer to Response I4-1.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-118 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I86 Sylvia Fernandez
August 11, 2023
Response I86-1
The comment expresses interest in future employment opportunities related to the project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-119
Letter I87 Jens Andersen
August 13, 2023
Response I87-1
The comment expresses reservations about the location of the proposed project, raises concerns related to zoning and traffic, and recommends an alternative location. Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” and Section 6, “Alternatives,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1, I10-1, and I37-1. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, Response I10-1 for a discussion of the environmental effects that would result from the proposed changes to the general plan land use designations and zoning, and Response I37-1 regarding alternatives to the proposed project. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-120 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-121
Letter I88 Richee Xavonglianekham
August 14, 2023
Response I88-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project, raising concerns related to traffic conditions, including congestion, violations, and accidents, as well as air pollution. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality. The comment also expresses concerns related to parking. As described on page 1-4 of this Final EIR, the proposed project would include 873 parking stalls, which meets the City’ of Fresno’s minimum parking requirements and would be sufficient to accommodate the project’s parking demand.

Response I88-2
The comment recommends the construction of residential land uses on the project site and suggests alternative locations for the proposed project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the Draft EIR evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. As discussed on pages 6-3 through 6-5, the City considered off-site locations, but dismissed these alternatives from further analysis because of their feasibility and because they would not clearly address the project’s significant environmental effects. As discussed on pages 6-11 through 6-13, the Draft EIR also evaluated a Mixed-Use Costco Center Alternative (Alternative 3) that would adjust the land use mix on the project site to include high-density residential development. As shown in Table 6-1 of the Draft EIR, the environmental effects of this alternative would be largely similar to those of the proposed project.

As explained in the Draft EIR (page 2-1), the project site is designated Community Commercial in the City’s General Plan. The City has planned the area for commercial development that serves the nearby residents. The comment does not provide evidence to support the conclusion that developing the project site with strictly residential land uses or developing the proposed project at an alternative location would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project; therefore, there is no basis for considering such alternatives in the Draft EIR. In addition, the comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-122 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I89 Janet Bergman
August 15, 2023
Response I89-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project, raising concerns related to traffic and safety hazards for school-aged children. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including safety hazards. The comment also mentions a local park, which may be a reference to the stormwater retention basin east of Riverside Golf Course, but does not identify specific environmental concerns related to this facility.

The Draft EIR includes a discussion related to access to recreational facilities on page 3.12-4. The Draft EIR explains that the project would not physically obstruct access to existing recreational opportunities. As explained further in Response I5-1, pedestrian mobility in the vicinity may be improved through development of the project because it includes connections to planned pedestrian infrastructure. Further, the City of Fresno has met with the Central Unified School District regarding the proposed project to ensure that project-related truck deliveries do not pose a safety hazard for students at school bus drop-off/pick-up locations.

The comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-123
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-124 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I90 Robin Snowden
August 17, 2023
Response I90-1
The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and raises concerns related to several topics discussed in detail below.

The comment raises concerns related to aesthetics and lighting. Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to these topics. As explained in the Draft EIR, the City analyzed both the potential for degradation of views of the site and potential for conflict with applicable regulations that govern scenic quality; private views from personal residences are not evaluated pursuant to CEQA. The Draft EIR determined that these impacts would be less than significant. As described in Impact 3.1-1 (page 3.1-8):

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.

As discussed on page 3.1-9 (Impact 3.1-2), all light fixtures would be downcast and would not exceed the City’s 0.5- foot-candle standard for light spillover onto adjacent residential areas. The Draft EIR concluded that the project’s impact related to lighting would be less than significant.

The comment raises concerns related to traffic and pedestrian safety. Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to these topics. This comment is similar to Comment I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including safety hazards.

The comment also raises concerns related to property values and security. As discussed in Response I4-2, CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on the physical environment. The proposed project’s economic and social effects on in the vicinity of the project site is not, in and of itself, a significant impact under CEQA. The potential for indirect environmental impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project’s contribution to social or economic changes in the project vicinity is addressed in Response I10-1. An evaluation of the potential for the Costco relocation and gas station to result in urban decay impacts was conducted by ALH Urban and Regional Economics in 2023. This analysis concludes that the proposed Costco Commercial Center is not anticipated to cause or contribute to conditions of urban decay in the City of Fresno (see Appendix A).

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-125
Letter I91 Shauna Sandin
August 18, 2023
Response I91-1
The comment expresses opposition to the location of the proposed project and suggests an alternative location based on anticipated traffic. Please refer to Response I4-1 related to the discussion of traffic in CEQA documents.

The comment identifies an area “over the railroad tracks” as a potential alternative project site. The exact location is unclear; however, this area is currently under development for the California Highspeed Rail and may not be a feasible location for the project. Moreover, as explained in Response I37-1, the City is not obligated to evaluate alternatives that would reduce traffic impacts because generating traffic is not an impact under CEQA. The comment does not provide evidence to support the conclusion that developing the proposed project at an alternative location would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project; therefore, there is no basis for considering such alternatives in the Draft EIR. In addition, the comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-126 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I92 Charles Yuvienco
August 19, 2023
Response I92-1
The comment expresses opposition to the project and states that the project would result in negative social and environmental impacts. This comment does not identify specific issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Specific concerns expressed by the commenter are addressed in Responses I92-2 through I92-6.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-127
Response I92-2
The comment states that the proposed project would result in environmental consequences, including traffic congestion, pollution, noise levels, loss of green space, and harm to local ecosystems. Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” Section 3.5, “Biological Resources,” Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” Section 3.12, “Public Services and Recreation,” and Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics. The comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I92-3
The comment states that the proposed project would exacerbate traffic issues on local roadways. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation. As explained further in Response I5-1, pedestrian mobility in the vicinity may be improved through development of the project because it includes connections to planned pedestrian infrastructure. The comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I92-4
The comment speculates that the proposed project would threaten local businesses and result in economic hardship.

This comment is similar to Comment I10-1. Please refer to Response I10-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to the proposed project’s contribution to economic effects. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I92-5
The comment states that the project would disrupt quality of life within the neighborhood, raising environmental concerns related to noise. Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to this topic. This comment is similar to Comment I30-1. Please refer to Response I30-1 for a discussion related to the project’s impact related to noise.

The comment also raises concerns related to community disturbance. As discussed in Response I4-2, CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on the physical environment. The proposed project’s social effects on neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project site is not, in and of itself, a significant impact under CEQA. However, the Draft EIR evaluates physical environmental effects that may indirectly relate to this topic. For example, Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” evaluates potential impacts related to changes in visual character and quality of the project site and surroundings and Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” evaluates potential impacts related to the physical division of existing communities.

Response I92-6
The comment provides closing remarks and suggests that alternative locations be considered. This comment is similar to Comment I37-1. Please refer to Response I37-1 for a discussion related to alternative locations. The comment does not provide evidence to support the conclusion that developing the proposed project at an alternative location would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. In addition, the comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-128 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I93 Darius Assemi
August 21, 2023
Response I93-1
The comment expresses support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-129
Letter I94 Noel Delgado
August 21, 2023
Response I94-1
The comment expresses opposition to the location for the proposed project, raising concerns related to traffic and safety. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1 and I5-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, including safety hazards. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-130 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I95 Ray Gonzales
August 24, 2023
Response I95-1
The comment requests information about the traffic patterns on West Spruce and Hayes Avenues. Pages 2-13 and 2- 14 of the Draft EIR include a description of site access and circulation relative to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in the extension of West Spruce Avenue from North Riverside Drive to the intersection with North Sandrini Avenue, which would consist of an asphalt roadway with curb, gutter, sidewalk, Class II bicycle facilities, and streetlights. The proposed project would not result in improvements on Hayes Avenue itself, but is proposing to reclassify a portion of West Herndon Avenue between north Riverside Drive and North Hayes Avenue from expressway to superarterial. The proposed reclassification would allow the construction of an intersection where West Herndon Avenue meets the private North Arthur Avenue right-of-way. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-131
Letter I96 Jennifer Airheart
August 24, 2023
Response I96-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic delay and odors from operation of the gas station. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Responses I4-1 for further discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation.

Regarding odor from operation of the proposed gas station, the Draft EIR (Impact 3.3-5) concludes that this potential impact would be less than significant because “odors from gasoline and diesel fuel transfer would be concentrated on the site.” Fuel pumps “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.” The comment also expresses concerns about operating hours and, but does not identify any specific environmental issues.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-132 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-133
Letter I97 Amy Zehring
August 25, 2023
Response I97-1
The comment expresses concerns related to the significant and unavoidable impact related to project-generated VMT. Further, as discussed on pages 3.13-15 through 3.13-18, the Draft EIR considered all applicable and feasible measures to reduce project-generated VMT from the most recent California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.

The proposed project includes mitigation to reduce VMT associated with employee commutes (Mitigation Measure

3.13-2); however, the primary source of the proposed project’s daily VMT is warehouse shopping by Costco members.

As noted on page 3.13-18 of the Draft EIR, the nature of Costco’s land use and business model is auto-oriented.

Members purchase items in bulk at Costco facilities, making walking, biking, or transit trips to the warehouse impractical for many. Therefore, the Draft EIR determined that no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the proposed project’s VMT impact to a less-than-significant level. As discussed in Response I4-1, CEQA does not preclude a public agency from approving or carrying out a project that has potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; however, the public agency must make findings for each impact and issue a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the project. Further, although the proposed Costco relocation is anticipated to result in increased VMT, the project includes pedestrian infrastructure and trail connections that are anticipated to support reduced VMT in the area. For further discussion of project attributes that support VMT reduction, refer to Response O1-3 and Response I5-1.

The comment also raises concerns related to air pollution and noise. Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” and Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” of the Draft EIR include an analysis related to these topics. Please refer to Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality and Response I30-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to noise.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-134 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-135
Letter I98 Brian and Sherryl Kellogg
August 24, 2023
Response I98-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic, circulation, access, pedestrian safety, and unhoused populations.

Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 regarding transportation and pedestrian safety and unhoused populations, and Response I32-1 regarding site access and circulation. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I98-2
The comment requests information regarding the number of jobs the proposed project would create. As stated on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, the project would not create new employment positions because it is assumed that the employees working at the existing Costco facility would relocate to the new facility.

The comment also expresses concerns that the project site would not be developed with residential land uses. As noted on page 3.10-3 of the Draft EIR, the existing City of Fresno General Plan designation for the project site is Community Commercial (CC), which allows for a variety of commercial facilities including medium-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug stores, and supporting uses. The project site is zoned CC/EA/UGM/cz, which allows for the development of medium-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug stores, and supporting uses. Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to the topic of land use. As discussed on pages 3.10-5 through 3.10-7 of the Draft EIR, a general plan amendment, rezone, and conditional use permit would be needed to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning for the project site. The Draft EIR concludes that the proposed general plan amendment and zoning change would not conflict with City policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and the impact would be less than significant (Impact 3.10-1).

The comment also expresses concerns related to property values. The proposed project’s effects on property values in the vicinity of the project site is not, in and of itself, a significant impact under CEQA. The potential for indirect environmental impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project’s contribution to social or economic changes in the project vicinity is addressed in Response I10-1.

Response I98-3
The comment summarizes concerns previously stated in Comment I98-1 related to traffic and access. Refer to Response I98-1.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-136 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-137
Letter I99 Rodger B. Jensen
August 25, 2023
Response I99-1
The comment provides a description of the history of the project site, including previous land use designations and zoning, and states that the history of the site should be taken into account. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I99-2
The comment describes transportation improvements that are projected to reduce vehicle traffic in the project vicinity. The comment also states that the Draft EIR provides adequate analysis regarding project-generated traffic and provides effective mitigation measures. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I99-3
The comment expresses support for the proposed project and states that the proposed project would result in benefits to the local economy and nearby communities. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-138 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I100 James Fleck
August 28, 2023
Response I100-1
The comment expresses opposition to the location for the proposed project, raising concerns related to traffic, air pollution, noise, and light pollution. Although the topic of traffic congestion is a factor for consideration by the decision-makers in acting on the proposed project, pursuant to CCR Section 15064.3, automobile delay and similar metrics relating to vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Please refer to Response I4-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation, Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality, and Response I30-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to noise and lighting.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-139
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-140 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I101 Gabriel Ledesma
August 28, 2023
Response I101-1
The comment notes that the project site is near FMFCD’s Basin EG. Basing EG is an existing basin of approximately 7 acres that is located northeast of the project site, north of Spruce Avenue and east of Riverside Golf Course. Because Basin EG discharges into the San Joaquin River, the comment indicates that stormwater from the project site has the potential to affect water quality in the San Joaquin River and federally listed Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). As explained further in Response I101-2, the project site would not contribute substantial stormwater runoff to FMFCD’s Basin EG.

Response I101-2
The comment asks whether stormwater from the project site would be discharged to FMFCD’s Basin EG during or after construction. Referencing the description of the existing stormwater infrastructure in Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” (page 3.9-7) the comment also requests update of the description of the EG drainage basin to reflect discharge into the San Joaquin River if the project would contribute stormwater to the basin.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that the FMFCD “system is designed to move water from a basin and discharge to other FMFCD facilities, or to irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River” (page 3.9-6). Further, as explained in Impact 3.9-1 (page 3.9-9) of the Draft EIR, “the project would be designed in a matter consistent with FMFCD’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.” As part of the Spruce Avenue extension that would be constructed to complete the City’s planned transportation infrastructure, an inlet that would connect to Basin EG would be constructed northeast of the project site. This inlet is shown in the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan and was identified as a necessary infrastructure improvement in early consultation with FMFCD. This inlet would serve the transportation infrastructure but would not convey stormwater drainage from the project site.

As described on page 3.9-6 of the draft EIR, “[t]he project site is located within the EH local stormwater drainage area.” Stormwater from the project site would be conveyed to the west and would not contribute runoff to Basin EG.

Therefore, the draft EIR does disclose the connectivity of the FMFCD system to the San Joaquin River and explains that the project would not contribute stormwater to Basin EG. For these reasons, no revisions have been made to the draft EIR in response to this comment.

Response I101-3
The comment notes that storm drainage infrastructure would be constructed in conjunction with the Spruce Avenue extension from North Arthur Avenue west to North Riverside Avenue. As explained above and in the Draft EIR, the project site and all development west of North Arther Avenue “would be directed to existing FMFCD drainage facilities in North Riverside Drive, West Spruce Avenue, and West Herndon Avenue, located within the EH local stormwater drainage area” (see Draft EIR page 3.9-11) while the “area east of North Arthur Avenue is in the EG basin and drainage is directed to Spruce Avenue (Chapman, pers. comm., 2021)” (Draft EIR pages 3.9-6 and 3.9-7). An inlet would be constructed as part of the extension of Spruce Road that would convey stormwater from the area east of North Arther Avenue to Basin EG.

Response I101-4
The comment suggests that the City contact the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board if the project would result in runoff to Basin EG during construction. As explained in Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality” (page 3.9-8), “earth-disturbing activities during construction would be subject to the NPDES Permit Program, administered by the Central Valley RWQCB. As required by NPDES, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ).” The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and best management practices such as maintaining or creating drainages to convey and direct surface runoff away from bare areas, and installing physical barriers such as berms, silt fencing, waddles, straw bales, and gabions. Risk level is determined as part of this process; it is calculated based on location Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-141
and soil conditions and effects monitoring and reporting requirements. No revision to the Draft EIR is required in response to this comment.

Response I101-5
The comment suggests that the City contact FMFCD about post-development requirements if the project would result in runoff to Basin EG after construction. The City engaged with FMFCD early in the environmental review process and has included the inlet to Basin EG at the express request of FMFCD, which indicated that existing and planned infrastructure have been designed to serve buildout of this area. The City of Fresno, FMFCD, Fresno County, the City of Clovis, and California State University Fresno are covered under the region-wide Central Valley RWQCB General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s (Order R5-2016-0040). This Region-wide MS4 Permit requires that the City and its co-permittees implement water quality and watershed protection measures for all development projects. See Impact 3.9-1 (Draft EIR page 3.9-9) for further discussion.

As further explained in Section 3.14, “Utilities,” (Draft EIR page 3.14-12) FMFCD’s Post-Development Standards Technical Manual describes the stormwater management requirements for “Priority Projects,” which includes commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet, automotive repair shops, parking lots 5,000 square feet or greater with 25 or more parking spaces and potentially exposed to urban runoff, streets and roads; and retail gasoline outlets. All Priority Projects must mitigate the Stormwater Quality Design Volume or Stormwater Quality Design Flow through low-impact development or treatment-based stormwater quality best management practice or a combination thereof. The Draft EIR concludes that development of the proposed on-site stormwater facilities would adequately minimize the effect of the additional impervious area on peak runoff volumes and additional stormwater facilities would not be required.

Response I101-6
The comment provides conclusory remarks about the sensitivity of biological resources in the San Joaquin River and the importance of disclosing potential impacts. As described above in Responses I101-1 through I101-5, the project site would not discharge untreated stormwater runoff to the San Joaquin River via FMFCD’s Basin EG. The project is not anticipated to impact aquatic species.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-142 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-143
Letter I102 Lauryn Medina
September 1, 2023
Response I102-1
The comment expresses concerns related to traffic, congestion, safety, and noise. Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” and Section 3.13, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR include analyses related to these topics. This comment is similar to Comments I4-1, I5-1, and I30-1. Please refer to Responses I4-1 and I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation and safety and Response I30-1 for a discussion regarding the project’s impacts related to noise. This comment does not offer any specific concern related to the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR; therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. The comment is included in the record, which will be considered by the decision makers in their deliberations over potential approval of the proposed project.

Response I102-2
The comment expresses concerns related to air pollution and associated health effects. Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR includes an analysis related to these topics. This comment is similar to Comment I5-1. Please refer to Response I5-1 for a discussion regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to air quality. Further, health risks associated with construction and operation of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR states that the proposed project would not expose receptors to a cancer risk or a noncancer chronic and acute hazard index above applicable thresholds established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and concludes that the impact would be less than significant (Impact 3.3-3).

The comment also offers an opinion about the potential for the proposed project to generate “loose trash” that could end up in the San Joaquin River. The comment incorrectly characterizes the San Joaquin River as “directly behind the proposed Costco.” The project site is approximately 0.35 mile south of the San Joaquin River; the Riverside Golf Course is located between the project site and the San Joaquin River.

Response I102-3
The comment summarizes concerns previously stated in Comments I102-1 and I102-2 related to public health. Refer to Responses I102-1 and I102-2.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-144 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-145
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-146 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-147
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-148 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-149
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-150 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-151
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-152 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-153
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-154 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-155
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-156 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-157
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-158 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-159
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-160 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
Letter I103 Daniel Brannick
August 31, 2023
Response I103-1
The comment expresses opposition to the location for the proposed project and provides introductory remarks summarizing the content of the letter, which are responded to in Responses I130-2 through I130-8, below. The comment expresses a desire to identify an alternative project site that would avoid “significant costs” while substantially fulfilling the stated project objectives. No details about the perceived costs or alternatives are provided.

Response I103-2
The comment raises several questions related to the inclusion of the MDO component of the project on a site that is proposed for redesignation as General Commercial through a General Plan amendment and rezone. The proposed land use and zoning designations were determined as the most appropriate for the application by City staff; a Director’s determination was not made. The purpose of the CG zoning designation is stated in the Fresno Development Code (Section 15-1202) as follows:

The CG district is intended to accommodate a range of retail and service uses that are not appropriate in other areas because of higher volumes of vehicle traffic and potential impacts on other uses. Examples of allowable uses include: building materials, storage facilities with active storefronts, equipment rental, wholesale businesses, and specialized retail not normally found in shopping centers.

Permitted uses within the CG district include General Retail and Large Format Retail. Costco is a Large Format Retail use, defined to mean:

Retail establishments (over 80,000 square feet of sales area) that sell merchandise and bulk goods for individual consumption, including membership warehouse clubs.

Therefore, the Costco retail warehouse is permissible as the primary use on the site.

The comment expresses an opinion that the MDO may not meet the definition of an accessory use. Fresno Development Code section 15-2703 defines “accessory uses” as follows:

An accessory use shall be incidental, related, appropriate, and clearly subordinate to the principal use or building to which it relates; under the same regulations applied to the principal use in any zoning district; and where the accessory use does not alter the principal use.

The MDO element of the building would facilitate efficient delivery of big and bulky items, including furniture, major appliances, patio furniture, televisions, fitness equipment, mattresses, and grills. The MDO activities are subordinate to the typical Costco layout and experience and would not alter the principal commercial use (Holliday, pers. comm., 2023). For this reason, the City determined that the MDO falls within the accessory use classification and an “employment" designation was not pursued. As an accessory use to the retail warehouse, the MDO is allowable in the General Commercial designation.

By way of background, Costco purchased Innovel Solutions in 2020 to bring in-house the last-mile logistics capability for delivering such items to members, complete with “white glove” installation of appliances. Innovel’s assets included numerous free-standing MDOs. Costco plans to integrate this business model to reflect members’ evolving shopping patterns and demands. The proposed project would be one of 17 new, integrated MDO locations planned by the end of 2024. Costco already has eight existing warehouses that include MDOs: Ankeny, Iowa; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Gypsum, Colorado; Warrenton, Oregon; Ridgeland, Mississippi; Springfield, Missouri; Duluth, Minnesota; and Billings, Montana.

Nearly all of these sites are zoned within some type of commercial district and have a related commercial designation in that state’s version of a general plan (Holliday, pers. comm., 2023).

Costco describes the MDO component of the building as integral to Costco’s move to an omnichannel retail experience, where members can better interact with Costco to shop, buy, and return goods through multiple locations or platforms (Holliday, pers. comm., 2023). Whether members purchase items online or in the warehouse, Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-161
large goods can be delivered to them from the MDO space. The MDO space functions much like the storage/warehousing element of a typical home improvement or furniture store, allowing these types of activities:

X Costco can pull in-stock items from the MDO and display them on the sales floor in a vignette to allow members in-person visibility to online inventory. For example, displaying a sofa sectional that is only available for purchase online allows members to see/touch/sit in the item before they make their purchase.

X Members can view and then purchase “big and bulky” items from the sales floor and have them delivered out of the MDO space.

X Members who purchase items online that are in-stock at the MDO can receive delivery in as soon as two days, much quicker than if items were stored in a large regional distribution center.

X Member home delivery issues can be handled in-person at the MDO within the building rather than directing members to a national call center for resolution.

Furthermore, the MDO is physically and functionally unified with the other activities within the Costco structure, providing operational efficiencies, such as:

X Employee continuity: Employees are shared among the building activities when needed (e.g., to cover sick calls and vacations and to assist during periods of unexpected high volume). There are cross-training opportunities for employees within the different focus areas within the Costco building. Having Costco’s various activities within the building facilitates daily opening and closing management coverage.

X Building synergy: All elements reside within one contiguous building that shares lighting, HVAC, security and utility systems, as well as employee facilities like restrooms, breakrooms, quiet rooms, and meeting rooms.

X Operational efficiencies: Equipment is shared throughout the entire warehouse building, including forklifts, compactors, cardboard balers, time clocks, and more.

X Transportation efficiencies: There is a shared receiving area to serve the sales floor and the MDO. Mixed load transportation/distribution allows Costco to combine in a single trailer merchandise destined for the sales floor or the MDO to deliver full trailers to the location, reducing the need to distribute “less-than-load” shipments. Not only does this make for a more efficient commercial operation, but it also minimizes truck miles and emissions.

After careful review and consideration, City staff reaffirms the determination that the General Commercial designation is appropriate application of the Development Code. The operation of the entire facility, including the MDO component, is fully and accurately described in the Draft EIR, providing the public with an opportunity to understand and provide meaningful comment on the proposal. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response I103-3
The comment states that there is not adequate information provided in the Draft EIR “to fully ascertain the project’s potential lighting- and glare-related impacts.” The comment acknowledges the analysis based upon the City’s lighting regulations and modeled light trespass as reference points in evaluating and measuring effects on existing residents but suggests that additional information should be presented to more comprehensively evaluate the proposed change from existing conditions. As explained below, the analysis in the Draft EIR meets the standards for adequacy and enables a decision on the project that accounts for environmental consequences.

The comment indicates that more specific information about the type of lighting equipment is necessary to inform public review and allow a comparison to “normal” lighting. As noted in the comment Chapter 2, “Project Description,” (page 2-10) of the Draft EIR, provides the following explanation of the lighting plan, which includes information about illumination intensity, light standard size compared to fixtures typically permitted in commercial districts, and restrictions within the PG&E easement.

The project applicant has applied for a PD Permit to request deviations from Section 15-2015 of the Municipal Code, which specifies that lighting fixtures in commercial districts have a maximum height of 25 feet. Costco aims to achieve 2.5 foot-candles of light throughout the parking area to maximize safety within Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-162 Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR
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.) Offsite 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.

The analysis in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” provides a similar summary of these proposed conditions. The impact analysis in this section evaluates the potential for the project to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect nighttime views of the area. The threshold is appropriately based on the sample questions provided in Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines and is informed by the City’s standards for light and glare. The Draft EIR (page 3.1-2) summarizes the various elements of the Fresno Municipal Code related to lighting. These standards prevent illumination spillover or glare onto adjoining properties and prohibit interference with normal operation of adjacent property. As explained in the analysis of Impact 3.1-2 (Draft EIR page 3.1-9), 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.

The comment does not provide evidence to support the claim that the Draft EIR does not provide adequate information or analysis of potential impacts. The analysis in the Draft EIR meets the standards for adequacy and enables a decision on the project that accounts for environmental consequences. There is no obligation for the City to perform exhaustive evaluation where the standard approach to analysis is determined sufficient and appropriate.

Further, although the comment states that projects with “substantial lighting components,” such as athletic fields, often conduct separate technical analyses to model light impacts, it also concedes that the “Costco project likely does not entail as intense lighting impacts as a high school football stadium.” Nonetheless, the applicant has prepared Figure 2-1, below, which provides the detailed site lighting plan, including pole detail, requested in the comment.

Figure 2-1 demonstrates that no lighting spillover is anticipated onto adjacent residential areas and supports the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR. The grid of light intensity indicates light levels below the 0.5 foot-candle threshold on adjacent roadways.

The comment also indicates that the effect of lighting on wildlife should be evaluated in the Draft EIR. As evidence, a link to an article about the effects of light pollution on migratory birds is provided. Specifically, the article suggests turning off exterior lights during peak migration season. As explained in the Draft EIR (see Section 3.1, “Aesthetics”), the proposed lighting is required for safety and cannot be turned off. Where lights must remain on, limiting light pollution minimizes the potential for effects on migratory birds. The proposed exterior lights would be compliant with established Fresno Municipal Code requirements related to shielding and minimizing the illumination of the surrounding landscape. As indicated in the Draft EIR “[s]hielding requirements in Section 15-2015 of the Fresno Municipal Code would also prohibit light pollution associated with upcast light…” (see page 3.1-9).

Furthermore, Section 3.5, “Biological Resources,” includes information about the presence of migratory birds on and around the project site. As explained on page 3.5-12 of the Draft EIR:

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.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-163
Source: Image produced and provided by TE Inc, 2022, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 2-1 Photometric Plan
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
Costco Commercial Center Project Final EIR 2-165
Response I103-4
The comment raises issues associated with biological resources. The first issue raised relates to the proximity of the project site to the San Joaquin River. The comment suggests that the Draft EIR leaves the impression that the analysis focuses primarily on the project site, and not the river. As stated in the Draft EIR (page 3.5-2) the project site is located 0.35 mile from the south of the San Joaquin River. The golf course is located between the project site and the river; moreover, a paved parking lot and several structures associated with the golf course intervene between the river and the project site. There is existing fencing between the golf course and the project site. The project site is surrounded by existing development and the golf course. There is no riparian habitat or other habitat associated with the river on or near the project site. The project site does not provide an important wildlife movement corridor. As stated in the Draft EIR (page 3.5-12), according to the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, the project site is not located within a Natural Landscape Block or Essential Habitat Connectivity area. 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. Note also that CDFW has reviewed the Draft EIR and indicated concurrence with the results of the biological resources analysis. See Comment A1-2.

The comment expresses concern about the cumulative effects of development in proximity to the San Joaquin River.

It is important to note that this project site was designated in the City’s General Plan for commercial development.

The cumulative effects of implementing the General Plan land use diagram, including urban designations near the San Joaquin River, were previously evaluated for development in the City’s Geneal Plan Program EIR (City of Fresno 2020). Consistent with the conclusions of the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed project, the City’s General Plan Program EIR, which evaluated implementation of planned development in this area, concludes that impacts associated with interference of wildlife movement are less than significant. (See Impact BIO-4 of the City’s General Plan Draft Program EIR.) In addition, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of cumulative effects to biological resources based on known and reasonably foreseeable development in the project area. Impact 4-5 (Draft EIR pages 4-9 and 4- 10) concludes that the project would not result in a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

The comment also raises the question whether the surveys or sections were prepared by a qualified biologist.

Although Draft EIR Chapter 7, “Report Preparers,” identifies the Biologist and Senior Biologist that contributed to preparation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is correct that Section 3.5, “Biological Resources,” does not specify who prepared the section and who conducted the survey. Therefore, to provide clarity, text revisions are made to Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR.

Page 3 ends

Fresno City CouncilApril 18, 2024

Fresno City Council
April 18, 2024